Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on June 16, 2011, 11:11:07 pm
-
Seriously? (http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/16/2059204/British-Student-Faces-Extradition-To-US-Over-Copyright)
"A 23-year-old British computer student faces possible extradition to the U.S. for linking to copyrighted content on his website. The student, Richard O'Dwyer, was accused of copyright infringement after setting up the website TV Shack, which had links to thousands of films and tv shows, but did not directly host them."
-
So was he just link farming or streaming the content?
but one point did stand out either way
The website was seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. O'Dywer was arrested on 23 May, taken to Wandsworth prison and then released on a £3,000 bail paid by his aunt.
Read more: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2079590/british-student-extradition-copyright-infringement#ixzz1PWEOlBKl
The Inquirer - Computer hardware news and downloads. Visit the download store today.
Mr Cooper added: ‘The server was not based in the US. Mr O’Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website – he simply provided a link.’
Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/866363-extradition-bid-over-film-row-student-is-madness-says-mum#ixzz1PWE1zdYr
Defiantly a grey area but if he was just link farming then no case to answer, If he was streaming it depends on what he was streaming, if it is all from free to view sources then slap on the wrist because he technically should have gained permission. If the content required an account to view (free or paid) then he needs to answer to someone though as neither he or the server was not US based then the US has minimal jurisdiction as I believe it is down to the UK government to prosecute him ans the crime was committed within UK borders.
-
It's just wrong, period, IMO. The punishment does not fit the crime, and the authority is not one that I feel has been given to the US government; definitely not by the people of England, probably not by most of the people of the USA.
-
I agree, this is pretty dumb.
-
money makes the rules. How does the record industry still have money?
-
Copyright laws are getting pretty ugly right about now; I don't think the US media monoliths were ever comfortable with the internet being what it is today...
-
Not only US ones, I think.
TBH, the whole fuss about copyrighting things is getting ridiculus. I know that people don't like their work being stolen from them, but really, protecting the software with a system that causes it to crash? Or for example, requiring an active connection to even play a (SP) game? What if the server goes down? And of course, laws around it are getting just about as ridiculus as DRM systems themselves. I miss the days when the only form of DRM was to ask a question that required the manual to answer. Not only it wasn't too obstructive, but also encouraged people to read the manual, sometimes even adding to immersion (IIRC, in Police Quest, you would sometimes be asked a question about something related to police work and promptly get fired and redirected to academy if you answered wrong).
-
To a degree I do think the Internet has become a stupid place - most of the 'information wants to be free' movement is a giant circlejerk, built on a completely impractical notion of creativity and creators' rights. Cory Doctorow is a smug mother****er whose views are basically built on the privilege of his own success.
But copyright fascism is even more stupid.
-
But copyright fascism is even more stupid.
hitler
Enforcing copyrights on entertainment material serves no useful purpose, but government has to give lip service to it in order to maintain the perception of contract and patent protection and the rule of law.
-
I'm entitled to free stuff that isn't mine because I draw breath. Its in the Constitution I think.
-
hitler
(http://facepwn.com/posters/godwins_law.jpg)
:P
(ahem, erherm)
On a serious note, I'd be impressed in a bad way if the charges stuck. Especially when you can have services like Youtube that have copyrighted content DIRECTLY UPLOADED to them. Granted, I've heard whispers about some proposed legislation that would criminalize ...how did it go again? I think it would begin to impose penalties on internet entities that streamed copyrighted content 10 or more times, or something idiotic like that. Oh, and of course the definition of "copyrighted content" could be fiddled with on the fly on a case-per-case basis. One of my email accounts wound up on a "free internet" mailing list (or something along those lines), and they've been sending updates pleading for action.
I dunno- I want to believe that most of the rational, internet-addicted US populace would cry "bloody ****ing murder" if a law like that were passed, but at the moment, most news outlets seem too busy making dick jokes in regards to a certain representative to actually report meaningful news.
-
There is no tertium datur. If you are willing to say that copyright violation is something worthy of being "punished" by, then you should expect a huge "war" on "cybercrime", including arresting young people for sharing links.
It's absolutely wrong. Just like the war on drugs. Yeah, drugs ain't very good, but the "war" on drugs have created monsters of giganormous proportions (the cartels), huge waves of crimes and murders, weapons, etc.,etc., it's just a nightmare. And we are starting this **** all over again with copyright, by marginalizing a whole new generation of people who really think they shouldn't have to pay for what's so easy to share.
And while I get it that authors seem to be mildly ****ed up by that, the notion that people should be arrested for sharing knowledge and culture is abhorrent to the nth degree. It's like the Anti-Enlightenment. It's as if somehow we are willing to dumb the **** all down just to ensure distributors aren't "obsoleted".
Like they should have been for ten years now.
-
what authors
-
Authors of creative works, books, movies, games, stuff.
I agree with Cory here, and I know you don't but that antagonism doesn't surprise me anymore :lol: .
Point is, it's utterly a waste of time and resources to try to "pin down" piracy, it's also a big ****ing pain in the ass for the people who are just trying to get on with their lifes or do creative works, but are somehow obliged to know the exact path they must cross in a minefield of "rights" every****ingwhere.
It's just utterly stupid and a drain in the economy. I *am* an author of creative stuff, and I can tell you that this copyright shenanigan would be just idiotic in my field, if we practiced it like the music industry or the movies, etc. Architects are always "copying" their fellow colleagues every single second of their work and no one gives a damn about it. In fact, it's a compliment to one's work, not a "transgression".
So my point isn't that copyright is completely evil and should be outright eliminated. No. It's a fine idea with terrible practical consequences. Internet Service Providers are already under pressure to identify any consumer that is transferring files p2p, governments are meeting to surpress basic freedoms so that the copyright ideal isn't shattered by the internet.
And that's when you see that this is completely unnatural. Just as communism of produced goods is "anti-natural", in the sense that the natural tendency for any given economy of limited goods is a creation of a free market where these things are not centrally planned, so all the DRMs and technical / legal limitations are "anti-natural" to the information fluidity of the internet. They have a huge bag of water filled with holes and they are trying to close the holes by oppressing our freedoms, rather than getting a bucket, place it underneath and gather all the water you can.
-
I don't think you have any idea what I disagree with Cory Doctorow about, but you can feel free to make up some reasons and then argue with them (I can write you a chatbot to help if you like, we can even pretend I support DRM and am really stressed out about piracy)
-
Maybe you should tell us what you disagree with him about instead. It's just as much work and would be far more interesting than watching Luis fail to back up his arguments yet again.
-
And besides Battuta, those who have the wealth of wisdom, do they not benefit the most by disseminating it to any and all who would hear? Your statement seems rather vacuous and vague, I'm not sure much can be gained from it.
-
Maybe you should tell us what you disagree with him about instead. It's just as much work and would be far more interesting than watching Luis fail to back up his arguments yet again.
I am sorely tempted but I am pretty uncertain the debate will go anywhere sane. Not just because of our man Luis Dias, but because it's a very charged topic on the internet right now. Even on normally decent sites like RockPaperShotgun, you get people claiming that creators (game developers, authors, whatever) lose any right to be compensated for their products the moment they release them, which is just (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-psyduck.gif)
In addition to being a mediocre writer and a bad blogger, Doctorow's position about distributing work for free is constructed from the vantage point of someone who's already become rich and successful - he advocates giving stuff away for free because he can afford it. That's most of what I take issue with. He doesn't have uniformly bad ideas, but like many zealots (Kurzweil, for instance) he evangelizes them without moderation, practicality, or restraint.
I guarantee you that someone in this thread is going to take this as an argument in favor of DRM, stringent copyright, whatever the **** - people with a low tolerance for ambiguity are the bane of debates like this. I'm not saying there's no merit to the 'open information' movement, and I certainly support the open web, but some of the far-open positions are as ridiculous as the far-closed positions. There clearly needs to be a compromise that allows the market to incentivize creators to create. (If you want to take a crack at your own thinking on the topic - I was much too strongly in favor of the open movement for a long time - there are good books I've read recently, written by software pioneers, describing what's gone wrong with the whole ideology. I can try to hunt the titles down.)
As an example, the best writing on television in recent years has been enabled by closed, subscription-based distribution rather than the open, ad-supported network model. Similarly, there is no way to create value in a written work without some form of artificial scarcity (or a patronage model - I don't know myself if this is something that can work).
Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Creators, on the other hand, need to get paid; otherwise they can't make a living and they have to work ****ty jobs instead of creating.
And besides Battuta, those who have the wealth of wisdom, do they not benefit the most by disseminating it to any and all who would hear? Your statement seems rather vacuous and vague, I'm not sure much can be gained from it.
I understand you don't spend much time in GenDisc so I can see why the context might be difficult to grasp, especially for someone who hasn't followed recent threads. But this isn't the Thunderdome; we only get in knife fights when it's fun. Please don't waste time trying to stir up ****, tia; the pros will handle it.
-
I understand you don't spend much time in GenDisc so I can see why the context might be difficult to grasp, especially for someone who hasn't followed recent threads. But this isn't the Thunderdome; we only get in knife fights when it's fun. Please don't waste time trying to stir up ****, tia; the pros will handle it.
I do believe you missed the point.
-
I understand you don't spend much time in GenDisc so I can see why the context might be difficult to grasp, especially for someone who hasn't followed recent threads. But this isn't the Thunderdome; we only get in knife fights when it's fun. Please don't waste time trying to stir up ****, tia; the pros will handle it.
I do believe you missed the point.
Haha no I really didn't. People have no obligation to play Sisyphus; while Luis Dias threads are a perpetual source of fun I only play them when I'm getting paid. And as I explained above, this debate is one that rarely goes good places.
-
I cannot wait for some random muslim country to try and extradite Hillary Clinton for not wearing a burqua.
-
Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Creators, on the other hand, need to get paid; otherwise they can't make a living and they have to work ****ty jobs instead of creating.
****ty as in economically productive jobs instead of writing scripts for The OC or singing in an indie band.
Do you realize what kind of "intellectual property" you're defending? 99.9% of creative work is crap.
And I'm not just saying that to be an edgy teenager. I mean it.
-
Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Creators, on the other hand, need to get paid; otherwise they can't make a living and they have to work ****ty jobs instead of creating.
****ty as in economically productive jobs instead of writing scripts for The OC or singing in an indie band.
Do you realize what kind of "intellectual property" you're defending? 99.9% of creative work is crap.
Oh, you. This isn't a defense of intellectual property, nor is it an argument contingent on the statistical quality of any given body of work. The majority of good creative work is produced because there is at least sufficient financial feedback to sustain the passion behind it. Somehow that needs to be maintained. Even Doctorow recognizes this; his argument is that giving your stuff away for free along with a paid release is profitable (and I don't necessarily disagree). The more extreme 'RPS comments moron' position I cited above doesn't even recognize that much; it paints the desire of the creator to be compensated for his work as something obsolete.
ahahaha here we go
-
You were warned Mustang. Enjoy not posting here for a week.
-
I understand you don't spend much time in GenDisc so I can see why the context might be difficult to grasp, especially for someone who hasn't followed recent threads. But this isn't the Thunderdome; we only get in knife fights when it's fun. Please don't waste time trying to stir up ****, tia; the pros will handle it.
I do believe you missed the point.
Haha no I really didn't. People have no obligation to play Sisyphus; while Luis Dias threads are a perpetual source of fun I only play them when I'm getting paid. And as I explained above, this debate is one that rarely goes good places.
I've seen copyright debates bring out the worst in forumites; there was a topic similar to this on the Polycount forum that lead to the entire topic of piracy being declared a bannable offense and cast into the Twisting Nether. Hardened game developers turned into internet trolls, and posters who you thought were OK guys turned into mini-Hitlers. It's like a religion thread, but with copyright.
My firm opinion on the matter remains simple; Hollywood and Big Content will continue to give us krazy legislation that will lead to innocents being arrested, severe repression, and piracy will continue. It's better to work on selling a product and giving customers a reason to buy it, than fretting on how someone can steal it.
-
While I support some form of controls in theory, in practice, absent control of physical media, I am not entirely convinced that control is still possible.
-
While I support some form of controls in theory, in practice, absent control of physical media, I am not entirely convinced that control is still possible.
There was an M$ project a while back to do just that. It was called Palladium and it would locked down windows to such an extreme degree it would have been completely impossible to circumvent. The project essentially just vanished.
An old article about it (http://www.akamarketing.com/palladium-project.html)
-
Not surprising, take away the possibility of pirating anything and most people would have converted to Linux or Mac OS within 5 years.
-
There was an M$ project a while back to do just that. It was called Palladium and it would locked down windows to such an extreme degree it would have been completely impossible to circumvent. The project essentially just vanished.
That doesn't really detract from my point, unless it didn't collapse due to technical issues.
-
There was an M$ project a while back to do just that. It was called Palladium and it would locked down windows to such an extreme degree it would have been completely impossible to circumvent. The project essentially just vanished.
That doesn't really detract from my point, unless it didn't collapse due to technical issues.
I heard the reason was because the NSA wanted their usual backdoors into the system, but because of the way Palladium worked it couldn't be done so they forced the project to end. The other rumor is because it created some pretty serious image problems for M$ because of the way it completely trashed user privacy. Either way is possible.
-
The trusted computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing) movement still exists.
-
The trusted computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing) movement still exists.
Yes, but it is significantly watered down from what Palladium was intended to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base#Architecture_and_technical_details
They were going to put a specially designed chip into every pc that would use 2 mb internal encryption, with each key being specific to the system's hardware.
-
So basically they are on about using games console style encryption, and he have seen how that has worked out.
-
I don't think you have any idea what I disagree with Cory Doctorow about, but you can feel free to make up some reasons and then argue with them (I can write you a chatbot to help if you like, we can even pretend I support DRM and am really stressed out about piracy)
Sorry, jumped the shark there. Now you know how I feel for about 95% of the time that I discuss with you.
And BTW, I never said anything bad about feminism.
EDIT: Having read Battuta's points in the last page I have to say that I am boringly in almost perfect agreement with him there.
My personal take in the matter isn't about how freedom should ring in a radical way, but more to the point that warring pirates is the silliest, nastiest, gravest, etc., thing that the government can do about it. And perhaps we find out that the gov shouldn't do anything about it. Not because copyright is "nasty" in itself, or because "Information wants to be free" or any other theleological shenanigan, but rather because there's too much to lose and so little to gain from it.
-
It's better to work on selling a product and giving customers a reason to buy it, than fretting on how someone can steal it.
Spot on. That's Apple's motto, btw, and I'll guess the source of their success with the iTunes' store.
Not surprising, take away the possibility of pirating anything and most people would have converted to Linux or Mac OS within 5 years.
Well if that was true, then Playstation, Xbox or Wii wouldn't exist and make so much money.
-
So basically they are on about using games console style encryption, and he have seen how that has worked out.
Except that PC's are open architecture, with hundreds of possible hardware combinations from dozens of different manufacturers. Plus this would have totally monopolized the PC's OS even more than it already is.
-
I don't think you have any idea what I disagree with Cory Doctorow about, but you can feel free to make up some reasons and then argue with them (I can write you a chatbot to help if you like, we can even pretend I support DRM and am really stressed out about piracy)
Sorry, jumped the shark there. Now you know how I feel for about 95% of the time that I discuss with you.
And BTW, I never said anything bad about feminism.
EDIT: Having read Battuta's points in the last page I have to say that I am boringly in almost perfect agreement with him there.
But do you agree the Cory Doctorow is a mediocre writer!?!?!?!?!?!nterrobang
-
Well if that was true, then Playstation, Xbox or Wii wouldn't exist and make so much money.
Because it is ABSOLUTLY IMPOSSIBLE to pirate a video game.
-
Well if that was true, then Playstation, Xbox or Wii wouldn't exist and make so much money.
Because it is ABSOLUTLY IMPOSSIBLE to pirate a video game.
I wouldn't be so sure if I were you...some maggots out there are capable of putting PS2 games into an .iso and put it on the net.
-
Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning, you might want to look into it.
Also, all consoles have been cracked already.
-
The way I see it, the film and record industry has two options.
A: They can proceed on the path they are on, and logically proceed to a place where they push for selling a license to watch a movie or listen to music, instead of concentrating on the ownership transition of a physical copy (note that they're still treating digital copies as being the same as physical copies in many ways).
This would be similar to having a Steam account - you buy a game, you can install, uninstall and re-download the game when you feel like it, if you have purchased it at some point.
Problem would, obviously, be the legislative issues of starting to treat what they sell essentially as permission to watch a movie, or permission to listen to some music. It'd be fairly hard to convince the legislative branch (not to speak of the general populace) that this would be in any way good or right.
Second problem would be monitoring, for obvious reasons. It's already almost impossible to keep track of unlicensed use of software, tracking unlicensed use of media would be even more so. You'd need 24/7 surveillance on all media playing devices and who is watching them. This approach, in the end, would require a shift to draconian police state just for monitoring and prevention of copyright violations.
B: They need to gather their sales from something that you can't get from downloading a digital copy. Increasing the appeal of a hard copy would be possible in several ways:
-inclusion of goodies (poster, packaging, codes that can get you benefits on something)
-making the material in such high quality that transferring it online would be inconvenient - BluRay movies already sort of have this approach. Transferring entire BluRay images via internet would be inconveniently slow, so instead lower quality rips are used. Granted, often the quality loss is hardly perceptible, but you could still boost the quality of the original data in a way that would mean the user benefits from owning a physical copy over a ripped digital copy. More frame rates, more resolution, 3D (two video streams)... and more advanced storage media.
Problem with this is that inclusion of goodies increases the cost of the end product, while increasing the quality of source material would increase production costs and also incur an increase in the price of the end product. It would also mean more advanced storage medias would be required, and heck, BluRay drives are still not as widely used as DVD-ROM drives are. An option would be to use solid state media such as flash memory (SD cards, USB keys) for the storage of the data instead.
For audio, there is a simple solution to declining records sales. Go back to vinyl long play disks (analog media) for the physical copies, and sell what digital copies you can through internets. The limitations of CD Audio (44kHz 16-bit PCM) are already so low that it's getting more convenient to download a FLAC copy of the disk contents, without any loss of quality.
This type of physical copy is something that has value of its own. Each copy is an individual, and theoretically analog signal can overcome certain limitations of the digital medias. The packaging options of LP albums are also much more interesting than those of a CD album; cover art, track listing and other stuff can be a lot bigger, to start with.
I'll grant that it's rather hard to increase the appeal of a physical copy, though, but I'm sure they could think of ways to do this if they wanted.
Of course, the problem with piratism is that most people don't perceive it as "wrong". Their morals don't speak against it because there is no clear, tangible loss incurred to a person that they can see. In a way, online digital piratism is simply a more convenient and widespread form of the same thing that has gone on since time immemorial with C-cassettes and VHS tapes. People have been copying CD's and VHS films for a long time from their friends; what the internet and P2P networking enables is doing this with digital media. In other words, people think in terms of physical copies. Since copying does not destroy the original, it doesn't equate to theft in most peoples' moral gamut.
Previously, the media corporations covered this by lobbying for copyright fees for storage media (and they got it for most of them - the legitimacy of this can be argued elsewhere). But with online piratism, they aren't getting even that, and they're in a right tizz over it. So, I can see them trying to push the industry towards media licensing instead of sales of copies; make people buy a permission to watch a movie or listen to music, instead of bothering with the copies and copying. But for problems I listed earlier, this is not likely to happen.
