How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
from the insanity-made-clear dept
We've discussed, for years, how copyright maximalists have continually played with and twisted the language to make infringement sound much, much worse. For years, of course, they liked to just call it "piracy," though in the last few years, they've sometimes shied away from that word, complaining that it made it seem glamorous. More recently, it seems they've been focused on calling it "content theft," somehow believing that that's more likely to get a reaction.Of course, as we've also pointed out time and time again copying is not theft, and the two are exceptionally different:
Under the “theft” conception of copyright law, what, exactly, is the deprivation when someone makes illegal copies? It really boils down to just one thing: money. Copyright infringement – renamed copyright theft — deprives the copyright holder of some of his or her expected profit from exploiting the copyright.Okay, so if we grant them their premise, and then compare it to similar cases where people don't pay the requested fee, but still get the "benefit," then what is the punishment in those other cases? Bridges notices that there appears to be one... um... outlier in the group:
What are other, similar kinds of “theft” by depriving someone of expected money? Failure of a tenant to pay the agreed rent to a landlord is one. Parking in a parking space without putting money in the meter is another. Jumping the turnstile to ride on a subway without paying the fare is a third. (And, of course, failure of a studio or record label to pay artists or actors the promised contractual royalties for their work on a record or film is a fourth. But something tells me the studios and labels sponsoring the current bills won’t go near that topic. The bills don’t include rogue studios and labels in their scope.)
How do the civil damages or penalties for the different types of such “theft” compare? Failure to pay expected money under a contract doesn’t trigger a penalty: contract law usually says that a party can recover the money she expected but not punitive damages or attorneys fees (unless parties have specifically bargained to pay attorneys fees for a breach). Failure to pay rent usually requires payment of rent to cure the default. Failure to put money in the parking meter prompts a ticket for $60. In New York City, failure to pay the $2.50 subway fare results in a maximum fine of $100.What if we work backwards, and see how the law might punish those other, similar, infractions with a damages system similar to copyright:
Copyright “theft” is a very different story. Copyright infringement statutory damages in civil litigation can be as high as $150,000 for infringement of a single work. Yes, a single work such as a single song with an iTunes download value of $1. A copyright holder can claim such statutory damages without needing to prove a single penny of damage or loss. Think such sky-high damages aren’t realistic? Think again. In the RIAA’s case against single mother Jammie Thomas, a jury awarded $1,500,000 for the download of 24 songs, with no proof that she had transmitted songs to others. The federal judge thought that was ridiculous and reduced the total award to $54,000 – and the RIAA and MPAA are now arguing strenuously on appeal that the jury verdict should return to the original figure, $62,500 per downloaded song.
If we take copyright law’s maximum-penalty-to-price ratio as applied to an illegal download, and apply that same penalty-to-price ratio to the New York subway, the maximum penalty for jumping that turnstile and avoiding the $2.50 fare would be $375,000 instead of $100. Copyright industries are on to a really good thing under current law. One could say it’s a steal.And yet the industry claims that copyright laws are too weak currently? That seems difficult to square with reality.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comparisons, copyright, crimes, theft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Semantics...
/just sayin'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Semantics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright Industry Talk
Everything they say seems pretty hard to square with reality, and this is just par for the course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Semantics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Semantics...
1987 I was arrested for selling Cocaine.I got charged with 1/8 ounce of Coke.
My sentencing for this crime was:
18 months at Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary
6 Years Of Supervised Release
$3600 Fine
Some of these cases with filesharing/copying amazes me !!! These Bigwig Frakkers go for outrageous Money/Jail Time that can be worse than the sentence I had to do.All for sharing a few files.
Down With The MAFIAA !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A possible solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it takes one to know one
Copyright maximalists are the loudest screamers when it comes to "content theft," even though we know they are not really talking about theft.
Human beings have always formed and shared culture, and culture is like a world of shared songs, stories, ideas, inventions, and imagination in general. The idea of intellectual property is like an army of conquistadors marching into that cultural world and seizing territory for themselves.
