[QUOTE=Lankist;16678783]First of all, the maximum fine is 500,000, which is reflected in direct financial loss. i.e.: It takes 20,000 distributed copies of a $50 pirated software to justify $500,000.
Secondly, the enormous fines go toward DISTRIBUTORS, not downloaders. Downloaders are not prosecuted. It's illegal in a different form, but the maximum fines are much lower and it rarely if ever happens.
If you are a distributor, you HAVE caused mass financial loss and you DO deserve a large fine.[/QUOTE]
What about that woman in the news recently? She wasn't selling bootlegs out of her basement or anything.
I voted for the Swedish Pirate Party in the EU elections and will vote for them in the coming government elections. They're the only political party in Sweden that cares about the privacy of the citizens.
It's not about making everything free just for laughs, it's about making downloading for personal use legal because the only way to enforce the current copyright laws is to monitor ALL Internet traffic (which is already kinda happening in Sweden) .
Even though they'll never get above 50%, thanks to them other parties in Sweden has to discuss it too and having a policy that says "We'll read all your e-mails and monitor your Internet traffic" is not going to attract many voters.
I hope they get in, they're the only people left that seem to actually give a flying fuck about privacy issues.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;16680170]What about that woman in the news recently? She wasn't selling bootlegs out of her basement or anything.[/QUOTE]
She was a distributor.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16682660]She was a distributor.[/QUOTE]
Not for-profit distributing. There's a difference.
When you [i]sell[/i] something that you don't own the copyright to, the industry DOES lose a sale because the other person was willing to pay in the first place. When you [i]give[/i] it away, it's a very safe assumption that the recipient wasn't planning on buying it in the first place.
If you aren't receiving any personal gain from copyright infringement it shouldn't be illegal. Easy.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;16683145]Not for-profit distributing. There's a difference.
When you [i]sell[/i] something that you don't own the copyright to, the industry DOES lose a sale because the other person was willing to pay in the first place. When you [i]give[/i] it away, it's a very safe assumption that the recipient wasn't planning on buying it in the first place.
If you aren't receiving any personal gain from copyright infringement it shouldn't be illegal. Easy.[/QUOTE]
No. Copyright is not bypassable by simply not making money.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16683469]No. Copyright is not bypassable by simply not making money.[/QUOTE]
Then it shouldn't be bypassable by simply not distributing. If you download it for personal use they lose a sale blah blah so forth
My opinion: not-for-profit distribution should be legal
Your opinion: not-for-profit distribution should be illegal
I can't see these changing anytime soon.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;16683548]Then it shouldn't be bypassable by simply not distributing. If you download it for personal use they lose a sale blah blah so forth
My opinion: not-for-profit distribution should be legal
Your opinion: not-for-profit distribution should be illegal
I can't see these changing anytime soon.[/QUOTE]
It isn't bypassable by simply not distributing, it just isn't regularly enforced because that would be impossibly expensive, and people who aren't distributors aren't fined by the same standards.
It's expensive to go after uploaders too, considering all of the ways the defendant can get out of it. (RIAA's never won a "no password on my router" defense, as far as I know)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;16683601]It's expensive to go after uploaders too, considering all of the ways the defendant can get out of it. (RIAA's never won a "no password on my router" defense, as far as I know)[/QUOTE]
There are many less distributors than unloaders, and attacking the distributors utilizes the same logic as attacking the dealers instead of the drug users.
Also the RIAA is not part of the government. It is a private organization. Neither do they go after anyone outside of music piracy. Stop referencing them like they are an official government enforcement agency.
The RIAA takes people to civil court on THEIR dime and not the government's. They do not take anyone to criminal court. I am talking about criminal offenses.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16683644]There are many less distributors than unloaders, and attacking the distributors utilizes the same logic as attacking the dealers instead of the drug users.[/quote]
That lady that got some songs off of Kazaa was, at most, an uploader. You called her a distributor. At the time, I thought you were using the terms interchangeably but now I'm not sure. Which is it?