Of course, the third option for the media corps is to ignore digital online trafficking entirely, reduce cost of films, and increase their quality so that more people will feel morally obliged to pay for their entertainment. There have been a few interesting experiments on this - Star Wreck VI: In the Pirkinning was actually released on DVD and free download (with lower quality) at the same time, and though I am unsure of how many DVD copies they ultimately sold, they eventually made a contract with Universal to distribute their film in a re-rendered format (to replace obvious Star Trek and Babylon 5 designs with inspired, but original designs) and apparently that, too sold rather well... though as I said I don't know the actual sales numbers.
The point is, they made something really cool (not perhaps the best of films, not great, but very cool nonetheless) with small budget, and it was a overall a big success despite them launching the lower quality downloads at the same time as the original DVD sales.
So, maybe the answer isn't to crackdown on the pirates, to increase monitoring and copy protection to draconian levels to prevent and punish those who would get their copies online, but to increase profits by lowering the costs while concentrating on quality of the finished works. If the online copying hurts the profits so badly, perhaps it would be more beneficial to try to find ways of making people not want to pirate, instead of... making people want to pirate just out of spite.
-
or they could make their money off of performances and merchandise.
do not charge for the music, but sell paraphernalia.
-
or they could make their money off of performances and merchandise.
do not charge for the music, but sell paraphernalia.
Yes, covered in "B: They need to gather their sales [revenue] from something that you can't get from downloading a digital copy."
-
Yeah, I was elaborating on an angle i felt that you did not cover sufficently.
Spcificly that distribution of the media and money made from it did not necessarily have to be directly coupled.
-
Yeah, I was elaborating on an angle i felt that you did not cover sufficently.
Spcificly that distribution of the media and money made from it did not necessarily have to be directly coupled.
True.
-
I don't think you have any idea what I disagree with Cory Doctorow about, but you can feel free to make up some reasons and then argue with them (I can write you a chatbot to help if you like, we can even pretend I support DRM and am really stressed out about piracy)
Sorry, jumped the shark there. Now you know how I feel for about 95% of the time that I discuss with you.
And BTW, I never said anything bad about feminism.
EDIT: Having read Battuta's points in the last page I have to say that I am boringly in almost perfect agreement with him there.
But do you agree the Cory Doctorow is a mediocre writer!?!?!?!?!?!nterrobang
Couldn't tell. Never read his stories, apart from a very tiny short one. I guess he was never on my radar that much because I always heard that he wasn't that good anyway.
-
Well if that was true, then Playstation, Xbox or Wii wouldn't exist and make so much money.
Because it is ABSOLUTLY IMPOSSIBLE to pirate a video game.
You missed the point. XBoxes PSions et al do not sell like cupcakes because they are "piratable". Most people who buy them will never hack nor pirate anything for them. Someone argued that if piracy was "impossible" PCs wouldn't sell. I merely pointed out a counter example: XBoxes etc ARE PCs whose economics alone DEPEND upon you also buying the software for it.
If piracy was "impossible" in these machines, they would be more profitable, not less.
Personally I have nothing against physical limitations to machines preventing you from pirating whatever you want. If that's what people want, then why not sell them this kind of stuff? We see it all the time, in PStations, in iPads, and it works. I only get bothered when the police is actually intervening in the process and harrassing people coz they *dared* make a copy of Dragon Age. **** them.
-
Are you really equating the console market with the PC market in terms of how willing they are to accept DRM? I just want to know cause if you are I think I can safely dispense with listening to a word you say.
-
Are you really equating the console market with the PC market in terms of how willing they are to accept DRM? I just want to know cause if you are I think I can safely dispense with listening to a word you say.
Yes I know you hate whatever I say, even when it makes sense and you willfully misconstrue it so you can hate me more...
No, I was exactly making the opposite argument: that the console market is a testament to the willfulness of the public in buying into a full DRM market, vs the wild wild west of the PC landscape, where everything happens. If you go see the iPad/iPod/iPhone market, it's the exact same stuff, it's by a wide margin the best offer of smartphone apps and it's the most closed thing ever. Which eBook reader is the most successful? The one which is connected to the biggest eBook store of the world.... etc.
Mind you, all these devices are "PCs" too, they are just much specialized. They are very complex computers that you chose to spend money, rather than buying a general purpose PC. The fact that people choose this market with their money is a testament to the DRM way.
Not that I like it though.
-
Then you've completely missed the point that the PC market is very different to the console market. People won't put up with things in the PC market that they don't give a toss about in the console market.
The reason why Windows is still around is because there are a lot of people who have never had a good enough reason to move away from it. Despite all the problems with it, none of them are large enough to make it worth the move to Linux or any other alternate system. This however would be big enough. It would convince a lot of IT professionals who had never thought it worth changing to make the change. Once they were gone, Windows would pretty quickly lose its userbase because although they are a small percentage of the Windows users, it's the highly computer literate who keep people actually using Windows.
Consoles simply don't have this effect because they are so simple to use that you don't need a userbase of highly computer literate people to keep things ticking over. You're comparing apples to oranges bringing up the consoles. They only serve as an example for people who don't want the range of functions a PC offers.
-
Then you've completely missed the point that the PC market is very different to the console market. People won't put up with things in the PC market that they don't give a toss about in the console market.
The reason why Windows is still around is because there are a lot of people who have never had a good enough reason to move away from it. Despite all the problems with it, none of them are large enough to make it worth the move to Linux or any other alternate system. This however would be big enough. It would convince a lot of IT professionals who had never thought it worth changing to make the change. Once they were gone, Windows would pretty quickly lose its userbase because although they are a small percentage of the Windows users, it's the highly computer literate who keep people actually using Windows.
Consoles simply don't have this effect because they are so simple to use that you don't need a userbase of highly computer literate people to keep things ticking over. You're comparing apples to oranges bringing up the consoles. They only serve as an example for people who don't want the range of functions a PC offers.
Indeed, and even today half of the PCs in the world have Windows XP on them even after Vista and Windows 7.
-
a thief is a thief is a thief. I have about as much respect for a theif as i do a rapist. I think every single one of em should be persicuted, prosicuted, fined, jailed, etc. People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!
That said, should the government spend millions of dollars to enforce copywright laws? I don't believe that to be the answer. It should lie solely in the hands of the manufacturers to protect their works... if someone steals it, go to the police file a report... just like any one of us would have to do if someone breaks into our homes, our car, etc.
These folks work too damn hard (most of the time) to keep the world entertained and if they want to charge people to use it, so be it, thats up to them. If you don't like it, too f'n bad, either pay for it or do with out.
-
Then you've completely missed the point that the PC market is very different to the console market. People won't put up with things in the PC market that they don't give a toss about in the console market.
The reason why Windows is still around is because there are a lot of people who have never had a good enough reason to move away from it. Despite all the problems with it, none of them are large enough to make it worth the move to Linux or any other alternate system. This however would be big enough. It would convince a lot of IT professionals who had never thought it worth changing to make the change. Once they were gone, Windows would pretty quickly lose its userbase because although they are a small percentage of the Windows users, it's the highly computer literate who keep people actually using Windows.
Consoles simply don't have this effect because they are so simple to use that you don't need a userbase of highly computer literate people to keep things ticking over. You're comparing apples to oranges bringing up the consoles. They only serve as an example for people who don't want the range of functions a PC offers.
Indeed, and even today half of the PCs in the world have Windows XP on them even after Vista and Windows 7.
/me puts his hand up
but then my rig is so old that newer versions of windows would probably stop a lot of the newer games I have running due to bumping the sys requirements
-
Indeed, and even today half of the PCs in the world have Windows XP on them even after Vista and Windows 7.
Yep, that's the other major reason it wouldn't work. It would require everyone to upgrade both hard and software in order to do exactly what the PC could do before. That's gonna stick in some people's craw.
-
Disclaimer: This post contains hypothetical examples and shouldn't be considered admission or approval of anything.
a thief is a thief is a thief. I have about as much respect for a theif as i do a rapist. I think every single one of em should be persicuted, prosicuted, fined, jailed, etc.
Interesting. Do you also think rape and theft should be punished equally?
What about petty theft and murder? Do you respect a pickpocket less or more than a murderer?
Also, persecution is a process in which individual or group is illegitimately harassed, accused or punished for something (anything that the persecuting group or person can think of). Prosecution is a legal process of officially accusing a person of committing a crime.
People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!
You're making an assumption that people think piracy is ok because risk of getting caught is negligible. In fact, I believe people pirate stuff because they do not view it as being wrong, even though they might know it to be illegal.
Also, theft incurs a loss. What is being stolen, though? The typical argument against piracy involves a lot of hypotheticals, including "possible sales" or "lost revenue". I like to call these "virtual losses" since it's obvious they aren't real losses, and it's hard to determine their potential impact on the sales just by equating each downloader as one lost buyer.
By the way, are we making an assumption here that there should always be a price paid by the user for viewing a film or listening to music or playing a game? Perhaps instead of a physical media, we should be buying licenses or permissions to use some media - maybe even include a clause that says how many times we are allowed to watch a movie with certain license, or maybe a limited time frame during which we may use the media as much as we can or want?
If so, should that price be uniform and always the same? What about renting a movie/cd/game instead of buying a copy of your own? Or how about borrowing it from a friend to watch it, then returning it?
That said, should the government spend millions of dollars to enforce copywright laws? I don't believe that to be the answer. It should lie solely in the hands of the manufacturers to protect their works... if someone steals it, go to the police file a report... just like any one of us would have to do if someone breaks into our homes, our car, etc.
These folks work too damn hard (most of the time) to keep the world entertained and if they want to charge people to use it, so be it, thats up to them. If you don't like it, too f'n bad, either pay for it or do with out.
Ah, but I do want to be entertained! The problem here is, does the price tag match the value that the product gives to me in my opinion? If not, can I haggle the price lower? Can I return the product if I think it wasn't worth the price?
What you're saying is that for entertainment industry, people should just accept that they have to buy a pig in a poke.
Luckily, there are perfectly legitimate methods of watching movies and listening to music without any specific cost to them.
It's called public libraries, and they sometimes also offer books for free, and indeed I have heard of some libraries borrowing computer games as well.
Imagine that - being able to borrow something like that, and not having to ever touch the internet to do it.
Now, you might argue that the libraries pay royalties for their right to borrow items, and you would be right to say that. They are usually funded by tax money and provide a wonderful service.
However, ethically this presents an interesting dilemma. If I can get a film from a library, or I can get the same exact film from some torrent, without the trouble of actually walking into the library and grabbing the physical copy of the film, I can obviously get the same entertainment experience from it either way, and with same cost to my person.
Is there some significant difference between the method of acquisition that makes one way a theft and one way legitimate?
Same can be applied to public broadcasts of TV series and films. It is trivial to save a broadcast for personal use, and peruse it at any later date, instead of buying an outrageously priced (but possibly nicely packaged) DVD box set of the series, or a movie. The broadcast is paid, and generates revenue for the artists, producers and distributing company, and everyone is happy - but somehow, if I download an episode of tv-series or a movie, it becomes piracy.
There's a mismatch here somewhere, and I don't know where.
By the way, people have been doing this ever since VHS - digital TV just makes things even more convenient.
In fact, here we get into the core of the issue. The entertainment industry, like any business, relies on the laws of supply and demand to run itself. But with digital copying, it is trivial to make a copy - so this means there is much more supply than demand, and the prices should technically go down - except they're being hiked up in desperate attempt to cover virtual losses, which further reduces the demand of the legitimate copies.
Some of you might be familiar with the term artificial scarcity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity). That's what the entertainment industry is forced to try to maintain, even with the overabundant supply of (illegitimate) digital copies.
Your point about the people working hard to keep us entertained is a perfectly legitimate one; however, looking at the way of living of the most visible members of entertainment industry, it doesn't occur to most people to think that they require economical support.
To be plain, people think it's unnecessary to give their money to them so they can have another solid gold Humvee. And I'm not talking just about the artists - they get only a fraction of the price you pay in royalties. The rest goes to fund the enormous bureaucracy of the media giant corporations that run the whole business (again, based on artificial scarcity).
Small name artists who DON'T yet have a solid gold Humvee, only have one or two albums out... to them, recognition is probably more valuable than the direct royalties from album sales. Their stuff being distributed online from peer to peer can be a very powerful advertising channel, especially if the majority of their revenue comes from live gigs rather than studio album sales. But this argument has been played through a lot of times, and there are people with strong opinions for and against - thus I would leave this for individual artists to decide.
What I'm saying here is that right and wrong, good and bad don't always coincide with lawful and illegal, legitimate and illegitimate. It is difficult to use existing terms to describe what goes on, but "theft" is a decidedly inaccurate term to describe online piracy. "Exploitation" might be a better term, but then we all exploit methods of getting the same goods by paying less (such as libraries or borrowing a game or movie or music album from a friend).
It is hard to draw a line between downloading something and borrowing something from a friend physically.
Now, re-distributing things, that's where things get hairier. Technically, the P2P networking (torrents) means you're continuously distributing the stuff you're downloading, which is the same as making a copy of the media you borrowed from library or a friend, then making copies of it to hand forward.
This, also, has been going on for as long as C-cassettes have been in existence. People have been making copies of LP albums of music, copies of VHS films, copies of CD audio, DVD films, and copies of BluRay films. There really is nothing conceptually new in this behaviour, only the response from the entertainment industry has changed.
Why? Because they haven't been able to enforce private taxes on every new storage media to cut their virtual losses, like they did to C-cassettes, VHS cassettes and optical storage medias (CD/DVD-R's). I know they are trying hard to have that private tax on storage medias such as USB sticks, SD cards, cell phones, hard disk drives and probably paper since you can print copyrighted words on it.
This private tax is essentially something that is supposed to rely on assumption that some of the storage media sold will be used for illegal copying, but somehow it still doesn't justify the copying done (one would think that since they get compensated for it from the price of these products, it would be okay to copy anything on these medias, eh?), and only serves to hike up the prices of said medias to inconvenience everyone - including those who have no interest in using the media for any illegitimate purposes at all.
All in all, I'll say this: I have infinitely more respect towards the artists who actually make this stuff, than those who distribute it, set an arbitrary price tag for it, and give the scraps to the aforementioned artists, and rest is used to fund the distribution business and bureaucracy, lobby for some more draconian copyright laws to preserve the status quo, and to pay for lawyers.
-
Then you've completely missed the point that the PC market is very different to the console market. People won't put up with things in the PC market that they don't give a toss about in the console market.
What the hell? Am I talking to a wall here?
Hey man, PS3, XBoxes, Wiis, iPads, iPods, iPhones, Android closed devices, Kindles, etc. ARE PCs too. When people want to play games, they won't buy a general PC and then the game. They'll buy these DRM devices and play within them. That's where the money is now.
The fact that these things are widely bought and have huge profits right now is a testament that people are willing to "put up with" DRM shenanigans because the whole device ecossystems are much more streamlined and without technical worries. You don't have to worry about the "SPECS" of the PCs, you don't have to worry about anything. You just buy the DRM device and you know it will work with the product that was made for it.
You are still thinking that Game Consoles =/= PCs, but they are actually not. Game Consoles = PCs + vertical integrated DRM.
The reason why Windows is still around is because there are a lot of people who have never had a good enough reason to move away from it. Despite all the problems with it, none of them are large enough to make it worth the move to Linux or any other alternate system. This however would be big enough. It would convince a lot of IT professionals who had never thought it worth changing to make the change. Once they were gone, Windows would pretty quickly lose its userbase because although they are a small percentage of the Windows users, it's the highly computer literate who keep people actually using Windows.
So please explain me the success of the Mac App Store and the general i App Store, etc. How do you square those out?
The trouble with the current markets is that the price of software is extremely high, due to the fact that most people will not buy the software, they will pirate it. However, if you can manage a transfer from this wild west to a "walled garden", where the software is reachable by a store (or stores) in the netz by hundreds of millions of buyers, you would have the potential to lower (big time) the price of software and make a ton of money out of it.
I'm not saying that the age of piracy will be over. I'm saying that we are bound to enter a new paradigm, one where piracy will be competed with DRM low cost markets.
Take the Apple Mac App Store. It will be in effect in OS X Lion, and there will be apps that will only be available through it. Now imagine that within a decade, most apps will only be available in a kind of store like that. Yeah, piracy will still be available (just like piracy is still possible in PS3, etc.) but it will be minorated.
Consoles simply don't have this effect because they are so simple to use that you don't need a userbase of highly computer literate people to keep things ticking over. You're comparing apples to oranges bringing up the consoles. They only serve as an example for people who don't want the range of functions a PC offers.
Consoles ARE easily to use PCs. And they sell like hell. Why the hell shouldn't I compare them just because consoles are "simpler to use"? That makes no sense at all.
-
Consoles ARE easily to use PCs. And they sell like hell. Why the hell shouldn't I compare them just because consoles are "simpler to use"? That makes no sense at all.
In that case, I eagerly look forward to your elaboration on why Macs are also PCs and consoles, because...
That's what they are. A Mac, like a console, is a PC with an absolutely fixed hardware set (in theory) and ease-of-use improvements.
-
a thief is a thief is a thief. I have about as much respect for a theif as i do a rapist. I think every single one of em should be persicuted, prosicuted, fined, jailed, etc. People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!
That's just silly. Bernard Shaw had a quote that is slightly similar to what I mean here:
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
Equally, if you steal a purse, you are denying the purse to your victim. If you "steal" software, you are just adding to the whole.
The only problem arising is the lack of revenue for the developers. Things get a little morally difficult however when said developers are making tons of money out of overpriced goods, and when most "pirates" live in less developed countries who have not 50 dollars to spend in a game, or 1000 dollars to spend in the latest Autocad.
That said, should the government spend millions of dollars to enforce copywright laws? I don't believe that to be the answer. It should lie solely in the hands of the manufacturers to protect their works... if someone steals it, go to the police file a report... just like any one of us would have to do if someone breaks into our homes, our car, etc.
But that's exactly what is happening... your example is "spending millions of dollars" in police work.
These folks work too damn hard (most of the time) to keep the world entertained and if they want to charge people to use it, so be it, thats up to them. If you don't like it, too f'n bad, either pay for it or do with out.
Yeah, that speech will definitely sway the pirates...
-
Double post sorry
-
Consoles ARE easily to use PCs. And they sell like hell. Why the hell shouldn't I compare them just because consoles are "simpler to use"? That makes no sense at all.
In that case, I eagerly look forward to your elaboration on why Macs are also PCs and consoles, because...
That's what they are. A Mac, like a console, is a PC with an absolutely fixed hardware set (in theory) and ease-of-use improvements.
Macs are extremely complex and not simple at all. They are riddled with "file systems", a wide range of "system configurations", etc., etc. Yeah, they are indeed an improvement from windows pcs, in the sense that their hardware is fixed, there is no registry to take care of, many apps try to get around the file system, etc.
But it still is complicated.
Take iOS now. iOS is still in its infancy, but it is clearly headed for a "post-pc" world, a walled DRM garden where you don't have to worry about anything but your apps. Which you just have to "magically" download from the app store, given the price.
That's the future of "PCs". And this point is proven with the latest iteration of the OS X, which brings many of these ideas of the iOS "back to the mac".
IOW, they are trying to make the PCs as closed and as simple to use as consoles or "iPads" are right now, regardless of your / mine wants.
-
bah i hate you net nerds picking a part every single word of a post. fine I'll play your game.