I probably wouldn't go as far as Proudhon and claim that "Property is theft." But I might suggest this bold claim seems much more appropriate when applied to so-called "intellectual property."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Semantics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A possible solution
After paying all of the middle-men, contractors, politicians, lawyers, website designers, themselves, recording studios, themselves, massage 'artists', politicians, label designers, themselves, scabs, politicians, disenfranchised union workers, and themselves, that number would really need to be more like $100 a month - MINIMUM - to properly cover the costs involved and accurately replace their lost profits.
You clearly just don't understand "accounting". =)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A possible solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A possible solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't call it SIMILAR crimes
Where both crimes have the word "theft" -- even if the crime is not actual theft of anything, but mere infringement.
How does the penalty for "content theft" match up with similarly named crimes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The fines that you get from those are, hmm, what's the term?
Ah, yes.
REASONABLE...
A $100 fine for jumping the turnstile at the train station is reasonable and affordable to everyone.
A $375,000 fine for doing that is not.
Stiff a cab driver will screw you over later. Don't pay a plumber? Well, the next time your pipes leak, don't expect them to show up.
You have committed theft, this is true.
However, copyright infringement is quite different.
How is that?
Simple, you break copyright law all the time. Ever sing Happy Birthday? Guess what, you just broke the law and owe Time Warner money.
The point is, stuff like that is so stupid no one pays attention to it.
It's like the laws that state if you see three or more Native Americans walking down the street, you are legally allowed to shoot them (it's a real law in some states, look it up) because they are a war party.
Stupid laws get ignored because they're just that...
Stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But now with computers and the Internet the game's changed. Now it only costs around $500 (or so) for a decent desktop PC. All of a sudden anyone can infringe anyone's copyright, at almost no cost.
And yet we have single moms being sued for 1.5 million dollars, for noncommercial infringement. That judge did the right thing; that amount would be pocket change for a large business, but for an individual that's way over the top.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
18 months in jail plus 6 years of having to report to a probation officer vs having to pay more in fines than the average person makes in a lifetime? Yeah, the jail time is obviously worse. /s
If the fine sticks for Jaime, she will essentially be an indentured servant of the music industry for the rest of her life as she is forced to pay the fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Abuse
I see. We'll have to take everything you've stolen and return it, and then you'll be free.
That will be 169,000 gold pieces for that vase you stole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I disagree. Name 24 songs which cost $54,000 altogether.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Abuse
What is unfortunate for Jaime is that the only people allowed to determine what the actual harms are are the labels and they are not very honest when it comes to those numbers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A jury of OJ's peers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Notice how I said more reasonable. It's still excessive, just less so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perspective
Under SOPA, the penalty for illegally uploading Michael Jackson music is *five* years in prison.
The penalty for *killing* Michael Jackson is *four* years in prison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perspective
Under SOPA, the penalty for illegally uploading Michael Jackson music is *five* years in prison.
The penalty for *killing* Michael Jackson is *four* years in prison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A possible solution
That's the nature of greed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
the same law(s) that has been incessantly perverted by the MAFIAA for over 100 years?
how can you possibly justify such abuses of the system for imaginary 'profit losses'? we are not talking about tangible, verifiable losses of potential sales here, yet you are. I could have potentially made 100k more last year, if I had done 'x'. with your train of reasoning, there should be a law created to ensure I get 100k regardless if I do x or not.
regurgitating in perpetuity the same mind numbing garbage is a business model issue directly related to imaginary profit losses, not file sharing, or copyright infringement.
technology gave you the player piano, VCR, radio waves, the reel to reel, 8-track, cassette, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray and the internet. we already built the most effective distribution system known to exist in the form of bittorrent, use it, fix your business model and stop already with the 'I want a pony!' bullshit.
imaginary profit losses from copyright infringement does not give the MAFIAA any cause to infringe on my civil liberties, ever.
you woke the beast with SOPA/PIPA overreach, odds are that your education campaign about copyright just got a much bigger audience, however, I think it was not the outcome you were expecting..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A possible solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This has been brought up before. It's essentially an internet 'tax' put into an imaginary black box that the LABELS decide who gets a piece of it. That's actually only the first part of what's wrong with the idea ...
