 brut7
join:2000-10-06
Babylon, NY | Punishment should fit the crime. I feel that if someone downloads tunes or movies, their should be no further penalty than the price of the DVD or CD.
However if someone is uploading to many then the crime is different but the same rules should apply the DOWNLOADERS should each pay for dvd or cd while the uploader should be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Release groups of pirated material could be liable as felons but even that is extreme.
I'm convinced these people in the RIAA and MPAA are evil and should look toward their own relatives, nieces, nephews, sons, daughters and even parents and see what they are sharing. I guarantee most who work for the RIAA or MPAA have relatives that pirate but would of course overlook them.
So prosecute your niece or leave everyone alone!
They attack the little people because they can.
It's not right and some descent politician if their is any left should have a good look at this whole mess.
These people are really low lifes but I guess you all don't need me to tell you that.
What's happened to gov't? Didn't it used to be "For The People"?
God help us. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by brut7:I feel that if someone downloads tunes or movies, their should be no further penalty than the price of the DVD or CD. However if someone is uploading to many then the crime is different but the same rules should apply the DOWNLOADERS should each pay for dvd or cd while the uploader should be guilty of a misdemeanor. There is a SLIGHT problem with this rule. While it can be applied to a situation where the downloading is being done via FTP (ie: A direct point-to-point download from a Server), this is a case about those who are downloading via BitTorrent. With BT, while you download from those who are distributing the song/movie, you are ALSO UPLOADING it to those who also want to download it. IOW: Everyone is uploading those sections of the file they have already downloaded while downloading those sections they do not yet have. This sharing of file you have less than 100% of in exchange for access to the remainder of that 100% is the heart of P2P access that BT represents. |
|
|
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to brut7
however each track only has a value of 99 cents or less. wonder where the 250k comes from that the FBI warning always states.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
howrman
join:2000-07-08
Philadelphia, PA | reply to brut7
said by brut7:I feel that if someone downloads tunes or movies, their should be no further penalty than the price of the DVD or CD. How is that any different from telling a bank robber that, if they get caught, all they have to do is give back the money they stole? If there is to be any deterrent to theft, the penalties must be greater than the value of the things that were taken. |
|
 Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | major differance is that one is a physical theft of a real monatary value (cash itself). The second is a copy and no actual physical item was stolen which really means no loss to the copyright holder. And sales of that song to person downloading is subjective, person may never have bought the albulm meaning no sale anyways. |
|
howrman
join:2000-07-08
Philadelphia, PA | said by Ebolla:major differance is that one is a physical theft of a real monatary value (cash itself). The second is a copy and no actual physical item was stolen which really means no loss to the copyright holder. And sales of that song to person downloading is subjective, person may never have bought the albulm meaning no sale anyways. Your argument means that, a shoplifter should should not be punished if he can show that he wouldn't have purchased the item anyway, since there is no loss of a sale. You seem to be assuming that intellectual property (a song) does not have value and that it does not cost money to produce. Both assumptions are patently incorrect. |
|
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | no, a shoplifter, same as the bank robber is taking physical property. i.e theft. Copy of a song is just that a copy, the original is still there, nothing is missing. Dont get me wrong, I neither download/upload legal or "illegal" songs, I buy CD's and only CD's. My point is just that a judgement for 3.5mil for the music is rediculous and that it is in no way the same as someone actually stealing physical property. |
|
howrman
join:2000-07-08
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | I understand your point that $3.5 million is a lot of money for stealing some music. As a practical matter, even if she loses, the judgment against her probably won't be anywhere near that.
But the distinction you attempt draw between stealing physical property and intellectual property is false. If we don't protect intellectual property, nobody will have an incentive to create it. Both physical and intellectual property require time, money, and energy to create. It is equally immoral and illegal to steal the product of someone's brawn it is to steal the product of someone's brain. |
|