Disclaimer: This post contains hypothetical examples and shouldn't be considered admission or approval of anything.
a thief is a thief is a thief. I have about as much respect for a thief as i do a rapist. I think every single one of em should be persicuted, prosicuted, fined, jailed, etc.
Interesting. Do you also think rape and theft should be punished equally?
who said anything about punishment? i was speaking about my respect towards a thief
What about petty theft and murder? Do you respect a pickpocket less or more than a murderer?
again, a thief is a thief is a thief. and nope, i respect them all about the same. Rape, theft, murder... all equally worthless scum.
Also, persecution is a process in which individual or group is illegitimately harassed, accused or punished for something (anything that the persecuting group or person can think of). Prosecution is a legal process of officially accusing a person of committing a crime.
Thank you, Webster, I'm well aware of the definitions even if i didn't spell the word right.
People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!
You're making an assumption that people think piracy is ok because risk of getting caught is negligible. In fact, I believe people pirate stuff because they do not view it as being wrong, even though they might know it to be illegal.
don't make excuses for the thieves. they're worthless enough as it is. They're wrong and they know it otherwise you would see them come on the news and speaking to committees on why their piracy should be legal.
Also, theft incurs a loss. What is being stolen, though? The typical argument against piracy involves a lot of hypotheticals, including "possible sales" or "lost revenue". I like to call these "virtual losses" since it's obvious they aren't real losses, and it's hard to determine their potential impact on the sales just by equating each downloader as one lost buyer.
Definition of THEFT
1 a: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.
By the way, are we making an assumption here that there should always be a price paid by the user for viewing a film or listening to music or playing a game? Perhaps instead of a physical media, we should be buying licenses or permissions to use some media - maybe even include a clause that says how many times we are allowed to watch a movie with certain license, or maybe a limited time frame during which we may use the media as much as we can or want?
If so, should that price be uniform and always the same? What about renting a movie/cd/game instead of buying a copy of your own? Or how about borrowing it from a friend to watch it, then returning it?
I'm not assuming anything about the prices. thats up to the distributors/merchants. They can set what ever prices they want to because.... yep, you guess it, its their ****. If they want to give it away for free, hey... its their ****.
That said, should the government spend millions of dollars to enforce copywright laws? I don't believe that to be the answer. It should lie solely in the hands of the manufacturers to protect their works... if someone steals it, go to the police file a report... just like any one of us would have to do if someone breaks into our homes, our car, etc.
These folks work too damn hard (most of the time) to keep the world entertained and if they want to charge people to use it, so be it, thats up to them. If you don't like it, too f'n bad, either pay for it or do with out.
blah blah blah
No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.
There is 0 justification for this. I don't give 2 ****s if the public library pays for permission to have a few copies of a video for people to take home for a couple of days. Not many do that, and if you're fortunate enough to live close to one that does, good for you. That is an approved medium for distribution and if you tried to argue that lame **** in court, yould get laughed at by the judge and we'd see you in a few years with some nice tats of "Bubba's" on your ass.
You're living in a delusion. If you disagree with a law, use the appropriate forum (i mean your law makers) for changing it, don't try to circumvent it or you might end up with a new picture and a number.
-
Come on Vertigo, tell us how you REALLY feel :lol:
No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.
Man it's like we live in a totally different universe...
the law says its illegal, then its illegal.
So whatever it is written in the law is the only right thing to do? Ever?
Hmmmm
-
Come on Vertigo, tell us how you REALLY feel :lol:
No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.
Man it's like we live in a totally different universe...
the law says its illegal, then its illegal.
So whatever it is written in the law is the only right thing to do? Ever?
Hmmmm
i never said laws were perfect, however, i did say if you disagree with a law, talk to your law makers.
My father told me all the time to let the people in charge be in charge. You try to take matters into your own hands, you'll get the system shoved up your ass. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things and taking something that clearly you have no right to is most definitely the wrong way to do something, period.
-
Always nice to see fascism in action.
-
Welcome back Herra. :)
In that case, I eagerly look forward to your elaboration on why Macs are also PCs and consoles, because...
That's what they are. A Mac, like a console, is a PC with an absolutely fixed hardware set (in theory) and ease-of-use improvements.
In fairness the original XBox actually was this, low end PC hardware with a modified easy to use OS.
That being said a major consideration with consoles is that they often use fairly exotic and proprietary hardware combos, the PS3 and xBox 360 both do this. Good luck getting your hands on those fancy IBM Xenon CPUs, let alone getting it to run anything off the shelf.......
-
i never said laws were perfect, however, i did say if you disagree with a law, talk to your law makers.
My father told me all the time to let the people in charge be in charge.
Yeah, all this talk about power be in the hands of the people, you know democracy? Pure rubbish, right?
You try to take matters into your own hands, you'll get the system shoved up your ass. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things and taking something that clearly you have no right to is most definitely the wrong way to do something, period.
You are confusing law with morals. You need history lessons hard, bro.
-
i never said laws were perfect, however, i did say if you disagree with a law, talk to your law makers.
My father told me all the time to let the people in charge be in charge.
Yeah, all this talk about power be in the hands of the people, you know democracy? Pure rubbish, right?
You try to take matters into your own hands, you'll get the system shoved up your ass. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things and taking something that clearly you have no right to is most definitely the wrong way to do something, period.
You are confusing law with morals. You need history lessons hard, bro.
I donno where you're from and... don't care tbh, but in this country (US) we vote for our leaders, have a voice in our government etc etc... so i'll say this for the final f'n time. if you disagree with a law, talk to your law makers.
This isn't about womens rights, oppression, or anything else that might be considered a revolutionary movement... this is about duche bags taking something that they know damn well they shouldn't be and have this stupid idea in their head that its okay. This isn't something that any person, or a group of people can EVER take a stand and say "WE WANT THIS **** FOR FREE JUST CUZ IM A CHEAP ASS" and the goverment will give in.
*edit
There is no amendment that guarantees the people the right to be entertained.
-
you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.
If you're going to treat any lost potential sale as theft then any act that reduces sales for anything must also be considered theft. If you're going to make up your own definitions, at least have the decency to apply them uniformly.
-
you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.
If you're going to treat any lost potential sale as theft then any act that reduces sales for anything must also be considered theft. If you're going to make up your own definitions, at least have the decency to apply them uniformly.
Uhm... what? I'm not making up my own definitions... I was stating that i doubt the distributors consider every single download as a lost potential sale. That would just be silly if they did cuz some people have as much admitted they use torrents to download something and if they like it they buy it later. I'm not in any way shape or form saying i agree with that action.
-
Interesting. Do you also think rape and theft should be punished equally?
who said anything about punishment? i was speaking about my respect towards a thief
That's why I was asking.
If you view each crime equally damaging to the respect you have towards a human being, then the logical conclusion is to assume you view each crime as equal affront and equally punishable.
What about petty theft and murder? Do you respect a pickpocket less or more than a murderer?
again, a thief is a thief is a thief. and nope, i respect them all about the same. Rape, theft, murder... all equally worthless scum.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/127/838/1276655092971.jpg)
What about blasphemers, adulterers, homosexuals, those who abandon Islam, those who criticize the party, or those who refuse to kill when ordered (conscripted), or those who consume alcoholic beverages underage or when it is otherwise disallowed? All these are very serious offenses in certain areas - most determined as such by the criminal code of those areas. Are these people worthless scum because they are breaking the law?
Or is the law worthless because these acts are illegal?
Which legislative system is it that determines your respect of a human being?
I would like to point out that in my opinion, relying on obedience to local laws is a very bad way to gauge a person's worth. Every human being deserves being treated respectfully and with dignity by definition of being a human being, no matter their crimes.
People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!
You're making an assumption that people think piracy is ok because risk of getting caught is negligible. In fact, I believe people pirate stuff because they do not view it as being wrong, even though they might know it to be illegal.
don't make excuses for the thieves. they're worthless enough as it is. They're wrong and they know it otherwise you would see them come on the news and speaking to committees on why their piracy should be legal.
You are completely missing my point. I am not making any excuses, I am pointing out that people at large do not determine their doings by legality, or fear of being caught doing illegal things. If they don't perceive something as being wrong, they'll sure as hell be doing it no matter what laws are set tp "prevent" it.
And even if they perceive it as wrong, some people will still be doing it.
Legislation is a bad way to deter normal people from doing what they want to do. It has never worked, and never will. Refer to prohibition laws for further reading.
Also, theft incurs a loss. What is being stolen, though? The typical argument against piracy involves a lot of hypotheticals, including "possible sales" or "lost revenue". I like to call these "virtual losses" since it's obvious they aren't real losses, and it's hard to determine their potential impact on the sales just by equating each downloader as one lost buyer.
Definition of THEFT
1 a: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.
That definition of theft certainly doesn't apply to digital data being copied from one peer to another. The original is not taken away from the owner.
You could argue that the data isn't theirs to give away, but is it then also illegal to borrow your movie DVD to a friend?
And regarding the equation of downloads to lost buyer, I am not sure how copyright lawyers calculate their demands for repayment of damages but I'm unsure how else they could possibly get into the ridiculous numbers they typically do. The projected losses are almost completely arbitrary, and you can freely scale the loss value based on how you decide to read the data.
By the way, are we making an assumption here that there should always be a price paid by the user for viewing a film or listening to music or playing a game? Perhaps instead of a physical media, we should be buying licenses or permissions to use some media - maybe even include a clause that says how many times we are allowed to watch a movie with certain license, or maybe a limited time frame during which we may use the media as much as we can or want?
If so, should that price be uniform and always the same? What about renting a movie/cd/game instead of buying a copy of your own? Or how about borrowing it from a friend to watch it, then returning it?
I'm not assuming anything about the prices. thats up to the distributors/merchants. They can set what ever prices they want to because.... yep, you guess it, its their ****. If they want to give it away for free, hey... its their ****.
Okay. Good to know there are no assumptions about what an individual should pay for using a media (DVD, CD, game).
But if I buy a movie DVD, CD or a computer game, can I borrow it to a friend?
No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.
And as I have already pointed out, legislation doesn't always coincide with our concepts of right and wrong.
There is 0 justification for this. I don't give 2 ****s if the public library pays for permission to have a few copies of a video for people to take home for a couple of days. Not many do that, and if you're fortunate enough to live close to one that does, good for you. That is an approved medium for distribution and if you tried to argue that lame **** in court, yould get laughed at by the judge and we'd see you in a few years with some nice tats of "Bubba's" on your ass.
Well, you're trying to say that categorically nothing illegal ever has justification. That's a poor way to argue, and I would like to hear your argumentation on this specific issue as opposed to you just saying that it's illegal and thus has no justification.
Aside from being illegal (this is not a definition of "wrong"), what makes online peer-to-peer distribution of data unjustifiable?
Is it just the "unapproved medium for distribution"? The end result is the exact same regardless of whether I get the film from public broadcast network (television), library, borrowing from a friend, or by downloading it via torrents or other method. So, where exactly is the problem?
Refer to earlier examples of why legislation does not always equate to right and wrong. Those terms are much more vague and complex than legislation.
You're living in a delusion. If you disagree with a law, use the appropriate forum (i mean your law makers) for changing it, don't try to circumvent it or you might end up with a new picture and a number.
Sadly, unlike copyright trolls, I do not have the monetary resources to attract politicians to my opinions on the matter.
This has no relevance to whether my argumentation is delusional or not, and stating something doesn't make it so.
On basic principle I agree that it would be an ideal solution if politicians actually knew what the hell they were doing or had the time to familiarize themselves properly with different sides of the issues, but as it stands, those with the money get to tell them their side and few are those individuals in politics who can bother learning the other side.
I could just as easily argue that it's a delusion to think that general population could ever get their voice heard on political issues, but I do believe in democracy over other forms of governance.
However, I do not view the legislature as the highest norm of my doings. Most of the time, my opinions of what is right and what is wrong coincide with the law, so it's usually not a problem. However, if a time came when I was presented with a choice between legal and illegal course of action, I wouldn't base my decision primarily on the law, but what I thought was the right thing to do at those circumstances.
-
Uhm... what? I'm not making up my own definitions... I was stating that i doubt the distributors consider every single download as a lost potential sale. That would just be silly if they did cuz some people have as much admitted they use torrents to download something and if they like it they buy it later. I'm not in any way shape or form saying i agree with that action.
Your claims that "copyright infringement" is theft is in fact a definition made up by you. If you understand the copyright industry so well please explain how Limewire is responsible for $75 trillion in lost sales in music alone.
-
Uhm... what? I'm not making up my own definitions... I was stating that i doubt the distributors consider every single download as a lost potential sale. That would just be silly if they did cuz some people have as much admitted they use torrents to download something and if they like it they buy it later. I'm not in any way shape or form saying i agree with that action.
Your claims that "copyright infringement" is theft is in fact a definition made up by you. If you understand the copyright industry so well please explain how Limewire is responsible for $75 trillion in lost sales in music alone.
I am guessing it equates to something along the lines of £3.50 (or whatever it is) for the value of the average track multiplied by the number of Audio files they can find downloaded over the network.
the fact that a proportion of those downloads are made in instances where the downloader probably wouldn't have normally sought to obtain the track, legally or illegally, wont be factored into it.
-
Interesting. Do you also think rape and theft should be punished equally?
who said anything about punishment? i was speaking about my respect towards a thief
That's why I was asking.
If you view each crime equally damaging to the respect you have towards a human being, then the logical conclusion is to assume you view each crime as equal affront and equally punishable.
well that isn't the case here. Rapists and murderers should get life and or death on a case by case basis, theft... w/e the fitting punishment is. However, from personal experience, i may be a bit biased against thieves, but they're ****ing useless scum, so again, i lump em all in the same respect level.
What about petty theft and murder? Do you respect a pickpocket less or more than a murderer?
again, a thief is a thief is a thief. and nope, i respect them all about the same. Rape, theft, murder... all equally worthless scum.
*pic* ok that made me laugh
What about blasphemers, adulterers, homosexuals, those who abandon Islam, those who criticize the party, or those who refuse to kill when ordered (conscripted), or those who consume alcoholic beverages underage or when it is otherwise disallowed? All these are very serious offenses in certain areas - most determined as such by the criminal code of those areas. Are these people worthless scum because they are breaking the law?
Or is the law worthless because these acts are illegal?
Which legislative system is it that determines your respect of a human being?
I would like to point out that in my opinion, relying on obedience to local laws is a very bad way to gauge a person's worth. Every human being deserves being treated respectfully and with dignity by definition of being a human being, no matter their crimes.
Well this certinally isn't a story of robin hood. This is people getting the case of the "me wants so me have" and using illegal methods to obtain something that there are plenty of perfectly legitimate and legal method of obtaining. My respect for a human being is determined by his or her own actions. If they cross that line, they're worthless to me. You may like em, thats up to you, I however, don't, and nothing will ever change my mind about that.
I say my brother is about as useful as a worn out eraser? Why? We'll hes all kinds of ****ed up.. hes an alcoholic, a drug addict, a thief (hes even stolen from my family, and no thats not the only experience ive had dealing with thieves), hes gotten 4 DUI's and got busted for driving on a suspended license and gets pissed off at the city for making him appear in court every 3 months? Really... hes mad at the court? If he were to drop off the face of the earth right now, i wouldn't shed 1 tear for him. I digress...
You can't really equate this to some of the things you mentioned. This particular issue has no grey areas. Stealing is illegal, not only is it illegal, its immoral as well. My god, kids in pre school are taught not to take things that don't belong to them.
People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!
You're making an assumption that people think piracy is ok because risk of getting caught is negligible. In fact, I believe people pirate stuff because they do not view it as being wrong, even though they might know it to be illegal.
don't make excuses for the thieves. they're worthless enough as it is. They're wrong and they know it otherwise you would see them come on the news and speaking to committees on why their piracy should be legal.
You are completely missing my point. I am not making any excuses, I am pointing out that people at large do not determine their doings by legality, or fear of being caught doing illegal things. If they don't perceive something as being wrong, they'll sure as hell be doing it no matter what laws are set tp "prevent" it.
And even if they perceive it as wrong, some people will still be doing it.
Legislation is a bad way to deter normal people from doing what they want to do. It has never worked, and never will. Refer to prohibition laws for further reading.
I'm not sure what you want me to say... if they get caught breaking the law, they'll go to jail. It doesn't really matter if they precieved their actions being right or wrong, legal or illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either.
Also, theft incurs a loss. What is being stolen, though? The typical argument against piracy involves a lot of hypotheticals, including "possible sales" or "lost revenue". I like to call these "virtual losses" since it's obvious they aren't real losses, and it's hard to determine their potential impact on the sales just by equating each downloader as one lost buyer.
Definition of THEFT
1 a: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.
That definition of theft certainly doesn't apply to digital data being copied from one peer to another. The original is not taken away from the owner.
You could argue that the data isn't theirs to give away, but is it then also illegal to borrow your movie DVD to a friend?
And regarding the equation of downloads to lost buyer, I am not sure how copyright lawyers calculate their demands for repayment of damages but I'm unsure how else they could possibly get into the ridiculous numbers they typically do. The projected losses are almost completely arbitrary, and you can freely scale the loss value based on how you decide to read the data.
You're right, i would argue that, but you would have to read the license agreement for the game/movie whatever to figure that out. And if its not clear, here's a radical idea... contact the distributor and ask them if its okay. Take some personal responsibility (not necessaraly directed at you).
By the way, are we making an assumption here that there should always be a price paid by the user for viewing a film or listening to music or playing a game? Perhaps instead of a physical media, we should be buying licenses or permissions to use some media - maybe even include a clause that says how many times we are allowed to watch a movie with certain license, or maybe a limited time frame during which we may use the media as much as we can or want?
If so, should that price be uniform and always the same? What about renting a movie/cd/game instead of buying a copy of your own? Or how about borrowing it from a friend to watch it, then returning it?
I'm not assuming anything about the prices. thats up to the distributors/merchants. They can set what ever prices they want to because.... yep, you guess it, its their ****. If they want to give it away for free, hey... its their ****.
Okay. Good to know there are no assumptions about what an individual should pay for using a media (DVD, CD, game).
But if I buy a movie DVD, CD or a computer game, can I borrow it to a friend?
see above
No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.
And as I have already pointed out, legislation doesn't always coincide with our concepts of right and wrong.
Maybe, maybe not, but we empowered them to make said legislation and we also have the ability and right to voice our opinions if we don't agree with the legislation. Not every politician makes decisions that everyone goes a long with. You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time. That still doesn't make taking personal action that's against the law the right thing to do especially in this case.
There is 0 justification for this. I don't give 2 ****s if the public library pays for permission to have a few copies of a video for people to take home for a couple of days. Not many do that, and if you're fortunate enough to live close to one that does, good for you. That is an approved medium for distribution and if you tried to argue that lame **** in court, yould get laughed at by the judge and we'd see you in a few years with some nice tats of "Bubba's" on your ass.
Well, you're trying to say that categorically nothing illegal ever has justification. That's a poor way to argue, and I would like to hear your argumentation on this specific issue as opposed to you just saying that it's illegal and thus has no justification.
Aside from being illegal (this is not a definition of "wrong"), what makes online peer-to-peer distribution of data unjustifiable?
Is it just the "unapproved medium for distribution"? The end result is the exact same regardless of whether I get the film from public broadcast network (television), library, borrowing from a friend, or by downloading it via torrents or other method. So, where exactly is the problem?
Refer to earlier examples of why legislation does not always equate to right and wrong. Those terms are much more vague and complex than legislation.