The LABELS decide who gets what.
We already know just how fairly that works out.
With the labels deciding, once again, the independent, non-label artists are completely left out, and, let's face it, most smaller label acts will be lucky to see a dime of it, just like now.
Once we allow it for the labels, we'll have to allow it for everyone else.
20.00 more a month for movies
10.00 more a month for ebooks
10.00 more a month for photos
I'm sure once the precedent is set, there will be many more 'arts' that will need to be included, and then ...
As you see, it snowballs, it will NEVER stop, and never at any point can we ever be sure that any money goes to the artists WE want to support. It is simply the internet equivalent of what the labels do now ( Collective societies ASCAP, BMI, GEMO, MCPS .. etc. ). It preserves the middleman status quo and does nothing for any non affiliated artists, while collecting from EVERYONE who uses the net regardless of what art they seek, listen to. or watch. It also potentially prices internet access out of reach of the average person, and, again, potentially out of reach for aspiring artists ... unless of course they can get a label to back them ;)
It is not acceptable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
/just sayin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Abuse
Even then, and now, there is no need to prove or establish damages in any form. That becomes worse under SOPA/PIPA and much worse under secret treaties like ACTA/TPP.
As noted in both Mike's post the damages, if any at all, were inflicted (to use a very bad word for it) were for expected profits not for anything real. It's like me trying to sue you for the pint of milk you never bought from my store thereby depriving me of that expected profit. It makes no sense.
Of course our trolling AC's don't see any of that all they do is regurgitate the RIAA and MPAA's line over and over and over again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's just an idea, certainly an improvement over the way things currently work. If you have a better idea, feel free to share it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I think this is an important, and often overlooked point. Part of the damage that current copyright law is causing is to generally reduce respect for the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A possible solution
I have a real problem being taxed in any form to support private business, particularly when those businesses are still very profitable without the levy.
Nor is it that the entertainment/content industry have made their goods easily or reasonably available on line which is the sort of thing that gives rise to a black market in the first place.
People are copying and sharing which is something human beings have always done. it's given rise to things like agriculture, civilization, trade, writing and other things we take so much for granted now. Given that people are finding ways of sharing "entertainment/content" that is not otherwise affordable or easily acquired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
To what end?
The only logical answer is to "make an example of her". To ruin the credit of a single mother, to grossly impact the quality of life of her children, because she downloaded 24 songs.
It's a gross abuse of power, beyond all reason. Pointing to a law drafted by corrupt politicians does not make it reasonable, or just.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's just an idea, certainly an improvement over the way things currently work. If you have a better idea, feel free to share it."
Then who would ?
Some entity would have to be created to decide who gets what, wouldn't you agree ? Once again that simply becomes another version of current collection societies, which already can't be trusted.
As for having a better idea, well, there are already a LOT of those going around, Louis CK did pretty well, to use one example. Many other ones have been talked about at this site alone. Why does there need to be only one idea that must apply to all ? Why must I or anyone else come up with a model to save the established legacy players ? AllofMP3 was an excellent model, prices people WANTED to pay, no DRM, trackable so an artist could know precisely how many times something was downloaded, thus how much he should get, and yet it was somehow unacceptable to the labels ( even though they paid all of the legally required payments to THEIR country's collective society ).
The new crop of artists are finding their own ways, without interference from the labels or needing yet ANOTHER collective group. That's the way things need to progress, ARE progressing, and that's the ultimate nightmare for the legacy players.
No, a better idea is not my responsibility unless I choose to return to songwriting and/or performing. Ask Chris ( A user of this site ) about how his way is working for him. I found his music through a link posted here. Seems to me he is pretty happy about how things are going. What you present has the potential to make it too expensive for him and others like him to continue. How does that benefit anyone but the legacies ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Moore's position...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OVYhwKu7J5E
What about the idea that copying for profit does deprive the owner (of earnings) but sharing does not? Sharing expands the owner's potential market.
