SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to stet
Re: PFFFT
That amount was meant for violations like someone taking your work and making a mint off of it. For instance if I have a copyrighted song that someone else recorded and then sold a million copies of without paying me royalties. It was never meant for individual copying. |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| The amount is set to high because it's supposed to act as a deterrent. The penalty for getting caught is set so much greater then what it would cost to just go and buy the original (music, movie, book, painting, software, etc) so that people should think "I could save $10 and copy it, but if I get caught then I'm really in trouble so maybe I'll just buy it instead of taking the chance." But it hasn't really been working.
--
Look now to what is not, to the overwhelming depths between the stars; a darker geometry, the vast majority of all space and time.
Here dwell the Outsiders. |
|
fundamentalz
The Basics
Premium
join:2004-04-30
Moorpark, CA
| You're right about it being a deterrent, however it was never intended to be a deterrent for individual people, rather, it was meant to be a deterrent for businesses. The current copyright system wasn't designed to protect artists from casual copying, but from theft by a competitor or big business. It was never intended to penalize average people for these relatively minor infractions.
Besides, i would say that to your average citizen, there is almost no difference between $150,000 and $150,000,000; either way they can't pay it, so what the actual dollar amount is doesn't really matter once you reach such astronomical amounts. |
|
Brownbay
Premium
join:2005-03-13
North York, ON
| said by fundamentalz  :You're right about it being a deterrent, however it was never intended to be a deterrent for individual people, rather, it was meant to be a deterrent for businesses. The current copyright system wasn't designed to protect artists from casual copying, but from theft by a competitor or big business. It was never intended to penalize average people for these relatively minor infractions. Besides, i would say that to your average citizen, there is almost no difference between $150,000 and $150,000,000; either way they can't pay it, so what the actual dollar amount is doesn't really matter once you reach such astronomical amounts. Those are some really good points man... Good Job! |
|
underlord2
Lolcat is Lol
Premium
join:2005-01-06
Belleville, MI
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to fundamentalz
said by fundamentalz :You're right about it being a deterrent, however it was never intended to be a deterrent for individual people, rather, it was meant to be a deterrent for businesses. The current copyright system wasn't designed to protect artists from casual copying, but from theft by a competitor or big business. It was never intended to penalize average people for these relatively minor infractions. Besides, i would say that to your average citizen, there is almost no difference between $150,000 and $150,000,000; either way they can't pay it, so what the actual dollar amount is doesn't really matter once you reach such astronomical amounts. I salute you, now only if the RIAA would get this throught their thick skulls  |
|