Firstly, i never said p2p was unjustifiable, i said illegally obtaining this stuff is. If a public library paid to have a few copies of a movie available, then thats what they have.... x number of copies. you'll never see millions of copies in a library for people to just take... why? because the distributors will never sell them that many copies because that would kill their sales in that area... so, using that as justification to get the video over p2p is stupid. They have a limited number for public use and thats it. If you want the video at the time but they don't have it... why would that trigger a thought process to say "oh well since i was going to watch it for free anyway, i'll just go download it from the internet, its the same thing" No its not, otherwise the library would hand out a damn tracker and a torrent link instead. And if you don't even bother checking to see if the library has it and you're just getting it anyway, you're f'n lazy and that falls into that worthless thief category.
Again, as to borrowing something from a friend, you'll have to read the involved license agreements for that one.
You're living in a delusion. If you disagree with a law, use the appropriate forum (i mean your law makers) for changing it, don't try to circumvent it or you might end up with a new picture and a number.
Sadly, unlike copyright trolls, I do not have the monetary resources to attract politicians to my opinions on the matter.
This has no relevance to whether my argumentation is delusional or not, and stating something doesn't make it so.
On basic principle I agree that it would be an ideal solution if politicians actually knew what the hell they were doing or had the time to familiarize themselves properly with different sides of the issues, but as it stands, those with the money get to tell them their side and few are those individuals in politics who can bother learning the other side.
I could just as easily argue that it's a delusion to think that general population could ever get their voice heard on political issues, but I do believe in democracy over other forms of governance.
However, I do not view the legislature as the highest norm of my doings. Most of the time, my opinions of what is right and what is wrong coincide with the law, so it's usually not a problem. However, if a time came when I was presented with a choice between legal and illegal course of action, I wouldn't base my decision primarily on the law, but what I thought was the right thing to do at those circumstances.
Well i don't have to pay anyone to pick up a phone and call my congressman... well maybe a LD charge if im out of the area, but i never said you had to go campaign. Hell, the FDA just got their ass handed to them in court over this ecig business and other than the people sueing the FDA, a bunch of internet forum members got heavily involved with very little cost (other than time) to make their voice heard in the form of... dun dun dunnnnnnn... a petition and written testimony! If you truly believe that you don't have a voice, that just tells me you aren't speaking up.
-
You know, it's not an honorable profession, but thievery is rarely motivated by actual greed. Granted this may be because I've developed a profound contempt for the concept of honor in the last year or so, but you talk like somebody stole your dog.
It's not theft, except in the hypothetical sense, and if we're prosecuting hypothetical crimes then frankly we're all ****ed because hypothetically we could all be serial killers.
Which brings me to my other point: despite the hyped-up nature of copyright infringement as a crime, it is not prosecuted for the most part. The resources of the government are used sparingly at best in the enforcement of it; it is played, legally, as a civil matter almost without exception. The FBI warning on your DVDs verges on an elaborate sham.
-
You know, it's not an honorable profession, but thievery is rarely motivated by actual greed. Granted this may be because I've developed a profound contempt for the concept of honor in the last year or so, but you talk like somebody stole your dog.
It's not theft, except in the hypothetical sense, and if we're prosecuting hypothetical crimes then frankly we're all ****ed because hypothetically we could all be serial killers.
Which brings me to my other point: despite the hyped-up nature of copyright infringement as a crime, it is not prosecuted for the most part. The resources of the government are used sparingly at best in the enforcement of it; it is played, legally, as a civil matter almost without exception. The FBI warning on your DVDs verges on an elaborate sham.
Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.
-
You know, it's not an honorable profession, but thievery is rarely motivated by actual greed. Granted this may be because I've developed a profound contempt for the concept of honor in the last year or so, but you talk like somebody stole your dog.
It's not theft, except in the hypothetical sense, and if we're prosecuting hypothetical crimes then frankly we're all ****ed because hypothetically we could all be serial killers.
Which brings me to my other point: despite the hyped-up nature of copyright infringement as a crime, it is not prosecuted for the most part. The resources of the government are used sparingly at best in the enforcement of it; it is played, legally, as a civil matter almost without exception. The FBI warning on your DVDs verges on an elaborate sham.
Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.
the difference here though is that goods which would have been sold have been removed, in doing so there is a definite action-> negative consequence and it is easy to prove that an act that is both immoral and illegal has been committed.
with piracy you have the issue that in the vast majority of cases legitimate purchase has been made and a copy of that item has been made. the argument here is where is the line exsists between right and wrong. What is the difference between lending your copy of Avatar, Death Magnetic or Crysis to a mate to watch/listen/play to and making a copy and giving that to them?
In both cases the artists/producers, publisher and store owners have been done out of a sale as with the lending unless the person you are lending to will probably borrow it again unless they want to use it many times. Yet lending your copy is ok but copying it isn't and in many cases the effect is the same.
And before you complain about that line not applying/exsisting, it is there because we all at some point lend stuff to mates and family we trust to get things back from thus for piracy to be wrong there has to be a threshold where the situation changes.
-
Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.
And you saying that it's stealing doesn't mean it actually is stealing. It means that you say it's stealing, which doesn't really mean much. I can say the Moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make it so unless I define cheese as being the stuff that Moon is made of. This is called circular logic.
We're not discussing what online piratism is defined as by law or copyright holders. We're discussing whether it actually fulfills the generally agreed upon definition of stealing. So far it seems it's failing hard. Exploitation of the data without creator's consent for distribution would be a more accurate description.
Look at it this way.
If I buy something, do I or do I not own it?
If I own something, am I or am I not able to do what I like with it?
Is there a legitimate or valid reason to prevent borrowing a film, audio CD or a game to a friend or aquaintance?
If you say yes, then you are essentially arguing for media licensing - you would have to buy a specific license to watch a movie, listen to music or play a game, and moving that license from person to another would be copyright infringement because that other person wouldn't pay anything to the creators. This would never be approved, so it really isn't available as an option, although the entertainment industry definitely would love this.
Technically it would be even worse copyright infringement if you sold your license to someone else - second hand media products would all be copyright infringements in this sort of system, since the licenses would be personal. You'd have to buy the license for everyone watching the film at your home to be strictly legal about it.
If your answer is no, there is no legitimate reason to prevent borrowing a film to friend or aquaintance, then we get into a quagmire of problematic definitions.
If you can borrow a physical copy of a product to a friend, what makes it different from sharing it digitally?
You can say "ah, but now the product is duplicated, so you are getting twice the product you paid for!"
And I'll counter by saying that isn't really relevant, as the media experience can't be forgotten just by transferring physical custody of the media. You have watched the film, and you know what happens in it - and now you're borrowing the film to a friend, so they'll experience it as well. You can also watch the film with one, two, three, or N other people. This has the exact same effect as duplicating the physical media by making a digital copy - N amount of people get to see the film which is the end result of "piracy".
So the question becomes, are the media corporations selling films, DVD's, licenses to watch the film, license to use the DVD in one device at a time, or what? They don't seem to have clear definitions for what exactly it is that I buy when I go to a shop and buy a CD, or DVD? Computer games are pretty clear, being software they have always been license based products rather than something you "own", but audio/video medias are suffering from distinct lack of definition of what exactly you get for your money.
To be logically consistent, categorical criminalization of peer-to-peer distribution of films, music and games would have to mean that they should demand that no media should be possible to borrow or give to a friend, much less sell second-hand. But they can't do that because the law protects the customers' rights to the product they have purchased; you CAN sell your films, audio CD's and games second-hand if you want, and there's nothing the entertainment industry can do about it - although they are trying really really hard.
Try to look at the situation comparing the ends, not means. It's true that peer-to-peer piratism is illegal and an unapproved channel of distribution for the product. But fundamentally, is there a difference to just borrowing the film you bought to other people? Or watching the film with a lot of people at the same time? Is the difference between private and public use? But then, what makes that difference? Is there some invisible numerical line that says you can only have N amount of people see this particular physical copy of the media? What would that difference be and how should it be enforced?
End result from both is that the media experience is not limited to the original buyer of the product. But what is it that makes one way of sharing your purchase with others illegal, while the other is not?
-
You know, it's not an honorable profession, but thievery is rarely motivated by actual greed. Granted this may be because I've developed a profound contempt for the concept of honor in the last year or so, but you talk like somebody stole your dog.
It's not theft, except in the hypothetical sense, and if we're prosecuting hypothetical crimes then frankly we're all ****ed because hypothetically we could all be serial killers.
Which brings me to my other point: despite the hyped-up nature of copyright infringement as a crime, it is not prosecuted for the most part. The resources of the government are used sparingly at best in the enforcement of it; it is played, legally, as a civil matter almost without exception. The FBI warning on your DVDs verges on an elaborate sham.
Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.
the difference here though is that goods which would have been sold have been removed, in doing so there is a definite action-> negative consequence and it is easy to prove that an act that is both immoral and illegal has been committed.
with piracy you have the issue that in the vast majority of cases legitimate purchase has been made and a copy of that item has been made. the argument here is where is the line exsists between right and wrong. What is the difference between lending your copy of Avatar, Death Magnetic or Crysis to a mate to watch/listen/play to and making a copy and giving that to them?
In both cases the artists/producers, publisher and store owners have been done out of a sale as with the lending unless the person you are lending to will probably borrow it again unless they want to use it many times. Yet lending your copy is ok but copying it isn't and in many cases the effect is the same.
And before you complain about that line not applying/exsisting, it is there because we all at some point lend stuff to mates and family we trust to get things back from thus for piracy to be wrong there has to be a threshold where the situation changes.
i never would say that. Again, as i said several times previously, that would be up to the license agreement and or the distributors. In a lot of cases, games can't be played with out the media inserted (IE console games most especially). Now if you were to loan that game to a friend, you've effectively removed your ability to play the game. In most cases software is allowed to be installed/used on 1 device at a time per the license agreement. If thats so, hey guess what, the license agreement hasn't been violated and there's no issue there. The game was bought and paid for, so on and so on.
with piracy, you have a clear unlawful act to obatain/distrubte something with out consent. I don't understand how there is any confusion on this. ITS ILLEGAL. you can close your eyes and concentrate real real real hard all you want to, but that fact will not change unless the law does (and i highly doubt it).
-
is there a difference to just borrowing the film you bought to other people?
Lending. Borrowing is when someone else lends it to you. :)
No, I'm not becoming a grammar nazi, it's just that I've spent quite a few hours explaining the difference in class recently. :D
-
is there a difference to just borrowing the film you bought to other people?
Lending. Borrowing is when someone else lends it to you. :)
No, I'm not becoming a grammar nazi, it's just that I've spent quite a few hours explaining the difference in class recently. :D
I contemplated on whether there was a difference between lending and borrowing, but couldn't really bother finding out. In Finnish, there's one word for it both ways. This unit wants to express its gratitude and has saved this distinction to its memory banks. It shall use it appropriately next time.
-
Yeah, that's the same thing in Portuguese
-
Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.
And you saying that it's stealing doesn't mean it actually is stealing. It means that you say it's stealing, which doesn't really mean much. I can say the Moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make it so unless I define cheese as being the stuff that Moon is made of. This is called circular logic.
We're not discussing what online piratism is defined as by law or copyright holders. We're discussing whether it actually fulfills the generally agreed upon definition of stealing. So far it seems it's failing hard. Exploitation of the data without creator's consent for distribution would be a more accurate description.
Look at it this way.
If I buy something, do I or do I not own it?
If I own something, am I or am I not able to do what I like with it?
Is there a legitimate or valid reason to prevent borrowing a film, audio CD or a game to a friend or aquaintance?
If you say yes, then you are essentially arguing for media licensing - you would have to buy a specific license to watch a movie, listen to music or play a game, and moving that license from person to another would be copyright infringement because that other person wouldn't pay anything to the creators. This would never be approved, so it really isn't available as an option, although the entertainment industry definitely would love this.
Technically it would be even worse copyright infringement if you sold your license to someone else - second hand media products would all be copyright infringements in this sort of system, since the licenses would be personal. You'd have to buy the license for everyone watching the film at your home to be strictly legal about it.
If your answer is no, there is no legitimate reason to prevent borrowing a film to friend or aquaintance, then we get into a quagmire of problematic definitions.
If you can borrow a physical copy of a product to a friend, what makes it different from sharing it digitally?
You can say "ah, but now the product is duplicated, so you are getting twice the product you paid for!"
And I'll counter by saying that isn't really relevant, as the media experience can't be forgotten just by transferring physical custody of the media. You have watched the film, and you know what happens in it - and now you're borrowing the film to a friend, so they'll experience it as well. You can also watch the film with one, two, three, or N other people. This has the exact same effect as duplicating the physical media by making a digital copy - N amount of people get to see the film which is the end result of "piracy".
So the question becomes, are the media corporations selling films, DVD's, licenses to watch the film, license to use the DVD in one device at a time, or what? They don't seem to have clear definitions for what exactly it is that I buy when I go to a shop and buy a CD, or DVD? Computer games are pretty clear, being software they have always been license based products rather than something you "own", but audio/video medias are suffering from distinct lack of definition of what exactly you get for your money.
To be logically consistent, categorical criminalization of peer-to-peer distribution of films, music and games would have to mean that they should demand that no media should be possible to borrow or give to a friend, much less sell second-hand. But they can't do that because the law protects the customers' rights to the product they have purchased; you CAN sell your films, audio CD's and games second-hand if you want, and there's nothing the entertainment industry can do about it - although they are trying really really hard.
Try to look at the situation comparing the ends, not means. It's true that peer-to-peer piratism is illegal and an unapproved channel of distribution for the product. But fundamentally, is there a difference to just borrowing the film you bought to other people? Or watching the film with a lot of people at the same time? Is the difference between private and public use? But then, what makes that difference? Is there some invisible numerical line that says you can only have N amount of people see this particular physical copy of the media? What would that difference be and how should it be enforced?
End result from both is that the media experience is not limited to the original buyer of the product. But what is it that makes one way of sharing your purchase with others illegal, while the other is not?
Well, over here, movies are licensed for private viewing in our homes, being defined by law as a private residence. If i were to take that movie to... hell i donno a park and set it up on a projector, id be in violation of the agreement and face fines and or jail time. As far as i know, in our own homes theres no limit to how many people we have watching a movie. However, the second i make a copy of that movie and hand it over to a buddy, i've just committed a crime, weither or not the ends are the same. SOME distributors allow you to make 1 backup copy to keep for yourself in the event your original becomes damaged. Again, all of this *SHOULD* be spelled out in the license agreement, if its not clear, again contact the distributor.
Thats what makes it legal or illegal is the license agreement. In the case of software, its printed in the manuals as well as the installer presenting you with it. In movies, some times its on a slip, often its on a lil 10 second thing at the beginning of the movie.
You can argue that you have friends over watching a movie is the same thing as giving them a copy of it, but sorry... its not, no matter how much you want it to be. And stating that, doesn't make it so =p
-
To add to Vertigo's examples, we have for instance AutoCAD. AutoCAD's licence does not allow you to, for instance, sell your own copy to another person. The licence is personal and not "exchageable". In a strong sense, no one ever buys a copy of AutoCAD, they "borrow" it from the developers.
Same seemingly happens in the e-book market, where personal copies (buys) of the book 1984 were "nuked" by Amazon when people had already bought them to their Kindles, due to a copyright shenanigan. That was humorously ironic.
-
To add to Vertigo's examples, we have for instance AutoCAD. AutoCAD's licence does not allow you to, for instance, sell your own copy to another person. The licence is personal and not "exchageable". In a strong sense, no one ever buys a copy of AutoCAD, they "borrow" it from the developers.
Same seemingly happens in the e-book market, where personal copies (buys) of the book 1984 were "nuked" by Amazon when people had already bought them to their Kindles, due to a copyright shenanigan. That was humorously ironic.
Yup, while most license agreements with software are pretty much cookie cutter copies of each other, there are instances where they're not the same and have some very specific things. Pretty much in all cases of software and movie, you never own the software or video, you're licensed to use/view it only. Some allow you to have the software installed on 1 device and if you move it to another device, you are required to uninstall it from the previous one first, others you aren't licensed to install it ever again (rarely). it all depeneds on what that lil box says that you 9 times out of 10 click "i agree" to with out reading it.
*edit
perfect example, adobe allows you to install photoshop on 2 machines under 1 license
-
To add to Vertigo's examples, we have for instance AutoCAD. AutoCAD's licence does not allow you to, for instance, sell your own copy to another person. The licence is personal and not "exchageable". In a strong sense, no one ever buys a copy of AutoCAD, they "borrow" it from the developers.
The record of this when it goes to court, however, is sharply erratic. Circuit and District court rulings have run both ways several times just in the last five years, so the legal ground for this theory of ownership is shaky.
-
Well, over here, movies are licensed for private viewing in our homes, being defined by law as a private residence. If i were to take that movie to... hell i donno a park and set it up on a projector, id be in violation of the agreement and face fines and or jail time. As far as i know, in our own homes theres no limit to how many people we have watching a movie. However, the second i make a copy of that movie and hand it over to a buddy, i've just committed a crime, weither or not the ends are the same. SOME distributors allow you to make 1 backup copy to keep for yourself in the event your original becomes damaged. Again, all of this *SHOULD* be spelled out in the license agreement, if its not clear, again contact the distributor.
So sharing with friends and aquaintances is private use while p2p sharing is public?
But isn't this merely a volume difference?
Also, EULA's typically don't have all that much weight in courts.
Thats what makes it legal or illegal is the license agreement. In the case of software, its printed in the manuals as well as the installer presenting you with it. In movies, some times its on a slip, often its on a lil 10 second thing at the beginning of the movie.
So you're arguing that the distributor can legitimately* dictate any terms they wish to the customers via license agreement?
It doesn't work that way. Users' rights are protected as well, although the degree to which EULAs are held varies regionally. A contract made before the purchase has more power, but a contract you see after the purchase while installing software or starting to watch a film has much less credibility, as far as I know.
You can argue that you have friends over watching a movie is the same thing as giving them a copy of it, but sorry... its not, no matter how much you want it to be. And stating that, doesn't make it so =p
There are small differences, mainly in that you can use a multiplied product at many locations simultaneously, but I take a more ideological view on the matter; as soon as a person has watched a film, they have seen it. They might watch it again, but re-watching stuff doesn't really add much to the experience (YMMV). If you look at it from intellectual property standpoint, you could consider that by purchasing a DVD, a customer fains a license to watch the film, and by watching a film, a customer absorbs the intellectual property (learns what happens and sees how it unfolds). What has been seen, can not be unseen.
So, my perspective is about the end state of matters, not the actual action of watching the film. The end state is that a person has seen the film, and how it came to pass is of little importance to me.
Did he watch it in film theatre? Maybe he purchased a DVD, or maybe borrowed it from a friend? Maybe used a library? Maybe he recorded it off public broadcast television? Or maybe he forgot to watch or record it from TV, got pissed off and DL'd it instead?
Does the method of aquisition really matter if there were also legitimate means of watching the film with just as much (none) payment from the customer to the creator? The sum that the public broadcast TV paid in royalties won't change based on viewer count. The sum that the library pays for the license to lend the film doesn't usually change based on number of lenders. The copy will generate a fixed amount of revenue regardless of how many times it's lent, and same applies to the public broadcast TV.