If the labels are so right, what the heck was all this payola stuff in the radio industry?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We are talking Hollywood here. Their entire industry is one of creating fantasies, so it should be no surprise to anyone that they are a lot more comfortable in a fantasy world instead of the reality the rest of us live in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crime?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
“To make an example of” is the tyrant’s tool. It is using injustice to force compliance, it is admitting to its own injustice. It proclaims loudly for all to hear; damn the people, we must force compliance! Look at these examples, and take away not the line of the government, of the dictators and power mad, but instead the deeper truths. Those who make examples of others need to be stopped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How's that working out for them?
This whole idea of scaring your customers into purchasing your product really seems stupid and not well thought out to me. Not only did this or the Tenenbaum case not even slow piracy one iota, they really did lose sales because they pissed off their customers who now vow to never buy another product from the labels, ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas#Third_trial
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
IOW, the same tool is used on both sides of the fence...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Where I live dumping trash is subject to a $1,000 fine. Is that reasonable? Is that affordable to everyone?
Why $1,000 and not $100? Because it's hard to catch, hence the posted fine is letting someone know that if they do get caught, the penalty will be rather severe. Don't want to risk a $1,000 fine? Don't dump. This is known as deterrence.
Illicit file "sharing" falls into the same category. It's currently hard to catch and expensive to prosecute and prove, hence the outsized "fine."
Too much? Probably. Then again, there's a really simple way to ensure you don't hit the IP lawsuit jackpot...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A possible solution
An amazing piece of logic. Tell me, who is is this mysterious "they" that gives the tools to copy and distribute "data", and then incriminates you for doing so?
I mean, I didn't realize that Time Warner distributed HandBrake and BitTorrent...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Troll Ryan Stevens gets whooping $1500 from two defaulted defendants
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
How about Spotify? $10 a month gets you unlimited streaming of music, no ads, and an offline mode for playlists. And as streams are tracked, artists earn a royalty when their music is played.
Point is, there are already inexpensive ways for people to do what you suggest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
At that rate, the paying $2.50 vs. jumping the subway turnstile is a fine of $1875, instead of real world reasonable fine of $100.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not as fitting as you pretend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They" again. Look, Time Warner is not Apple. 20th Century Fox is not HP. By and large, the technology guys are not the content production guys. Sony is the rather obvious exception, but even there, the consumer electronics division is separate and distinct from the studio.
One might mention that computers, recorders, scanners, and printers can all be used to create content, not just copy it. And even copying for personal use is a different scale altogether than distributing 10,000 copies to anyone and everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There. Feel better? You went up from petty to a true criminal act. Fuckhead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nevermind the analogies
Downloading a movie to watch is the direct equivalent of sneaking into the cineplex to watch the same movie. In each case the benefit gained by the violator is the same and the cost to the movie studio is the same (nil).
So what is the maximum penalty if you get caught sneaking into the theater? That should also be the same maximum penalty for downloading one movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And while they may have the ability to see what was streamed, I doubt very much that royalties have been paid properly by the collection societies due to their rather unique interpretation of mathematics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To use that silly subway analogy better, you would have to compare it to someone who counterfeits a subway pass that allows hte person to give a free ride to hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people.
If someonedid that, theey would not only go to JAIL (which simply pirates have never done) they would also getfind much more than $10.
I can't believe it is 2012 and a site (well..OK.a blog, so not very inteligentt or professional) still acts as if people are getting sued for downloading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A possible solution
The government via tax revenue. They profit from both the production and sale of said products. The public purchases the tools to program/transfer data.
""They" again. Look, Time Warner is not Apple. 20th Century Fox is not HP. By and large, the technology guys are not the content production guys. Sony is the rather obvious exception, but even there, the consumer electronics division is separate and distinct from the studio."
