jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to Ikarasu
Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000
I know dude, this is worse than $375 speeding tickets, or $5000 DUI fines.
It's almost like they're trying to send a message with such exhorbitant fines!
 |
|
Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
 ·ITalkBB
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by jester121  :I know dude, this is worse than $375 speeding tickets, or $5000 DUI fines. It's almost like they're trying to send a message with such exhorbitant fines! Message received. Drunk driving = less riskier than downloading an mp3! |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to jester121
Don't you realize the difference? When you drive under the influence you can kill someone. But when you share out copyrighted works without the copyright owners' permission, you're *INFRINGING COPYRIGHT!!!!* That's much, much worse than simply killing people. Isn't it?
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
|  Like most of the people like the poster you are responding to they think there is nothing wrong with something like this just as they have no problem with a person with no criminal record, no history of violence and no use of a weapon arrested and convicted of having X amount of a drug serving more time in prison than someone that killed another human or raped someone.
Our prisons are full of people with a medical problem while we are releasing violent prisoners because of overcrowding. After justifying that it's quite easy to accept that someone should have to pay 2 million dollars for making available 2 dozen songs for download (with the only provable download being by an employee of the copyright owner).
When you have to bend logic to support as much injustice as our current legal system exhibits a single mom on welfare getting bent over by companies that make billions it's not a big deal to some apparently. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by rahvin112 : After justifying that it's quite easy to accept that someone should have to pay 2 million dollars for making available 2 dozen songs for download (with the only provable download being by an employee of the copyright owner). I didn't see where in the statute it specifices who the downloader needs to be for distribution. Oh wait, maybe because it's not in there.
This is real simple. Don't want to get in trouble? Then don't break the law. Don't like the law, then get it changed. Can't get it changed and you still want to break the law? Go ahead, but don't get all whiny when you get nailed for it.
Again, it's really simple. |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Goober :This is real simple. Don't want to get in trouble? Then don't break the law. Don't like the law, then get it changed. Can't get it changed and you still want to break the law? Go ahead, but don't get all whiny when you get nailed for it. Again, it's really simple. That's exactly what we are trying to do. For a long time people scoffed at women voting in elections. Before that, we had people that scoffed at slaves being freed or even voting. Today we have people that scoff at downloading music as though it was 1920 all over again.
If a teenager lifted some tic-tacs from the grocery store and thus was taken to court to pay a million dollars in damages, everyone would be crying foul. The exact same thing goes on with online music. There are *real* people out there making a lot of money off of piracy with bootlegs cds and what not. Yet it seems for all the waste of money and time spent in court, the best we can do is convict dead people, elderly, kids, and non-technical moms.
Show me a story where "John Doe convicted in multi-million dollar cd piracy racket" and I'll cheer for the law. But when the headline is "panic mom now owes millions for a couple of dozen songs that may or may not have been shared by anyone" speaks to the legal problems and mantra of this society in general.
You want people to buy your music? Quit pissing off everyone with these insane lawsuits and ludicrous judgments. No one wonder everyone wants to "stick it to the man" or RIAA/MPAA in this case. The system is broken and the only way to bring it to attention is to challenge the system.
'Nothing ventured, nothing gained.'
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
2 edits | There are criminal copyright busts all the time. Mostly in foreign countries, like China and India where for some reason those countries decide to do the lawful thing instead of getting bribed by the criminals.
This stuff is civil copyright law. Again, the laws are clear. You aren't the copyright holder? Then make sure you know what you're doing when it comes to downloading and/or distributing. Not sure? Then don't do it.
And until the laws are changed, expect to get nailed for unlawful behavior.
So exactly who are the "we" and what is it that the "we" are trying to do?
Edit: And seriously, you're comparing some cheap-ass downloader unhappy about not getting to infringe copyrights on par with human rights violations? |
|