Now, music is a different animal. Some albums are more resistant to re-using, meaning you can listen to them to infinity and beyond; the listening experience is an integral part of it; just having listened to it doesn't really cut it as human brain can't usually properly memorize all the aspects of a piece of music (there are exceptions to this; I can listen to certain pieces of music in my head for example), while films in my opinion are more about the abstract ensemble of storyline, cut, video and audio. For some reason, I find that I can't watch films too many times without them losing their appeal, as I know what's going to happen already. Again there are exceptions, as some films are like gifts that keep on giving, but most films I wouldn't watch again (whereas most music albums I own I can listen to over and over again).
These are just my opinions on the matter.
Personally, I can see one extremely good way to decrease piracy: Download ticket integrated to film theatre tickets. You go to the movies, watch a film, and at home you can use your ticket to download a copy of the film.
It's going to hurt DVD sales a bit, but I can see it increasing the appeal of going to the movies. With this, you could increase the price of a movie ticket a bit, and I should remind that digital distribution - once the infrastructure is up - is a lot cheaper than physical copies. With the increased revenue from the ticket prices, I think they could break even or even go over the potential loss in DVD sales revenues, and the carrot might increase the total box office sales of the film.
You know what's a curious thing? There are no torrents for Star Wreck 6: In The Pirkinning - Imperial Edition, and even the original DVD release only has a few seeders and handful of leeches. I don't think this is a result of obscurity or lack of quality - it is quite popular in the Internets, so something else must account for the lack of p2p sharing going on. I myself own the original DVD, and don't plan on getting the IE version; I only checked the torrent availability to prove a point.
My personal belief is that the reason for this lack of torrents is two-fold: Respect toward the work itself, and respect towards the creators. Like I said before, they released low quality video versions of the film at the same time as DVD release; the DVD sold pretty well despite the release of the free-to-download videos. Well enough to get Universal interested in distributing a modified version (Imperial Edition) and that one doesn't have a single torrent out there.
Right or wrong, I don't think there are easy ways to "win the fight" against piracy. Instead, I think the entertainment industry needs to adapt and learn to use the internet as a tool, not the enemy. There will always be illegitimate file sharing going on - I don't think there will ever be any way to stop it aside from internet kill switch (aand then people would be sharing the datas on physical medias - flash memory and optical disks.
The question is, should they try to eradicate it or make it harder and crackdown on random people demanding ludicrous damages repayments (which those people will never be able to pay), or should they concentrate on mitigating the peoples' need or will to share or download stuff illegally.
*legitimate: Rightful, not the same as legal. Just to point out the difference.
-
Yeah, that's the same thing in Portuguese
Not quite, "borrow" doesn't technically exist in Portuguese.
What we use is "lend" and adapt it to the situation. Example, if A borrows B from C, we cannot actually literally say "A borrowed B from C", we can only say "C lent B to A", or more as it's more usually said, "A asked C to lend B".
-
Well, over here, movies are licensed for private viewing in our homes, being defined by law as a private residence. If i were to take that movie to... hell i donno a park and set it up on a projector, id be in violation of the agreement and face fines and or jail time. As far as i know, in our own homes theres no limit to how many people we have watching a movie. However, the second i make a copy of that movie and hand it over to a buddy, i've just committed a crime, weither or not the ends are the same. SOME distributors allow you to make 1 backup copy to keep for yourself in the event your original becomes damaged. Again, all of this *SHOULD* be spelled out in the license agreement, if its not clear, again contact the distributor.
So sharing with friends and aquaintances is private use while p2p sharing is public?
p2p sharing would involve making an unauthorized copy for distribution, and would there for be illegal unless the terms of the agreement said otherwise
But isn't this merely a volume difference?
Doesn't matter, the distributors licensed you a copy for private use only and as far as ive ever seen, explicitly state that making copies for distribution is unlawful
Also, EULA's typically don't have all that much weight in courts.
maybe, maybe not... i haven't heard of any cases where the courts ruled in favor of the defendants on these issues
Thats what makes it legal or illegal is the license agreement. In the case of software, its printed in the manuals as well as the installer presenting you with it. In movies, some times its on a slip, often its on a lil 10 second thing at the beginning of the movie.
So you're arguing that the distributor can legitimately* dictate any terms they wish to the customers via license agreement?
It doesn't work that way. Users' rights are protected as well, although the degree to which EULAs are held varies regionally. A contract made before the purchase has more power, but a contract you see after the purchase while installing software or starting to watch a film has much less credibility, as far as I know.
yes, users rights are protected, but so are the distributors rights. The whole purpose of the EULA is to protect the distributor/manufacturer from lawsuit in the event of damages resulting from use of the product and to specify how the software is licensed for use. Obviously the EULA would be scrutinized in court, but for the most part, pretty much any part of the EULA would hold up against a piracy claim. Its not rocket surgery.
You can argue that you have friends over watching a movie is the same thing as giving them a copy of it, but sorry... its not, no matter how much you want it to be. And stating that, doesn't make it so =p
There are small differences, mainly in that you can use a multiplied product at many locations simultaneously, but I take a more ideological view on the matter; as soon as a person has watched a film, they have seen it. They might watch it again, but re-watching stuff doesn't really add much to the experience (YMMV). If you look at it from intellectual property standpoint, you could consider that by purchasing a DVD, a customer fains a license to watch the film, and by watching a film, a customer absorbs the intellectual property (learns what happens and sees how it unfolds). What has been seen, can not be unseen.
So, my perspective is about the end state of matters, not the actual action of watching the film. The end state is that a person has seen the film, and how it came to pass is of little importance to me.
Did he watch it in film theatre? Maybe he purchased a DVD, or maybe borrowed it from a friend? Maybe used a library? Maybe he recorded it off public broadcast television? Or maybe he forgot to watch or record it from TV, got pissed off and DL'd it instead?
Does the method of aquisition really matter if there were also legitimate means of watching the film with just as much (none) payment from the customer to the creator? The sum that the public broadcast TV paid in royalties won't change based on viewer count. The sum that the library pays for the license to lend the film doesn't usually change based on number of lenders. The copy will generate a fixed amount of revenue regardless of how many times it's lent, and same applies to the public broadcast TV.
Now, music is a different animal. Some albums are more resistant to re-using, meaning you can listen to them to infinity and beyond; the listening experience is an integral part of it; just having listened to it doesn't really cut it as human brain can't usually properly memorize all the aspects of a piece of music (there are exceptions to this; I can listen to certain pieces of music in my head for example), while films in my opinion are more about the abstract ensemble of storyline, cut, video and audio. For some reason, I find that I can't watch films too many times without them losing their appeal, as I know what's going to happen already. Again there are exceptions, as some films are like gifts that keep on giving, but most films I wouldn't watch again (whereas most music albums I own I can listen to over and over again).
Now, these are just my opinions on the matter.
Personally, I can see one extremely good way to decrease piracy: Download ticket integrated to film theatre tickets. You go to the movies, watch a film, and at home you can use your ticket to download a copy of the film.
It's going to hurt DVD sales a bit, but I can see it increasing the appeal of going to the movies. With this, you could increase the price of a movie ticket a bit, and I should remind that digital distribution - once the infrastructure is up - is a lot cheaper than physical copies. With the increased revenue from the ticket prices, I think they could break even or even go over the potential loss in DVD sales revenues, and the carrot might increase the total box office sales of the film.
You know what's a curious thing? There are no torrents for Star Wreck 6: In The Pirkinning - Imperial Edition, and even the original DVD release only has a few seeders and handful of leeches. I don't think this is a result of obscurity or lack of quality - it is quite popular in the Internets, so something else must account for the lack of p2p sharing going on. I myself own the original DVD, and don't plan on getting the IE version; I only checked the torrent availability to prove a point.
My personal belief is that the reason for this lack of torrents is two-fold: Respect toward the work itself, and respect towards the creators. Like I said before, they released low quality video versions of the film at the same time as DVD release; the DVD sold pretty well despite the release of the free-to-download videos. Well enough to get Universal interested in distributing a modified version (Imperial Edition) and that one doesn't have a single torrent out there.
Right or wrong, I don't think there are easy ways to "win the fight" against piracy. Instead, I think the entertainment industry needs to adapt and learn to use the internet as a tool, not the enemy. There will always be illegitimate file sharing going on - I don't think there will ever be any way to stop it aside from internet kill switch (aand then people would be sharing the datas on physical medias - flash memory and optical disks.
The question is, should they try to eradicate it or make it harder and crackdown on random people demanding ludicrous damages repayments (which those people will never be able to pay), or should they concentrate on mitigating the peoples' need or will to share or download stuff illegally.
*legitimate: Rightful, not the same as legal. Just to point out the difference.
Well my opinion is that any one involved in the illegal activity be made to answer for their crimes. Same way drugs are dealt with... Possession and possession with intent to sell... or in this case intent to distribute. If you're hosting... boom you've got intent charges to face, if you're downloading, you've got possession charges to deal with.. point being, unless it was approved to be distributed via p2p, someone passing around a flash drive, what ever, its still illegal. you can not convince me its okay, please stop trying... im really getting tired of repeating myself.
Will it ever stop? nope. people still break into houses even though we have locked doors and alarms etc. But i'm sure not going to say its okay cuz i might invite them in for coffee one day. This whole conversation has reinforced my belief that the internet is just an excuse for people to be cheep lazy bastards. You missed a TV show back in the day... big f'n deal... catch it on a rerun or buy the box set when it comes out. Just cuz the internet is around doesn't mean you should be a tool.
You know, the crazy thing is... every company that produces or sells something expects a certain level of loss due to theft or illegal distribution. Before this internet distribution of **** became rampant, it wasn't a huge deal to them... did they like it? prolly not, but they knew there was little they could do about it because it was pretty much untraceable. Now this **** storm rolled in starting with Nester a while back and they discovered there were waaaaayyyy more losses and hey... look at that, we CAN track these ass holes down now...
I've got no problem in the world with them fining the hell out of the folks doin this ****. Honestly... i wish they would find more of em.
-
Ah **** you're right.
Not quite, "borrow" doesn't technically exist in Portuguese.
-
If the EULA are legally binding, then the entire used game market is illegal.
Have (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Pre-Owned-Refurbished/Pre-Owned-Games/pcmcat232900050017.c?id=pcmcat232900050017) loads (http://www.ebgames.com/preowned) of (http://www.walmart.com/cp/Pre-Owned-Games/1056224) fun (http://www.amazon.com/Video-Games-Trade-In/b?ie=UTF8&node=979418011).
-
i can tell you as a former EB/Gamestop manager, the PC used games were pulled many years ago due to licensing issues. AFAIK the EULA for console games doesn't prohibit the resale of the game otherwise the used game market wouldn't exist in retail stores.
-
Click the last link then, you'll have a surprise (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=amb_link_83400111_17?ie=UTF8&bbn=979418011&rh=n%3A979418011%2Cn%3A229575&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=browse&pf_rd_r=1R6YSQM9KPCD2BV79XBW&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1298690862&pf_rd_i=979418011).
-
I'd like to know Vertigo's opinion on this:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1484559.php/Woman_fined_1_9_million_dollars_for_illegal_download
Woman fined 1.9 million dollars for illegal download
Jun 19, 2009, 5:56 GMT
Washington - A court in the United States laid down a 1.9-million-dollar fine against a Minnesota woman who illegally downloaded 24 songs from the internet, CNN reported.
-
They should be charged for the cost of what the downloaded and or distributed plus some type of nominal fine, punishment should scale with the crime.
-
I'd like to know Vertigo's opinion on this:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1484559.php/Woman_fined_1_9_million_dollars_for_illegal_download
Woman fined 1.9 million dollars for illegal download
Jun 19, 2009, 5:56 GMT
Washington - A court in the United States laid down a 1.9-million-dollar fine against a Minnesota woman who illegally downloaded 24 songs from the internet, CNN reported.
further along the story -
It is the second trial of the case, after a judge ordered a retrial in 2007. In the first trial, Thomas-Rasset was fined only 220,000 dollars.
here you have an example of someone who got busted, slapped with a fine and said no, i dun wanna pay... 2nd court said, too bad, heres moar fine. When i was in the military, if someone got in trouble, they were sent to the old man for punitive action. Now typically, the CO can order a sentance of reduction in rate, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, half months pay x 2 months or some variation there of. If you're stupid enough to try to appeal that and take it to a court martial, the judge can double that sentance and will most likely give you a big chicken dinner to boot. She took a gamble and lost in both circumstances. I have no sympathy for her.
-
Consoles ARE easily to use PCs. And they sell like hell. Why the hell shouldn't I compare them just because consoles are "simpler to use"? That makes no sense at all.
I am quite sure that the PS3 is not IBM compatible, and thus does not deserve the tag 'PC'. A PC is a form of a computer. So is a 'console' (Which is a broad term for many different systems which are all also quite different from one another),
I'd like to know Vertigo's opinion on this:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1484559.php/Woman_fined_1_9_million_dollars_for_illegal_download
Woman fined 1.9 million dollars for illegal download
Jun 19, 2009, 5:56 GMT
Washington - A court in the United States laid down a 1.9-million-dollar fine against a Minnesota woman who illegally downloaded 24 songs from the internet, CNN reported.
further along the story -
It is the second trial of the case, after a judge ordered a retrial in 2007. In the first trial, Thomas-Rasset was fined only 220,000 dollars.
here you have an example of someone who got busted, slapped with a fine and said no, i dun wanna pay... 2nd court said, too bad, heres moar fine. When i was in the military, if someone got in trouble, they were sent to the old man for punitive action. Now typically, the CO can order a sentance of reduction in rate, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, half months pay x 2 months or some variation there of. If you're stupid enough to try to appeal that and take it to a court martial, the judge can double that sentance and will most likely give you a big chicken dinner to boot. She took a gamble and lost in both circumstances. I have no sympathy for her.
Right. The women just stole a cd worth of songs, and then is charged 22,000 dollars. I find it hard to believe that you wanted to pay for such a crime.
-
here you have an example of someone who got busted, slapped with a fine and said no, i dun wanna pay... 2nd court said, too bad, heres moar fine. When i was in the military, if someone got in trouble, they were sent to the old man for punitive action. Now typically, the CO can order a sentance of reduction in rate, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, half months pay x 2 months or some variation there of. If you're stupid enough to try to appeal that and take it to a court martial, the judge can double that sentance and will most likely give you a big chicken dinner to boot. She took a gamble and lost in both circumstances. I have no sympathy for her.
I knew you wouldn't disappoint me! :lol:
-
Right. The women just stole a cd worth of songs, and then is charged 22,000 dollars. I find it hard to believe that you wanted to pay for such a crime.
Why would i want to pay for her crime? Im pretty sure that wouldn't teach her a lesson.
-
Right. The women just stole a cd worth of songs, and then is charged 22,000 dollars. I find it hard to believe that you wanted to pay for such a crime.
Why would i want to pay for her crime? Im pretty sure that wouldn't teach her a lesson.
That's pretty overzealous, if she attempted to shoplift that same content from Wallmart she isn't going to be paying a 20K fine; more then likely it would be the cost of the item plus a 150 dollar fine and some community service. Some folks are not even going to have 20K in liquid assets.
-
*shrugs* first court gave her a rather small fine which im sure they didn't expect to be paid in full on the spot. im sure they would have worked out some kind of payment system. The average cost of a home these days is about 250k or there abouts, right? its doable. but still... the court thought that to be a fair fine... and she was tried by jury. At that point she should have accepted it and worked out some payments... but instead she chose to fight it further and the fine increased 5 fold. Now shes screwed for ever. But this whole thing could have been avoided had she not done the deed in the first place and we wouldn't be discussing her.
-
So she would be better off (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.033) actually stealing a couple of CD's off the nearest retail store than actually downloading them.
Also, the original fine was not 22.000 dollars, it was 220.000 dollars.
-
All this is required you see, because that's the law we have, so it is by definition morally correct, Ghostavo.
-
or the damn sensible thing would have been for her to pay for the stuff in the first place and she wouldn't have been in that mess to begin with. She broke the law, that's all there is to it. Courts found her guilty, twice even, and now shes screwed. That's generally what happens to you when you break the law.
Interesting thing happened over the weekend. My father is IT inventories manager for a local hospital. Well Saturday, one of the dock loaders decided to come in and break into his office and stole about 110k worth of laptops and stuff. Hes caught on tape, the screw driver he used to break in was recovered, he was seen by several witnesses... guess what? this guy is done. i expect hes going to get at least a 15 year sentence in prison on a felony charge. And ya know what? Good ****in riddance. One more piece of trash out of the way.
-
Listen to the man! Appeals mean nothing to him but bad manners! :lol:
-
Searching for a little while more, I've found some inconsistent info on the matter.
1. The woman is from Minnesota.
2. The woman got 24 songs illegally.
3. Minnesota's laws regarding pirating are as follow: 325E.17 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=325E.17&year=2010) and 325E.18 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?year=2010&id=325E.18#stat.325E.18)
4. The punishment for both is 325E.201 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=325E.201&year=2010)
So, for 24 songs the maximum she could be sentenced with would be... 25.000 dollars, about 9 times what she was originally charged with and 76 times what she was later charged.
What am I reading wrong? :confused:
-
Searching for a little while more, I've found some inconsistent info on the matter.
1. The woman is from Minnesota.
2. The woman got 24 songs illegally.
3. Minnesota's laws regarding pirating are as follow: 325E.17 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=325E.17&year=2010) and 325E.18 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?year=2010&id=325E.18#stat.325E.18)
4. The punishment for both is 325E.201 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=325E.201&year=2010)
So, for 24 songs the maximum she could be sentenced with would be... 25.000 dollars, about 9 times what she was originally charged with and 76 times what she was later charged.
What am I reading wrong? :confused:
the date maybe? she first went to court in 2007, then later in 2009. those statutes are dated for 2010
*edit
the other thing too was the story said she was fined for each song. So she was prolly brought up on multiple charges, not just 1.
-
the date maybe? she first went to court in 2007, then later in 2009. those statutes are dated for 2010
I've also thought of that, but these date from 1993, almost 15 years before.
As for being brought for multiple charges, that's really strange since the law clearly states multiple infringements as a single charge. And even that wouldn't explain the later 80.000 dollar per song fine.
-
I think it's a mere case of assholery squared.
-
the date maybe? she first went to court in 2007, then later in 2009. those statutes are dated for 2010
I've also thought of that, but these date from 1993, almost 15 years before.
As for being brought for multiple charges, that's really strange since the law clearly states multiple infringements as a single charge. And even that wouldn't explain the later 80.000 dollar per song fine.
I'm pretty sure people can be brought up on multiple counts of the same charge. double jeopardy wouldn't apply. You can't kill 10 people and only face 1 murder rap.
*edit
That all depends on the prosecution and how they want to bring up the charges.
-
That's silly. The law clearly stipulates what you should be fined for for multiple pirated songs.
And it still doesn't explain the last sentence. You are really defending the indefensible, but that isn't newsworthy for two or three pages ago.
-
So why does the law state and I quote:
325E.201 VIOLATIONS; PUNISHMENT.
A violation of section 325E.17 or 325E.18 is a felony and is punishable upon conviction by:
(1) a fine of not more than $100,000, or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, if the violation is a first offense involving more than 100 but not more than 1,000 sound recordings or more than seven but not more than 65 audio-visual recordings;
(2) a fine of not more than $250,000, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, if the violation is a second or subsequent offense, or involves more than 1,000 sound recordings or more than 65 audio-visual recordings; or
(3) a fine of not more than $25,000, or imprisonment for not more than a year and a day, or both, for any other violation.
Emphasis with bold.
Going back to the topic, isn't it silly to consider piracy much worse than actual theft?