Sony is Sony, period. They make money through various means, including sale of CD/DVD recorders, discs, etc. As for the other tech companies, I'm sorry -- I didn't know that it was magically everybody else's responsibility to protect copyright using all means necessary.
"One might mention that computers, recorders, scanners, and printers can all be used to create content, not just copy it. And even copying for personal use is a different scale altogether than distributing 10,000 copies to anyone and everyone."
Funny how you don't mention how various corps have tried to prevent people from even making digital copies. How about when Sony included that rootkit virus in music CDs to intentionally sabotage/break people's PCs? Funny also how you don't mention that the internet isn't *their* property to go around telling everybody what they're allowed to do. Just who is paying the bills? Who invested in the infrastructure, equipment, storage space, etc.? If an mp3 is *their* property then technically each website is someone else's and they're taking it upon themselves to invade it and monitor what goes on. Question: When did private corps become the internet thought police?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But if that's what you want, go ahead, make us have to sign contracts for everything; every little iTunes purchase, every time we go to RedBox, every time we visit Best Buy. See if that helps you make more money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In reality each file-sharer is personally responsible for thousands of tiny fractions he shared with each of the swarm participant, an equivalent of uploading to a single person, and downloading from a single person (on average).
In other words, it's more like a guy using a pass to go through the gate and then throwing his pass to another person outside the gate. If one is caught, he shouldn't be responsible for the actions of others, only to his own fair share of mischief.
Thus I agree that $100 file is not enough. It should be $200.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the behavior is wrong, and there is a punishment set in the law, apply the punishment fairly, with an even hand. Do not set someone aside, the first, the fifth, or whichever to punish more harshly than those which came before, and then drop the harshness for those that come after. As DH’s Love Child pointed out, you can drive people to become cynical and resentful of the law.
Worse, especially for your argument is when you make it known that “this is a message” or “they are an example” the statement is made, no matter how intentionally or not, that this is a sort of one off thing, you are telling the jury not to feel bad for sticking the thumb screws to the company because it will force others to fall in line, but the others who are listening are hearing that you will not apply the same thumb screws to them.
So, yes, when you are on a jury and are being told to punish a company just to send an example, I want you to hesitate jumping onto the bandwagon, look back on history, and ask if the examples ever really worked, even in the short term. Yes, it may make you feel better; it may ease your conscious or make you feel like you’re really making a difference, but setting an example is a step in the wrong direction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Theives?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even John Locke assumed that a common resource when worked by someone should have the benefits of that work be owned by the guy who did the work, in the case of copycrap, anybody who sings a s song should be the one guy who rips all the benefits of it not somebody who did no work and want to claim ownership on something, specially when that thing doesn't suffer from the "tragedy of the commons".
Mercantilism is not a good way to make money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
Even if she was sharing the files she downloaded on BT (kinda the point), the fine is a life destroyer and given the 'crime' it's not fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Once again you fail to understand the difference between scarce and non-scarce. Even though your examples are not physical objects, they all rely of the use of scarcities. Trains have limited capacity and every extra passenger adds a small amount to the running cost, plumbers have limited time and also do actually install physical objects, theatres also have limited capacity, etc. So no, copyright infringement and theft of service are not the same, or even similar.
"All this time you have spent on this subject and you still don't get it."
Irony's a bitch...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Speeling??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
More specifically, it was an award of statutory/punitive damages, not actual damages. They never proved that any damage occurred, and thus the jury/court only could award statutory damages of not less than $750 and not greater than $150,000 per work infringed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm hungry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you're selling me a license to own stuff, you better replace it when it gets damaged, for free, and when the technology changes, you better give me an updated version of it.
If not, then it's mine
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Abuse
I think you mean to say "If you don't want exorbitant and inequitable damages placed against you, don't knowingly and unlawfully infringe upon a corporations copyright"
As for criminal (illegal) things, it is estimated that the average US citizen commits over 5 crimes per day. Seems you might need to pay some fines or do some time unless you are hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's called fraud!
Under law theft is the intentional taking of real property with the intention to deprive the owner of that property.