-
how am i supposed to know what happened in the court rooms? you'll have to find her court dockets if you're really that interested or track her down and ask her yourself. If it was unlawful, im pretty sure the court wouldn't have been able to pass the sentence. That lil story hardly covers everything that happened during her trials.
-
Bull****.
-
wot ever, its all pure speculation at this point.
-
i got some wonderful insight into the legal system by my friend's roommate. he is a lawyer, with an engineering BS degree. according to him, legal proceedings are NOT based on logical application of the actual laws. it is based on the eloquence of the speaker and their ability to wow the judge/jury with usually irrelevant rhetoric. and this is what law school teaches and trains them to do.
so you'll forgive me if i'm not swayed by the "if it was illegal it wouldn't have happened to her in court" argument.
-
well like i said, i have no idea what happened in her trials. We can all sit around the camp fire and guess until we die of starvation but until someone presents the documents, we'll never know. I'm not going to speculate any further as to what happened. What i do know is she got found guilty, twice and got hit with a large fine.
-
Yeah, and all this discussion about the morals of fining a woman 1.9 million dollars for making a copy of a disk is completely "speculative" until we all know these documents.
/SARCASM
-
well what do you want me to say? i've already stated that i have no sympathy for her. i have no idea how the 1. wotever million fine was arrived at. And i dare say, neither do you.
-
Yes, you made it clear that you don't give a damn. Well I just hope you'll never get to see the other end of the barrel for any "crime" that you may end up committing that you weren't even aware was such a big fuss.
-
again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If i do something illegal and get busted for it, its my own damn fault, plain and simple. Unlike some people, i'll take responsibility for my actions, what ever they may be.
PS i am officially over this convo.
-
This just in, illegally downloading two CDs worth of songs is worth a fine ten thousand times greater than that for drunk driving.
Yay, we've got our priorities straight.
-
This just in, illegally downloading two CDs worth of songs is worth a fine ten thousand times greater than that for drunk driving.
Yay, we've got our priorities straight.
But in the case of drunk driving you could actually kill some no named soccer mom whereas if you pirate a song you deprive a rich person of potential bonus money, which do you think the politicians are going to find more valuable?
Actually come to think of it, since the MPAA was busted pirating software (http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-we-were-only-testing-forest-blog/) a few years back why weren't they fined a million dollars? Better yet, can we use the same BS they did, that they were only testing it?
-
All this is required you see, because that's the law we have, so it is by definition morally correct, Ghostavo.
That sentence doesn't even work as a sarcastic remark for me. ;) Law =! Morals is just too obvious.
again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If i do something illegal and get busted for it, its my own damn fault, plain and simple. Unlike some people, i'll take responsibility for my actions, what ever they may be.
If you lived 70 years ago... then one week in Nazi Germany would quickly have cured you of such blind trust in "the law".
As others have pointed out, you need history lessons, badly.
-
All this is required you see, because that's the law we have, so it is by definition morally correct, Ghostavo.
That sentence doesn't even work as a sarcastic remark for me. ;) Law =! Morals is just too obvious.
again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If i do something illegal and get busted for it, its my own damn fault, plain and simple. Unlike some people, i'll take responsibility for my actions, what ever they may be.
If you lived 70 years ago... then one week in Nazi Germany would quickly have cured you of such blind trust in "the law".
As others have pointed out, you need history lessons, badly.
if i lived 70 years ago in germany, i wouldn't be here today. thats just stupid. Also, i never once said i had blind trust in the law. You're suffering from a problem that most of you net nerds suffer from and are making too many assumptions on how i live my life. I obey the law, i pay my taxes, i vote. I understand that adult life means responsiblity and consiquences. Why don't i break the law? You think its because i'm ascared of the police? You think maybe its because I don't wanna go to jail and get fined... Well to answer the first question, no, why the **** would i be afraid of the police? If i don't do anything to break the law, i'm not going to have any official dealings with them.
To answer the 2nd question... hell no i don't want to go to jail or get fined. I've got too many other things id rather be doing with my time, and i don't need to do anything illegal to enjoy myself either. I think you folks need a lesson in reality. You do stupid ****, you may end up paying for it.
Really... none of this is hard. Be a decent f'n person and you won't have trouble.... atleast in my life experiences, thats always been the case. I can't speak for anyone else. I do know that if you end up on the wrong side of the law, you'll get **** on.
So please mr man, give me a history lesson that will show me the error of my ways so i can be a ftard like all these other folks that are getting sued, cuz... hell yeah, why not, let me join in all the fun. You seem to have all the answers. Or... is this a case of trying to fight the system cuz its the cool thing to do?
-
Also, i never once said i had blind trust in the law.
You never said it, but it's fairly obvious from your other statements, e.g.
If i don't do anything to break the law, i'm not going to have any official dealings with them.
It really isn't that hard to find examples of how unfounded that assumption is. Just from today: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml).
i don't need to do anything illegal to enjoy myself either.
Do you have a complete understanding of the laws in your country? As you said
again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
-
I thought you were done with the thread.
-
Also, i never once said i had blind trust in the law.
You never said it, but it's fairly obvious from your other statements, e.g.
If i don't do anything to break the law, i'm not going to have any official dealings with them.
It really isn't that hard to find examples of how unfounded that assumption is. Just from today: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml).
i don't need to do anything illegal to enjoy myself either.
Do you have a complete understanding of the laws in your country? As you said
again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Nope, I don't. I doubt anyone does... however, I know claiming "i didn't know" in court wouldn't get me forgivness for comitting a crime. I'm not part of some activist group, so its not an unfounded assumption, its a fact... FBI won't show up at my door, and even if for some odd reason they did, i don't have anything to worry about. I don't do things that could be misconstrued as terrorisim. I don't look at kiddie porn... i don't pirate software, movies, music, etc. I don't steal from folks, i don't break into peoples houses/businesses/cars. I don't harass folks... I could sit here for days listing things that I don't do that would cause attention from the authorities to be brought to me.
I can sit here and say with 100% assuredness that i will never end up in jail for committing a crime. Is it possible that I get arrested cuz of mistaken identity? sure... anything's possible... i could also build a rocket in my back yard and take a weekend trip to the moon, but both scenerios are pretty damn unlikely.
If you live under constant fear of the police kicking down your door, that's your life. I don't.
-
how did you get onto fear of the police? no one said anything about that. for someone calling us all "net nerds," you're displaying an awful lot of net rage symptoms yourself.
-
If you live under constant fear of the police kicking down your door, that's your life. I don't.
Well, to be fair, if SWAT can accidentally raid the mayor's house and shoot his dogs, it could happen to you...
-
In any case, back on topic.
Anyone remember this little gem? http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement
Nothing shows more clearly how hypocritical the music industry and the laws they lobby for really is in my humble opinion.
Law? Guess that only applies to defenseless/poor citizens and not to the record companies themselves.
I'm curious how you want to justify that one Vertigo. I.e. How is it ok to ruin that woman's life on the one hand, but give the record companies a free pass for the same crime - actually worse crime, as the record companies used copyright infringement for profit on a large scale - on the other?
It's as nonsensical as the difference in punishment for shoplifting and downloading the same songs in my eyes.
Double standards. That's justice huh?
-
Forget about Vertigo's radical opinions, if you want a real good debate about this subject ;).
But I guess that would be boring, since I can see that we are all (except Vertigo) on the same page give or take a few notches.
-
In any case, back on topic.
Anyone remember this little gem? http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement
Nothing shows more clearly how hypocritical the music industry and the laws they lobby for really is in my humble opinion.
Law? Guess that only applies to defenseless/poor citizens and not to the record companies themselves.
I'm curious how you want to justify that one Vertigo. I.e. How is it ok to ruin that woman's life on the one hand, but give the record companies a free pass for the same crime - actually worse crime, as the record companies used copyright infringement for profit on a large scale - on the other?
It's as nonsensical as the difference in punishment for shoplifting and downloading the same songs in my eyes.
Double standards. That's justice huh?
What? Who said they're getting away with it? did you actually read the article? At the time of the writing, they were still in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if all is true with that, sure, **** em up. I think you've completely misunderstood my position here. I'm not defending anyone that commits a crime. If you bother to read the previous posts, im sure you'll see that.
BTW that woman was offered a chance to settle out of court for a pittance and refused. http://digitaljournal.com/article/274415.
-
According to Timesonline, the RIAA has sued thousands of people for illegally downloading or sharing music, but most settle for $3,000 to $5,000.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/274415#ixzz1PwmrSFcA
This is outright extorsion and oppression and these corporate crooks should be shot in their heads.
-
Forget about Vertigo's radical opinions, if you want a real good debate about this subject ;).
But I guess that would be boring, since I can see that we are all (except Vertigo) on the same page give or take a few notches.
Yes, im totally radical cuz i disagree with you... give me a break.
-
According to Timesonline, the RIAA has sued thousands of people for illegally downloading or sharing music, but most settle for $3,000 to $5,000.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/274415#ixzz1PwmrSFcA
This is outright extorsion and oppression and these corporate crooks should be shot in their heads.
Really? thats your answer? Ya know, from what i gather from your posts it just seems to me you want to defend the underdog and damn the man for coming down hard on folks that piss in their cherios.
-
I don't think you would understand me. You think that copying a cd music and being fined 1.9 million dollars is all part of a just system. Reaching this level of absurdity, nothing more is left to say really.
-
Hrm... lets see, she was sued for distribution, on a case which alleged over 1000 songs and could have initially been a fine of millions (btw this was a federal trial so minnesota statutes wouldn't have applied) and was found guilty for 24 of them after refusing settle out of court. she then appealed this and the court awarded damages of 1.whatever million.
It's not like they came at her with the intention of getting that much money... but she forced their hand and they fought back. They were well within their rights to do so, as was she well within her rights to try to fight them. Either way, that doesn't excuse her actions, never will, so i'll sit back here in my comfy air conditioned home and lawl at the results of her illegal activities.
-
Yeah I know she forced them to make her pay basically two million dollars.
For copying 24 songs.
And you still don't get it. I'm astonished at that, that's all.
-
What? Who said they're getting away with it?
Oh they very much got away with it.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/
http://www.musicandmischief.com/radio/radio-on-air/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists%E2%80%99-music
They ended up paying 45 Million (instead of the 6 Billion they would have owed by their own standards set for copyright infringement.)
That's for over 300.000 songs... in Canada alone. And mind you... they not only downloaded/copied them... they actual sold them and made a profit .
The best part (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/11/0615258/Record-Labels-To-Pay-For-Copyright-Infringement):
"Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., EMI Music Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. have agreed to pay songwriters and music publishers $47.5 million in damages for copyright infringement and overdue royalties to settle a class action lawsuit. 'The 2008 class action alleges that the record companies "exploited" music owners by reproducing and selling in excess of 300,000 song titles without securing licenses from the copyright owners and/or without paying the associated royalty payments. The record companies knowingly did so and kept a so-called "pending list" of unlicensed reproductions, setting aside $50 million for the issue, if it ever arose, court filings suggest.'"
See... they actually set aside the money "in case the issue ever arose" and not only profitted from selling the pirated songs the whole time but also collected interest on the money they set aside "just in case"... and they ended up paying even less than they set aside in advance, all the while fully knowing that they were engaging in illegal behavior as part of their "regular business practice". It took a class action suit to make them pay anything. The amount they had to pay is insignificant. It doesn't hurt them. It's even less than they already set aside. They'll prolly call it an unexpected net 5 Million profit.
Finally, from the second article (http://www.musicandmischief.com/radio/radio-on-air/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists%E2%80%99-music):
The major issues that led to this dispute are not resolved though. After paying off a small part of their debt the labels can continue to ‘pirate’ artists’ music as usual, using their work and placing the outstanding payments on a pending list for decades. A real solution would require the licensing system to change, and that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.
So yeah... I guess that picture in the second article applies to you as well. ;)
But yes of course... the woman who downloads 24 songs for private use - i.e. not even for profit - needs to have her life permanently ruined... because... ?
-
oh no, i get it. you feel like its proportionately out of whack. If we do the math here... say she was offered to settle for 5000, that would have ended up less than $5 per song that the record company discovered on her PC, maybe a little steep but she was cought with her hand in the cookie jar so to speak and in all good sense, prolly should have just paid it and been done with it. instead, she took it to court, they obliged her... could only prove 24 songs were distributed, jury assesed damages of 220,000. I don't know if that requires a unamious jury verdict or not, either way, other folks out there thought she should have to pay. she then appealed this and another jury assessed damages of nearly 2 million. Again, other people out there thought this was fair and she needed to pay even more money.
If you're trying to get me to say its too much money, id give up now because i wont say that. This case was fought and she lossed twice more than 2 years ago and no matter what i say can change that.
If it makes you feel better, call the excess monies a moron tax.
-
If it makes you feel better, call the excess monies a moron tax.
I call it an injustice caused by lobbyism and unjust laws. How about that.
Even if you compare the cost:
Woman who downloaded 24 songs for private use: 5000/24 = 203.33 $ per song.
Woman who downloaded 24 songs for private use after appeal = 1.9 Million/24 = 79166.00 $ per song. End result: Life ruined forever.
Company who intentionally sold pirated songs as part of their business practice for decades: 45Million/300000 $ = 150 $ per song. End result: Can continue business as usual.
See... there is no way you can regard that law as just because well... it is not. There no way around that ugly fact.
-
Pirating being illegal is an unjust law?
I'll wait for you to rephrase that.
-
What? Who said they're getting away with it?
Oh they very much got away with it.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/
http://www.musicandmischief.com/radio/radio-on-air/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists%E2%80%99-music
They ended up paying 45 Million (instead of the 6 Billion they would have owed by their own standards set for copyright infringement.)
That's for over 300.000 songs... in Canada alone. And mind you... they not only downloaded/copied them... they actual sold them and made a profit .
The best part (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/11/0615258/Record-Labels-To-Pay-For-Copyright-Infringement):
"Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., EMI Music Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. have agreed to pay songwriters and music publishers $47.5 million in damages for copyright infringement and overdue royalties to settle a class action lawsuit. 'The 2008 class action alleges that the record companies "exploited" music owners by reproducing and selling in excess of 300,000 song titles without securing licenses from the copyright owners and/or without paying the associated royalty payments. The record companies knowingly did so and kept a so-called "pending list" of unlicensed reproductions, setting aside $50 million for the issue, if it ever arose, court filings suggest.'"
See... they actually set aside the money "in case the issue ever arose" and not only profitted from selling the pirated songs the whole time but also collected interest on the money they set aside "just in case"... and they ended up paying even less than they set aside in advance, all the while fully knowing that they were engaging in illegal behavior as part of their "regular business practice". It took a class action suit to make them pay anything. The amount they had to pay is insignificant. It doesn't hurt them. It's even less than they already set aside. They'll prolly call it an unexpected net 5 Million profit.
Finally, from the second article (http://www.musicandmischief.com/radio/radio-on-air/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists%E2%80%99-music):
The major issues that led to this dispute are not resolved though. After paying off a small part of their debt the labels can continue to ‘pirate’ artists’ music as usual, using their work and placing the outstanding payments on a pending list for decades. A real solution would require the licensing system to change, and that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.
So yeah... I guess that picture in the second article applies to you as well. ;)
But yes of course... the woman who downloads 24 songs for private use - i.e. not even for profit - needs to have her life permanently ruined... because... ?
l2read. she was sued for distribution, not for private use. don't assume everything the great and powerful luis dias says to be the unvarnished truth. Also, if you're going to quote me, quote me
What? Who said they're getting away with it? did you actually read the article? At the time of the writing, they were still in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if all is true with that, sure, **** em up. I think you've completely misunderstood my position here. I'm not defending anyone that commits a crime. If you bother to read the previous posts, im sure you'll see that.
if i picked apart everything you say, i could try to skew everything as OMG HES SO ****ED UP. but i don't do that.
-
l2read. she was sued for distribution, not for private use. don't assume everything the great and powerful luis dias says to be the unvarnished truth. Also, if you're going to quote me, quote me
Doesn't invalidate the argument when you compare it to a company actually profiting from pirated songs for decades as part of their business practice. It's still a huge difference.
Especially when you consider that the company could continue business as usual, while the woman's life is effectively ruined.
What? Who said they're getting away with it? did you actually read the article? At the time of the writing, they were still in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if all is true with that, sure, **** em up. I think you've completely misunderstood my position here. I'm not defending anyone that commits a crime. If you bother to read the previous posts, im sure you'll see that.[
Read the other articles I linked? The matter is long settled. They got a slap on the wrist and had to pay even less than they put aside already anyways. Yay profits.
Pirating being illegal is an unjust law?
I'll wait for you to rephrase that.
Oh pirating being illegal is just fine. Authors and Artists very much deserve to get paid in my opinion. That's not the point however. And I never said that it was unjust that it was "illegal" either.
The punishment associated with it is completely out of whack with what is considered "just punishment" for other crimes. That's what is unjust.
-
l2read. she was sued for distribution, not for private use. don't assume everything the great and powerful luis dias says to be the unvarnished truth. Also, if you're going to quote me, quote me
Doesn't invalidate the argument when you compare it to a company actually profiting from pirated songs for decades as part of their business practice. It's still a huge difference.
What? Who said they're getting away with it? did you actually read the article? At the time of the writing, they were still in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if all is true with that, sure, **** em up. I think you've completely misunderstood my position here. I'm not defending anyone that commits a crime. If you bother to read the previous posts, im sure you'll see that.[
Read the other articles? The matter is long settled. They got a slap on the wrist and had to pay even less than they put aside already anyways. Yay profits.
Pirating being illegal is an unjust law?
I'll wait for you to rephrase that.
Oh pirating is very much illegal in my opinion. That's not the point however.
The punishment associated with it is completely out of whack with what is considered "just punishment" for other crimes.
im pretty sure you missed a key phrase in that article. THEY SETTLED OUT OF COURT. that woman was assessed with damages by a jury after refusing to settle, and again l2read, the record comanies found over 1000 songs on her computer and offered to settle the matter before going to court. So she refused to settle and they could only prove that 24 songs were illegally distributed. That's what she got slammed for. so whatever the settlement offer was, assuming the high end of 5000 that has been reported, devided by 1000 = 5. So by your logic, she *could* have dealt with this issue far more cheeply per song than the record companies did.
Again, if you l2read, i said they deserved to be ****ed up. I bet you anything that if they refused to settle in court, a jury would have assessed the billions worth of damages against them. Unlike that woman, they took the smart option and paid the piper. Am i saying that what they did was cool? no, absolutely not. It doesn't matter if you're a small town no body or a big named business, you do stupid ****, you just may end up paying for it.
-
oh no, i get it. you feel like its proportionately out of whack. If we do the math here... say she was offered to settle for 5000, that would have ended up less than $5 per song that the record company discovered on her PC
You fail at justice here man. They were only able to prove that 24 songs were copied / distributed / WHATEVER.
I have tons of music files in my pc too. Doesn't mean ****.
...maybe a little steep but she was cought with her hand in the cookie jar so to speak and in all good sense, prolly should have just paid it and been done with it. instead, she took it to court, they obliged her... could only prove 24 songs were distributed, jury assesed damages of 220,000.
The jury agreed with the quantity involved here? Now that's a novelty here. Where did you gather this intel?
I don't know if that requires a unamious jury verdict or not, either way, other folks out there thought she should have to pay. she then appealed this and another jury assessed damages of nearly 2 million. Again, other people out there thought this was fair and she needed to pay even more money.