Fraud on the other hand is the an intentional deception to DEFRAUD people, or entities in the case of govt, of money owed for personal gain.
Fraud can be both a civil wrong and a criminal wrong.
Refusing to pay for a service is never ever theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Also in a criminal trial the prosecution has the onus to prove you did what they say. In Civil situations the onus is sometimes on the respondent (defendant) to prove they didn't do what they are accused of.
Also lets not forget the other major differences of criminal prosecutions:
* Reasonable doubt has to be removed.
* Hearsay is not considered Evidence
* False statements by victims are themselves a criminal offence
* If the prosecution knowingly brings false charges qualified immunity can be revoked on the state officers and a counter claim of malicious prosecution could be done.
* Damages are fines payed to government and are equitable to offense/sentence.
* An acquittal with privilege can allow the defendant to counter sue the state.
* Any sentence 'fits the crime' [well in a perfect world ;)] and can be discretionary applied based on factors brought to the courts attention during sentencing (unless there is a mandatory regime)
The above major differences between a Criminal theft charge and a Civil infringement accusation are the major reasons why even the RIAA/MPAA mob do NOT want these infringements to become criminal situations.
I mean could you imagine if Jamie Thomas had been charged with "criminal" infringement (if there was such a crime) and then being found guilty (and that would of been a BIG if) and then been given most likely based on his age, maturity and community character/ties most likely a 18month good behaviour/probation. HA! The RIAA would of turned purple and exploded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So if you have no excuse why are you so ignorant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Alternatively, you could also increase the burden of proof needed to prove this like in proper criminal law, but then again you RIAA shills were never too big on accuracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Actually, if this was the case, the same argument could be used for people who download stuff for personal use, like in Canada. They're not profiting; they should be able to do whatever they want...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Jammie Thomas would respectfully like to disagree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inconsistancies...
Just food for thought...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Schwarzkopieren
It's an analogy to "Schwarzfahren" (riding without paying the fare), and precisely what the author is comparing it to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Theives?
Every website dedicated to the theft of home cooking recipes should be closed down permanently!
Ironic that you can find any news story covered by the mass media somewhere on the internet and yet somehow they still survive... In similar fashion, the entertainment industries are still turning in huge profits, oftentimes breaking records, and yet they still claim to be suffering. If they want to see what suffering is, they should take a look at the homeless, starving and sick people in places like Ethiopia and the like. Or, take a look at the people in our own country who've had banks foreclose upon their homes and are left stranded in the streets. Meanwhile, the bankers who perpetrated fraud walk away scott-free.
From my observation of our legal system, "justice" occurs when the rich profit at the expense of the less fortunate. The rich are favored by default -- they can afford all the legal expenses, super-slick lawyers and, if necessary, bribery. That would explain why the private corps are allowed to literally rewrite the laws of our land in secrecy, imposing new rules and regulations in a transparent attempt to control all content distribution. Suddenly, every other business and private entity operating in cyberspace is held responsible for the 'intellectual property' and business model of the big brother mega corps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AMIRITE?
Seriously, use your 'technology' to create something totally new and I'll show you at least 6 creative individuals you have 'stolen' from.... We'll call this the Six degrees of Copyright Infringement....
NOTHING CREATED TODAY IS NEW.... WE ALL STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS AND PRETEND THAT WE SOMEHOW GOT HERE WITHOUT ANY HELP....
GET OVER YOURSELVES AND GET ON WITH MAKING PROGRESS... Building wealth thru arbitrage or monopolistic practices is not creating societal progress, it's dragging us back to the dark ages of feudal lord type mentality, and I thought we had come farther than that in the last 1000 years....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was merely pointing out his use of "they" and "them," where he blames all of the problems on "them" and if "they" didn't want people to copy then "they" shouldn't have put the figurative gun into his hand.
And I'm willing to bet that "they" even "made" him pull the trigger...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I simply pointed out that we currently have the ability to fairly pay a minor amount to get the aforementioned services. Enforced taxation isn't needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Theives?
[ link to this | view in thread ]