I find it hard to believe that "people", ordinary people will find 2 million dollar fine an acceptable punishment for 24 songs.
If you're trying to get me to say its too much money, id give up now because i wont say that.
Of course you won't. And that's amazing. Just amazing.
This case was fought and she lossed twice more than 2 years ago and no matter what i say can change that.
And here I was thinking that you could change her fine. Boy was I dreaming.
If it makes you feel better, call the excess monies a moron tax.
I'll call it a calamity. A disaster. Inhuman. Hell incarnated. Abusive as in multiple gangrape.
This person's life is absolutely finished if this surreal decision isn't tossed to the garbage.
-
She refused to settle because the settlement was completely ridiculous, forsure.
Perhaps they even attempted to make her pay for a thousand songs, although they could only find evidence for 24 of them being pirated.
I mean, I know I'm being trolled, but man I had never seen anything like this. It's scary. If more people think like you do, wow it's a ****ing nightmare.
-
im pretty sure you missed a key phrase in that article. THEY SETTLED OUT OF COURT. that woman was assessed with damages by a jury after refusing to settle, and again l2read, the record comanies found over 1000 songs on her computer and offered to settle the matter before going to court. So she refused to settle and they could only prove that 24 songs were illegally distributed. That's what she got slammed for. so whatever the settlement offer was, assuming the high end of 5000 that has been reported, devided by 1000 = 5. So by your logic, she *could* have dealt with this issue far more cheeply per song than the record companies did.
Again, if you l2read, i said they deserved to be ****ed up. I bet you anything that if they refused to settle in court, a jury would have assessed the billions worth of damages against them. Unlike that woman, they took the smart option and paid the piper. Am i saying that what they did was cool? no, absolutely not. It doesn't matter if you're a small town no body or a big named business, you do stupid ****, you just may end up paying for it.
You're missing the point... I'm still waiting how you want to justify a law that includes such ridiculously inflated fines.
How is that justice? It's outright ridiculous compared to any out of court settlement and it is ridiculous compared to punishment for other crimes.
The second point you are missing is that there is no way that a large powerful company is ever going to be subject to this law. No matter what they do and no matter how often they appeal.
The only one ever to be subject to that law are unlucky private citizens with either bad luck or bad legal counsel.
How is that justice?
P.S. And yes the woman may have had 1000 songs on her PC but they could only provide proof for 24. Proof is still required before you court... you know. ;) Now do you really think the 300.000 songs in the other case were/are the only songs on pending lists? LOL. Again... you missed the point. This is current "best practice" in the industry and if anything the outcome of the case actually encourages it - while an ordinary citizen gets first threathened with outrageous fines and then gets her life destroyed on appeal for the same - or arguably even a lesser - crime.
-
oh no, i get it. you feel like its proportionately out of whack. If we do the math here... say she was offered to settle for 5000, that would have ended up less than $5 per song that the record company discovered on her PC
You fail at justice here man. They were only able to prove that 24 songs were copied / distributed / WHATEVER.
I have tons of music files in my pc too. Doesn't mean ****.
...maybe a little steep but she was cought with her hand in the cookie jar so to speak and in all good sense, prolly should have just paid it and been done with it. instead, she took it to court, they obliged her... could only prove 24 songs were distributed, jury assesed damages of 220,000.
The jury agreed with the quantity involved here? Now that's a novelty here. Where did you gather this intel?
I don't know if that requires a unamious jury verdict or not, either way, other folks out there thought she should have to pay. she then appealed this and another jury assessed damages of nearly 2 million. Again, other people out there thought this was fair and she needed to pay even more money.
I find it hard to believe that "people", ordinary people will find 2 million dollar fine an acceptable punishment for 24 songs.
If you're trying to get me to say its too much money, id give up now because i wont say that.
Of course you won't. And that's amazing. Just amazing.
This case was fought and she lossed twice more than 2 years ago and no matter what i say can change that.
And here I was thinking that you could change her fine. Boy was I dreaming.
If it makes you feel better, call the excess monies a moron tax.
I'll call it a calamity. A disaster. Inhuman. Hell incarnated. Abusive as in multiple gangrape.
This person's life is absolutely finished if this surreal decision isn't tossed to the garbage.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/
how many times do i have to repeat myself? You must get off on making people say the same thing over and over again. i have no sympathy for her, and the beauty of it is... i don't have to. If you do, thats your problem. go start a charity for her if it really bothers you that much.
-
Now I find myself wishing that one of the kids of that jury, or even better, most sons of the juri find themselves in the exact same situation so they can be in the other end of the barrel.
Creepy mother****ers.
-
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/
From your article:
The case, however, did set legal precedents favoring the industry.
In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant’s computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas’ share folder.
Thomas, 30, maintained that she was not the Kazaa user "Tereastarr," whose files were detected by RIAA’s investigators. Her attorney speculated to jurors that she could have been the victim of a spoof, cracker, zombie, drone and other attacks.
The jury found her liable after receiving evidence her internet protocol address and cable modem identifier were used to share some 1,700 files. The hard drive linked to Kazaa on Feb. 21, 2005 — the evening in question — did not become evidence in the case.
You know what's really scary? According to that article it only takes a hacker to access/use your network and you can face the same fate that this woman did.
Doesn't matter if that's the case in her case or not... what really does matter is that it's possible. You don't really have to "do" anything for ending up in court.
They did not even require her harddrive to convict her for f**** sake. I.e. They did not even have to proove that the folder they accessed ever was on a harddrive that ever was in a computer that she ever used.
Wow... I mean seriously.
Wonderful new world :)
-
Yeah brave new world. Come on Big Brother, the Vertigo's of this world will all bow to your awesomeness.
-
im pretty sure you missed a key phrase in that article. THEY SETTLED OUT OF COURT. that woman was assessed with damages by a jury after refusing to settle, and again l2read, the record comanies found over 1000 songs on her computer and offered to settle the matter before going to court. So she refused to settle and they could only prove that 24 songs were illegally distributed. That's what she got slammed for. so whatever the settlement offer was, assuming the high end of 5000 that has been reported, devided by 1000 = 5. So by your logic, she *could* have dealt with this issue far more cheeply per song than the record companies did.
Again, if you l2read, i said they deserved to be ****ed up. I bet you anything that if they refused to settle in court, a jury would have assessed the billions worth of damages against them. Unlike that woman, they took the smart option and paid the piper. Am i saying that what they did was cool? no, absolutely not. It doesn't matter if you're a small town no body or a big named business, you do stupid ****, you just may end up paying for it.
You're missing the point... I'm still waiting how you want to justify a law that includes such ridiculously inflated fines.
How is that justice? It's outright ridiculous compared to any out of court settlement and it is ridiculous compared to punishment for other crimes.
The second point you are missing is that there is no way that a large powerful company is ever going to be subject to this law. No matter what they do and no matter how often they appeal.
The only one ever to be subject to that law are unlucky private citizens with either bad luck or bad legal counsel.
How is that justice?
P.S. And yes the woman may have had 1000 songs on her PC but they could only provide proof for 24. Proof is still required before you court... you know. ;) Now do you really think the 300.000 songs in the other case were/are the only songs on pending lists? LOL. Again... you missed the point. This is current "best practice" in the industry and if anything the outcome of the case actually encourages it - while an ordinary citizen gets first threathened with outrageous fines and then gets her life destroyed on appeal for the same - or arguably even a lesser - crime.
dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it. If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. There could just as easily been way more things pirated by that woman than the 1000 songs that were discovered or the 24 that were proved to be distributed as the 300,000 songs on the "pending list". Thats just what she got caught for as well as the record company. Both entities in this example are equally as ****ed up in the head.
-
Ok, I'll just stop reading this thread. It's worse than mindraping and it is making me dizzy really.
-
dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it.
It's part of their business plan. They even set aside accruals for being caught (and needed 5 Million less than they set aside). It's profitable for them to continue pirating songs no matter if they are caught or not and no one keeps them from doing it. That is very much the definition of "getting away with it".
-
dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it.
It's part of their business plan. They even set aside accruals for being caught (and needed 5 Million less than they set aside). It's profitable for them to continue pirating songs no matter if they are caught or not and no one keeps them from doing it. That is very much the definition of "getting away with it".
If they are indeed setting themselves up to be sued, then thats economically retarded. Especially if a label is putting something out there on the market with out the artists permission. It wouldn't take a whole lot of investigation to catch them and eventually, if they keep it up, they'll get a C&D order from the court or they'll continue to be sued and settle and spend more money in the long run to deal with it than they would make. It's like a rich guy doing 200 down the interstate in a corvette and when he gets pulled over, tosses a stack of 100's at the cop and speeds of. All that does is make them douche bags.
-
If they are indeed setting themselves up to be sued, then thats economically retarded. Especially if a label is putting something out there on the market with out the artists permission. It wouldn't take a whole lot of investigation to catch them and eventually, if they keep it up, they'll get a C&D order from the court or they'll continue to be sued and settle and spend more money in the long run to deal with it than they would make. It's like a rich guy doing 200 down the interstate in a corvette and when he gets pulled over, tosses a stack of 100's at the cop and speeds of. All that does is make them douche bags.
You got that wrong... it would be economically retarded NOT to do it as even if they get caught it is more profitable than paying the artists in advance.
Would be nice if they ever had to face any serious repercussions... that actually would restore some faith in our legal system... but keep dreaming. lol. Hell would rather freeze over several times;)
From another article evaluating the case (before it was resolved):http://www.azoz.com/newsarchive/2009/12/CRIApiracy.html
If this case were being tried in the United States, I would assume that the labels would win. Not because they're innocent, just because of the way our court system works.
In the past, the RIAA's favorite defense against a Dept. of Justice inquiry was "No, you can't look at our records. We are in a foreign country. You have no jurisdiction." (United States v. Time Warner, Inc., Sony, PolyGram, EMI Music, Bertelsmann, and MCA)
If they do get caught at something, it ends up being settled out of court for a minimal fee without admitting guilt. It's how they resolved charges of restraining competition, price fixing and payola.
So the government has been letting the labels get away with everything, never receiving more than a slap on the wrist, never admitting they did anything wrong. Now that the DOJ is run by ex-RIAA lawyers, it would seem that regardless of the outcome of the trial, the labels would never be held to account.
-
dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it.
It's part of their business plan. They even set aside accruals for being caught (and needed 5 Million less than they set aside). It's profitable for them to continue pirating songs no matter if they are caught or not and no one keeps them from doing it. That is very much the definition of "getting away with it".
If they are indeed setting themselves up to be sued, then thats economically retarded. Especially if a label is putting something out there on the market with out the artists permission. It wouldn't take a whole lot of investigation to catch them and eventually, if they keep it up, they'll get a C&D order from the court or they'll continue to be sued and settle and spend more money in the long run to deal with it than they would make. It's like a rich guy doing 200 down the interstate in a corvette and when he gets pulled over, tosses a stack of 100's at the cop and speeds of. All that does is make them douche bags.
Hey, "l2read."
#1. They're making money off of it, so it isn't "economically retarded," as you so colorfully put it.
#2. The courts know that they're doing it, and they still get away with it by virtue of being filthy rich.
[....] If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. [....]
Most people would be unable to survive a debt of 220,000 USD, no matter how it was set-up. It is more than likely that she would have never recovered from it, even if she had settled.
It is very much a Kobayashi Maru situation, to be sued by a major corporation/conglomerate.
dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it. If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. There could just as easily been way more things pirated by that woman than the 1000 songs that were discovered or the 24 that were proved to be distributed as the 300,000 songs on the "pending list". Thats just what she got caught for as well as the record company. Both entities in this example are equally as ****ed up in the head.
So people should be punished more harshly because they "probbably" did something that no one can prove?
I'm sorry, but that goes against the very grain of what a legal system is supposed to stand for. And if you truly believe in that mantra, you are as morally bankrupt as those that corrupt the system.
-
Yay, disagreeing with a legal system is being morally bankrupt now.
This thread is full of awesome stuff like that.
-
dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it.
It's part of their business plan. They even set aside accruals for being caught (and needed 5 Million less than they set aside). It's profitable for them to continue pirating songs no matter if they are caught or not and no one keeps them from doing it. That is very much the definition of "getting away with it".
If they are indeed setting themselves up to be sued, then thats economically retarded. Especially if a label is putting something out there on the market with out the artists permission. It wouldn't take a whole lot of investigation to catch them and eventually, if they keep it up, they'll get a C&D order from the court or they'll continue to be sued and settle and spend more money in the long run to deal with it than they would make. It's like a rich guy doing 200 down the interstate in a corvette and when he gets pulled over, tosses a stack of 100's at the cop and speeds of. All that does is make them douche bags.
Hey, "l2read."
#1. They're making money off of it, so it isn't "economically retarded," as you so colorfully put it.
#2. The courts know that they're doing it, and they still get away with it by virtue of being filthy rich.
Do you seriously think they can continue to operate their business if they're getting sued every other week?
[....] If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. [....]
Most people would be unable to survive a debt of 220,000 USD, no matter how it was set-up. It is more than likely that she would have never recovered from it, even if she had settled.
It is very much a Kobayashi Maru situation, to be sued by a major corporation/conglomerate.
220k is less than most houses cost these days. and that was the first trial results. the settlement was in the 3-5k range that was reported.
dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it. If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. There could just as easily been way more things pirated by that woman than the 1000 songs that were discovered or the 24 that were proved to be distributed as the 300,000 songs on the "pending list". Thats just what she got caught for as well as the record company. Both entities in this example are equally as ****ed up in the head.
So people should be punished more harshly because they "probbably" did something that no one can prove?
I'm sorry, but that goes against the very grain of what a legal system is supposed to stand for. And if you truly believe in that mantra, you are as morally bankrupt as those that corrupt the system.
[/quote]
Where did i ever say that? that was a reponse to the silly statement that the record companies may have had more than the 300,000 songs on the pending list. My point to that was that was what they were cought for, same as the songs that woman got caught for. I never meant to imply she got sued or fined for what may have been, if thats what you interpreted from that... stop reading into things that arent there. She got sued for what was, same as the record company.
*edit
it seems to me that you and mikes are mad at the record company for having enough money to settle the issue and move on with life. Please, correct me if im wrong, but thats the way the two of you are coming across. Otherwise, you're completely missing the fact that they got busted and sued just like all the other folks that have been caught.
-
*edit
it seems to me that you and mikes are mad at the record company for having enough money to settle the issue and move on with life. Please, correct me if im wrong, but thats the way the two of you are coming across. Otherwise, you're completely missing the fact that they got busted and sued just like all the other folks that have been caught.
You are missing the larger picture.
Record companies are rarely if ever sued. If they are sued... it's still more profitable for them to continue breaking the law. No one stops them.
Their lobby is the whole reason we got such harsh penalties on piracy (which are completely out of line with other, even more serious crimes)... while they themselves pirate happily away.
Check my earlier post to see how they deal with legal issues. Also check how many Ex-RIAA lawyers are sitting in DOJ right now.
The point is that laws/punishment against piracy has very little to do with justice, but rather very much with corporate greed and lobbyism.
As pointed out in that article you linked yourself earlier, with the current mess of legal framework, where they don't even need to supply any proof beyond that someone on your IP shared files: If someone hacks your network and uses your ISP for filesharing you are just as guilty before the law as that woman was. Kinda funny that thought... would you not appeal if you were convinced you were innocent? Would you just roll over and pay?;)
-
This discussion reminds me the absurdity of the RIAA lawsuits. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/)
-
*edit
it seems to me that you and mikes are mad at the record company for having enough money to settle the issue and move on with life. Please, correct me if im wrong, but thats the way the two of you are coming across. Otherwise, you're completely missing the fact that they got busted and sued just like all the other folks that have been caught.
You are missing the larger picture.
Record companies are rarely if ever sued. If they are sued... it's still more profitable for them to continue breaking the law. No one stops them.
Their lobby is the whole reason we got such harsh penalties on piracy (which are completely out of line with other, even more serious crimes)... while they themselves pirate happily away.
Check my earlier post to see how they deal with legal issues. Also check how many Ex-RIAA lawyers are sitting in DOJ right now.
The point is that laws/punishment against piracy has very little to do with justice, but rather very much with corporate greed and lobbyism.
If they're doing illegal stuffs, they should be punished just like everyone else. I've never stated anything contrary to that. So basically what you're saying is they're making themselves untouchable like a mob boss... okay, but i should also point out that if 1 case can make it to court, so can others. They are not invincible.
As pointed out in that article you linked yourself earlier, with the current mess of legal framework, where they don't even need to supply any proof beyond that someone on your IP shared files: If someone hacks your network and uses your ISP for filesharing you are just as guilty before the law as that woman was. Kinda funny that thought... would you not appeal if you were convinced you were innocent? Would you just roll over and pay?;)
as pointed out in that article, the womans lawyer speculated that she could have been hacked or whatever... but amazingly presented no evidence to support that claim, on the other hand, evidence was presented that showed she was hosting music. In fact, by testimony in court, she trashed the HDD the RIAA investigators discovered the files on in the first place. While this is speculatory, its pretty obvious she was trying to hide her dirty deeds. I can easily see how that conclusion could be reached. Actually, reading that article over and over, i don't see anywhere in it that the court ruled that she or anyone would be liable for being hacked. You're trying too hard to make up something that isn't there bud.
2ndly, IF that were to happen to me(which again is about as likely as me building a rocket and taking a weekend trip to the moon), I would have firewall and event logs to prove my innocense, not to mention that any of my PC's wouldn't have a shred of incriminating evidence on them. I find that arguement to be overly silly. she was found liable by 2 different jurys. We can play what if games alllllll day long, but the fact remains she comitted a crime and got slammed. It wasn't a hypothetical situation she got busted for. it was a for real, caught red handed criminal activity that she got busted for.
-
This discussion reminds me the absurdity of the RIAA lawsuits. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/)
They actually sued against a 12 year old girl who downloaded 1 song and made her parents pay 2000 $... wow...
(Background article to the snippet from above's article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/ )
If they're doing illegal stuffs, they should be punished just like everyone else. I've never stated anything contrary to that. So basically what you're saying is they're making themselves untouchable like a mob boss... okay, but i should also point out that if 1 case can make it to court, so can others. They are not invincible.
Vertigo meet Reality. Reality, this is Vertigo, please enlighten him.
as pointed out in that article, the womans lawyer speculated that she could have been hacked or whatever... but amazingly presented no evidence to support that claim, on the other hand, evidence was presented that showed she was hosting music. In fact, by testimony in court, she trashed the HDD the RIAA investigators discovered the files on in the first place. While this is speculatory, its pretty obvious she was trying to hide her dirty deeds. I can easily see how that conclusion could be reached. Actually, reading that article over and over, i don't see anywhere in it that the court ruled that she or anyone would be liable for being hacked. You're trying too hard to make up something that isn't there bud.
2ndly, IF that were to happen to me(which again is about as likely as me building a rocket and taking a weekend trip to the moon), I would have firewall and event logs to prove my innocense, not to mention that any of my PC's would have a shred of incriminating evidence on them. I find that arguement to be overly silly. she was found liable by 2 different jurys. We can play what if games alllllll day long, but the fact remains she comitted a crime and got slammed. It wasn't a hypothetical situation she got busted for. it was a for real, caught red handed criminal activity that she got busted for.
As pointed out earlier: It doesn't matter what happened in this specific case. Fact is, as outlined in the article you linked yourself: They did not need to provide any solid proof other than the ISP being used for filesharing. It was irrelevant that they did not find a filesharing program on her PC. It was irrelevant that they could not even supply the harddisc in question. It was irrelevant that they could not without doubt link her to the username in question, et cetera. That's a huge precedent.
Law does not work like that for other crimes... lol. Remember... innocent until proven guilty?
It frakking does not matter one bit what someone propably did - especially not when you want to hold them liable for 1,9 million LOL. Forget that nonsense. That's the realm of police states and totalitarian regimes.
-
Reasonable doubt. Do you understand it?
-
This discussion reminds me the absurdity of the RIAA lawsuits. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/)
They actually sued against a 12 year old girl who downloaded 1 song and made her parents pay 2000 $... wow...
(Background article to the snippet from above's article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/ )
If they're doing illegal stuffs, they should be punished just like everyone else. I've never stated anything contrary to that. So basically what you're saying is they're making themselves untouchable like a mob boss... okay, but i should also point out that if 1 case can make it to court, so can others. They are not invincible.
Vertigo meet Reality. Reality, this is Vertigo, please enlighten him.
wtf are you babbeling about? Comments like this are neither constructive or relevant to the discussion.
as pointed out in that article, the womans lawyer speculated that she could have been hacked or whatever... but amazingly presented no evidence to support that claim, on the other hand, evidence was presented that showed she was hosting music. In fact, by testimony in court, she trashed the HDD the RIAA investigators discovered the files on in the first place. While this is speculatory, its pretty obvious she was trying to hide her dirty deeds. I can easily see how that conclusion could be reached. Actually, reading that article over and over, i don't see anywhere in it that the court ruled that she or anyone would be liable for being hacked. You're trying too hard to make up something that isn't there bud.
2ndly, IF that were to happen to me(which again is about as likely as me building a rocket and taking a weekend trip to the moon), I would have firewall and event logs to prove my innocense, not to mention that any of my PC's would have a shred of incriminating evidence on them. I find that arguement to be overly silly. she was found liable by 2 different jurys. We can play what if games alllllll day long, but the fact remains she comitted a crime and got slammed. It wasn't a hypothetical situation she got busted for. it was a for real, caught red handed criminal activity that she got busted for.
As pointed out earlier: It doesn't matter what happened in this specific case. Fact is, as outlined in the article you linked yourself: They did not need to provide any solid proof other than the ISP being used for filesharing. That's a huge precedent.
lets look at that again, shall we
The jury found her liable after receiving evidence her internet protocol address and cable modem identifier were used to share some 1,700 files. The hard drive linked to Kazaa on Feb. 21, 2005 — the evening in question — did not become evidence in the case.
that proved the traffic came from her residence at the time. There was no evidence to support any claims of hacking or someone breaking into her house, sitting at her computer and doing this. Sure... ok its possible someone can get hacked, but again, there will be evidence to support that claim. I dunno how knowledgeable you are with PC's and networks, but generally speaking its pretty easy to prove where something originated from, even through proxy servers.
-
my god you do love editing your posts.
Her trashing the HDD probbably bit her in the ass more than anything, IF, and i stress the word IF, she was innocent. Murderers have been convicted with out having the murder weapon.
-
that proved the traffic came from her residence at the time. There was no evidence to support any claims of hacking or someone breaking into her house, sitting at her computer and doing this. Sure... ok its possible someone can get hacked, but again, there will be evidence to support that claim. I dunno how knowledgeable you are with PC's and networks, but generally speaking its pretty easy to prove where something originated from, even through proxy servers.
So basically if you have a wireless network you are screwed the moment someone else breaks in?
Sometimes you even still see unsecured networks.
Then there is also that Googlestreetview debacle where they *accidentially* recorded all wireless network locations while mapping the cities.
Don't tell me it's impossible.
While that woman propably/certainly did share these files... the punishment is still ridiculous for what she did for one and, more importantly, it's not out of the question that someone else will get convicted while being innocent, with this case as a precedent.
"Well grandpa... you shouldn't have run that Wireless Network without a secure password!"
"But I'm innocent!"
"Oh an appeal?"
If they take actions against 12 year old girls... it's bound to happen lol.
In my eyes, they don't really care if someone is guilty or not, they want to set examples as a deterrent.
-
that proved the traffic came from her residence at the time. There was no evidence to support any claims of hacking or someone breaking into her house, sitting at her computer and doing this. Sure... ok its possible someone can get hacked, but again, there will be evidence to support that claim. I dunno how knowledgeable you are with PC's and networks, but generally speaking its pretty easy to prove where something originated from, even through proxy servers.
So basically if you have a wireless network you are screwed the moment someone else breaks in?
Sometimes you even still see unsecured networks.
Then there is also that Googlestreetview debacle where they *accidentially* recorded all wireless network locations while mapping the cities.
Don't tell me it's impossible.
While that woman propably/certainly did share these files... the punishment is still ridiculous for what she did for one and, more importantly, it's not out of the question that someone else will get convicted while being innocent, with this case as a precedent.
"Well grandpa... you shouldn't have run that Wireless Network without a secure password!"
"But I'm innocent!"
"Oh an appeal?"
If they take actions against 12 year old girls... it's bound to happen lol.
No one said that innocent people havent been or will be wrongly accused of a crime. Mistakes happen, fact of life. Thats why there exists a court system. Is it perfect? no, of course not, but until someone comes up with something better, its what we got.
Now look, on the issue of WiFi... every WiFi AP i've ever seen records the MAC addy of any device that attaches, and some times attempts to attach, itself to the network. Thats pretty damn easy to prove weither or not the device was yours. MAC addys are unique. Sure, they can be spoofed, but the likely hood of someone spoofing a MAC addy of a device that you own is even more slim than me building a rocket and heading off to the moon. Anyway this arguement is pointless... a million and 1 different things COULD happen... theres always potential for disaster and success. So what do you suggest? we all run and bury our heads in the sand until its all over? Maybe we should just drop the interwebs all together, then theres no way you could be falsely accused of piracy.
-
Similar stuff happening over here in Europe where some developers ordered lawyers to mail "shotgun blasts" of letters to "potential filesharers" offering the "pay a fine now or go to trial" deal.
There was a huge scandal about that but the practice is still ongoing. Some lawfirms even specialize in it.
Basically if you are not insured you are rather screwed if you happen to get such a letter. Easier to pay than to get a good lawyer... without financial backup. (Who may even just advise you to pay if the fee isn't outrageously high, instead of risking the cost, effort and unsure outcome of a trial.) If you are guilty or innocent doesn't really matter all that much at that point. ;)
The point is... the current status quo is hardly where it stops. They (i.e. lobby) are not really interested in finding out if someone is guilty or not. They are interested in a) making money and b) setting examples, the harsher the better.
See, i completely agree with you that pirating is illegal and that it should be punished. What I disagree on is the ridiculous penalties (compared to other crimes), the double standards/hypocrisy (companies who lobby for harsher anti-piracy laws actually pirating themselves and selling the songs for profit) and the slippery slope that the legal system appears to be going down with the DOJ being dominated by Ex-RIAA lawyers.
Now look, on the issue of WiFi... every WiFi AP i've ever seen records the MAC addy of any device that attaches, and some times attempts to attach, itself to the network. Thats pretty damn easy to prove weither or not the device was yours. MAC addys are unique. Sure, they can be spoofed, but the likely hood of someone spoofing a MAC addy of a device that you own is even more slim than me building a rocket and heading off to the moon. Anyway this arguement is pointless... a million and 1 different things COULD happen... theres always potential for disaster and success.
Playing devils advocate: If they don't need the harddisc in that case why would they require the device that logged into your Wifi? You never owned one? Well maybe you trashed it because you were worried you got caught!
So what do you suggest? we all run and bury our heads in the sand until its all over? Maybe we should just drop the interwebs all together, then theres no way you could be falsely accused of piracy.
Not that it will happen... but the RIAA would certainly be cheering if the Internet would suddenly die off. Kidding aside... what I would suggest is, for starters, to think very hard on whether you really want to agree with/support the people who are lobbying for harsher and harsher anti-piracy laws (and commit piracy themselves as part of their usual business.)
No one said that innocent people havent been or will be wrongly accused of a crime. Mistakes happen, fact of life. Thats why there exists a court system. Is it perfect? no, of course not, but until someone comes up with something better, its what we got.
The purpose of a legal system in a state of law is not to convict criminals (That would be a police state/totalitarian regime, but not a state of law). It's main purpose is to protect innocent citizens/legal entities from crime.
That includes protecting innocent citizens/legal entities from having their property stolen. It does not include treating certain citizens/entities differently because they have more money and/or putting their interests above anyone elses,... but that is basically what is happening.
-
Similar stuff happening over here in Europe where some developers ordered lawyers to mail "shotgun blasts" of letters to "potential filesharers" offering the "pay a fine now or go to trial" deal.
There was a huge scandal about that but the practice is still ongoing. Some lawfirms even specialize in it.
Basically if you are not insured you are rather screwed if you happen to get such a letter. Easier to pay than to get a good lawyer... without financial backup. (Who may even just advise you to pay if the fee isn't outrageously high, instead of risking the cost, effort and unsure outcome of a trial.) If you are guilty or innocent doesn't really matter all that much at that point. ;)
The point is... the current status quo is hardly where it stops. They are not really interested in finding out if someone is guilty or not. They are interested in a) making money and b) setting examples, the harsher the better.
See, i completely agree with you that pirating is illegal and that it should be punished. What I disagree on is the ridiculous penalties (compared to other crimes), the double standards/hypocrisy (companies who lobby for harsher anti-piracy laws actually pirating themselves and selling the songs for profit) and the slippery slope that the legal system appears to be going down with the DOJ being dominated by Ex-RIAA lawyers.
Here's the thing... most of people getting caught by the MPAA/RIAA/<insert group name here> are setteling out of court, and while this is speculatory, theres a good chance its cuz they knew they did it. But really... setteling for 3-5k is a pretty sweet deal considering the potential damages if you force it to trial. There's an area around here where a fine for littering is $15,000. I personally don't know of anyone that's been hit by it, never seen anyone ever get charged with littering... im sure it happens. Cops could be a dick and charge someone with littering for tossing a cigarette butt out their window if they wanted to.
record labels pirating themselves is as you pointed out hypocritical. Yes, they need to be penalized for it just like everyone else. But that also at the same time shouldn't mean other folks should be allowed to continue to do it. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Really, i don't think they want to go to court (on the prosecuting side, i mean). They want it stopped, can't say that i blame them. Right now, this is what they have to try to stop it.
Are the penalties steep? Honestly, i can't say one way or another, and i really don't care, this won't ever effect me. But as ive said many pages ago, if you disagree with a law, take it up with the law makers. Write a petition, write letters, pick up a phone. Thinking its wrong is one thing, trying to do something about it is another.
-
You've missed the point that it's cheaper for innocent people to settle than it is to fight the case.
Let's say you got one of those letters. Settle now for $1000 dollars or pay a lawyer, fight the case in court and if you lose you'd have to pay $220,000. And even if you win, you may still have to pay the lawyer's fees which will probably be more than $1000. What exactly would you do in that situation?
You keep assuming that this will never happen to you but that's a silly defence if innocent people are getting hit by this.
-
Here's the thing... most of people getting caught by the MPAA/RIAA/<insert group name here> are setteling out of court, and while this is speculatory, theres a good chance its cuz they knew they did it. But really... setteling for 3-5k is a pretty sweet deal considering the potential damages if you force it to trial. There's an area around here where a fine for littering is $15,000. I personally don't know of anyone that's been hit by it, never seen anyone ever get charged with littering... im sure it happens. Cops could be a dick and charge someone with littering for tossing a cigarette butt out their window if they wanted to.
Pretty sweet deal... even if you are innocent? It's pretty much extortion. Pay a huge fine right now or risk a trial that you could lose even while innocent, if you have a bad lawyer (which you likely will have, if you are not filthy rich). Add to that... how little evidence is required (again, thanks to lobbying, no doubt) to convict someone of piracy and it becomes ridiculous.
record labels pirating themselves is as you pointed out hypocritical. Yes, they need to be penalized for it just like everyone else. But that also at the same time shouldn't mean other folks should be allowed to continue to do it. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Again, the only reason why there are such harsh penalties is because these same people lobby so hard for them... while they commit the crime themselves.
As also pointed out in earlier posts, they are virtually untouchable by any legal system that is bound by national borders.
Really, i don't think they want to go to court (on the prosecuting side, i mean). They want it stopped, can't say that i blame them. Right now, this is what they have to try to stop it.
First and foremost, they want to make money. The law firms too you know. ;)
Collecting these out of court settlements is profitable business. As said above, law firms even specialice in it. The more afraid people are of going to court the better. People paying even when they are innocent, because they are outright scared from all the horror stories? Perfect = Pure Profit. Also as said above... we already see law firms that hardly care if innocents get caught up in their schemes. They target whole IP ranges. Why? Again, because it's profitable.
Now imagine what happens when a family with 2-3 children gets that letter mh? Can you really be sure that no one downloaded a song? Little Timmy? Really? Are you not lying to us? What about you honey? Are you sure our daughter didn't? Did you maybe... maybe by accident? right. Drop a letter like that into any healthy family and I tell ya it doesn't matter one bit if all of them are innocent. They will pay. And they will likely be a wreck afterwards.
Are the penalties steep? Honestly, i can't say one way or another, and i really don't care, this won't ever effect me. But as ive said many pages ago, if you disagree with a law, take it up with the law makers. Write a petition, write letters, pick up a phone. Thinking its wrong is one thing, trying to do something about it is another.
Thinking is always the first step for everything - or at least it should be. And this place is a place to discuss and exchange ideas and opinions, right?
Also mind your history... just because something does not affect you or you think it will not affect you personally does not mean it is not relevant.
This should be required reading in any school:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-
You've missed the point that it's cheaper for innocent people to settle than it is to fight the case.
Let's say you got one of those letters. Settle now for $1000 dollars or pay a lawyer, fight the case in court and if you lose you'd have to pay $220,000. And even if you win, you may still have to pay the lawyer's fees which will probably be more than $1000. What exactly would you do in that situation?
You keep assuming that this will never happen to you but that's a silly defence if innocent people are getting hit by this.
Which is basically a protection racket.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/11/21/1644213/RICO-Class-Action-Against-RIAA-In-Missouri
-
From the linked Slashdot article (comments section):
I sort of got a bit of a bad rap for a post I made yesterday calling for extreme disrespect and outright harassment against lawyers and executives involved in these law suits. Let me restate my position with a little more of my thinking so my point is a little more clear.
These organizations are performing acts of terror. They aren't using bombs, they are using the courts.
They bribe (oops, "lobby") politicians to pass outrageous laws that defy common sense.
They use the immense power and legal shielding of multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations to bully innocent people who have no hope of defending themselves. Destroying lives with no conscience what so ever.
Because of the legal liability shield of the corporation, they get to do this to people with complete impunity.
Why do we let F*&^*ckers like this do that? If a bully picks a fight with you, do you fight him on his home turf? No, you move the fight where you can better defend yourself. In our case, that's the street.
Ruin their lives, make them pay for what they do. Do you think the courts will? Do you think the politicians will?
These people are worse than any mugger. They are worse than any street thug. They walk around in expensive suits and ruin the lives of helpless people they accuse without credible evidence merely to create fear.
It isn't until it is clear that unethical behavior will not be tolerated by society and that there is a price to pay for it, will we ever regain the freedoms we have lost to corporations like this. They can buy the politicians, but they can't buy the good will of society that human beings need to survive. Reject them everywhere. Shun them. It is the *only* way we will ever rid ourselves of these parasites.
Interesting perspective. Undecided whether I agree with that sentiment, but interesting perspective to be sure.
-
i'm not going to dig through the thread to quote the specific post, but you damn sure CAN be pegged for someone other than yourself who uses your network. two seperate ISPs have flat out told me that. the circumstances don't matter. if the traffic came from an IP address registered to me, i'm held responsible. and yes, it DID happen to me. i don't even think they broke into my network. i'm guessing an IP spoofer picked mine. the worst thing about it was that the file in question WASN'T EVEN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. i supposedly pirated a copy of one of the harry potter books. the file was "harry potter (whatever).EXE" and was a whopping 17 kb in size. they threatened to sue me (or my ISP rather) because somehow my IP address got attached to someone downloading one of those viruses that names itself to whatever you searched for. these ****ers aren't protecting copyright owners, they are taking anyone's money they can.
-
Interesting perspective. Undecided whether I agree with that sentiment, but interesting perspective to be sure.
Just as bad if not worse. Physically attacking random people because... they are rich and/or wear a suit? How is that better than extortion against random people? lol
I have no sympathy for anyone proposing random violent crimes/vigilantism. These guys very much deserve to go to jail if they actually follow through with the nonsense they spout.
-
No Mikes, I don't think the proposition is to beat people for being rich, what a ****ing silly strawman there.
I'd be even more specific. Get the names of these people. Get an assassin. Kill them all. Problem solved.
-
Just as bad if not worse. Physically attacking random people because... they are rich and/or wear a suit? How is that better than extortion against random people? lol
I have no sympathy for anyone proposing random violent crimes/vigilantism. These guys very much deserve to go to jail if they actually follow through with the nonsense they spout.
That's not what he was advocating. I interpreted his statement to be endorsing social weapons against corrupt lawyers and record company execs. As in, if you happen to have a relationship of some sort with them, you are to ostracize and isolate the people in question in response, essentially, to their evil behavior.
-
No Mikes, I don't think the proposition is to beat people for being rich, what a ****ing silly strawman there.
Read that original post carefully...
He generalizes through the use of "they"... i.e. the people who belong to such organisations (does that include a lowly clerk? The family dad in accounting?).
He is not very specific but definitely does mention that "they" walk around in expensive suits...
That's quite some sweeping generalisation and in my eyes; hate talk against a not really specified group of people.
There is some very ambiguous wording in there for sure, i.e. taking it to the street, making them pay for it, et cetera.
Frankly... I would like nothing more than to see the people responsible for deliberate extortion (as discussed earlier) spend the rest of their lives in jail.
I would not want to see anyone physically hurt. Talk like this guy spouts... often results in the later.
Just as bad if not worse. Physically attacking random people because... they are rich and/or wear a suit? How is that better than extortion against random people? lol
I have no sympathy for anyone proposing random violent crimes/vigilantism. These guys very much deserve to go to jail if they actually follow through with the nonsense they spout.
That's not what he was advocating. I interpreted his statement to be endorsing social weapons against corrupt lawyers and record company execs. As in, if you happen to have a relationship of some sort with them, you are to ostracize and isolate the people in question in response, essentially, to their evil behavior.
(Also to Luis Dias): I guess that piece can be read in different ways. I see that now.
Call me a cynic for reading between the lines. ;)
-
Yeah well what do you want? If the laws exist to protect the powerful and oppress the weak, what other kind of retaliation would even be remotely considered?
We are on the brink of a new era, where a whole generation of youngters are pretty damned well informed about this crap, and if they attempt to enforce it in a meaningful way, the rather terroristic and obnoxious types like "Anonymous" and "Lulzsec", etc., are just the beggining. Imagine a whole team of thousands of hackers determined to bring these lawyers or companies, etc., to the ground. We are, by having these utterly unjust laws, actually bringing on ourselves this kind of bleak, cyberpunk future.
Not pretty.
-
That post just got me really excited, gonna go buy some mirrorshades and three megabytes of hot RAM
-
If you do, can you get me some of that Ono-Sendai action?