[QUOTE=Lankist;16683644]Also the RIAA is not part of the government. It is a private organization. Neither do they go after anyone outside of music piracy. Stop referencing them like they are an official government enforcement agency.[/quote]
With all of their lobbyists, they may as well be an official government agency. Their power is about the same. Anti-piracy groups have successfully got ISPs to change policy, block sites, basically censor the internet. They've been lobbying the Canadian government to pass a DMCA-type bill here, and would have succeeded if not for the election. Fortunately, the conservatives have stopped listening since they nearly got tossed out on their ass by the opposition parties.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16683644]The RIAA takes people to civil court on THEIR dime and not the government's. They do not take anyone to criminal court. I am talking about criminal offenses.[/QUOTE]
So I have to go back to the first part of my post here - what do you think should be criminal?
No. You are wrong. The RIAA is a corporation. They do NOT have judicial powers, they CANNOT take anyone to criminal court. They do not have any powers at all as a matter of fact.
To think I actually made the mistake to try to engage you in debate, again.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16683955]No. You are wrong. The RIAA is a corporation. They do NOT have judicial powers, they CANNOT take anyone to criminal court. They do not have any powers at all as a matter of fact.[/quote]
I never said they have ever taken anyone to criminal court. I was referring to [url=http://torrentfreak.com/woman-hit-with-192-million-fine-in-riaa-case-090619/]this[/url]. And they have lobbyists, so they DO have power.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16683955]To think I actually made the mistake to try to engage you in debate, again.[/QUOTE]
Your hatred of me is clouding your judgment. You're jumping to conclusions about me, AGAIN, instead of debating. You like pissing me off. I get it. But you're acting like a child.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;16683946]With all of their lobbyists, they may as well be an official government agency. Their power is about the same.[/QUOTE]
You said these words.
You are not worth a debate.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16684190]You said these words.
You are not worth a debate.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I said those words. With their lobbying power, they may as well be a part of the government. That's what I said. They have a fuckload of lobbying power and have undoubtedly influenced the government. (Their lobbyists helped the DMCA along, for example)
I didn't say they WERE part of the government, as you are implying.
You're dismissing my opinion because it pisses you off that someone on Facepunch is actually DEBATING with you for once, instead of either spewing insults or blindly agreeing. You're not used to it and don't know what to do, so you're insulting me to get me to drop to your level where you can beat me with experience.
The RIAA's first suit and entrance into any field but research and association was in 1998.
The DMCA was written and created in 1996.
No.
[editline]11:56PM[/editline]
You're talking to a fucking fact-checker.
Stop making shit up.
[editline]11:58PM[/editline]
And you are by far not the first person to "debate" with me.
I give Conscript and Chippay credit for coming up with the best arguments against mine. Fuck I've even gone at it with TH89 before and we tight.
You're just something to poke and prod in the meantime.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16684363]The RIAA's first suit and entrance into any field but research and association was in 1998.
The DMCA was written and created in 1996.
No.[/QUOTE]
Pro-copyright groups were around long before 1996. Just because they were called something else doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Besides, RIAA has been around since the 50's. I seriously doubt they were doing only research until 1998 when they suddenly changed focus, that's absurd. Their first suit was in 1998, but they probably weren't dormant until then.
The RIAA is not an anti copyright group.
What are you talking about
[QUOTE=Lankist;16684363]
And you are by far not the first person to "debate" with me.
I give Conscript and Chippay credit for coming up with the best arguments against mine. Fuck I've even gone at it with TH89 before and we tight.
You're just something to poke and prod in the meantime.[/QUOTE]
Did you flame those three, as well?
And they started as an association, like the Screen Actor's Guild only for music.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16684485]The RIAA is not an anti copyright group.
What are you talking about[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, semantics.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;16684493]Holy shit, semantics.[/QUOTE]
Not semantics. You aren't making any sense.
Fuck, I put "anti" instead of "pro". Disregard. :downs:
[editline]11:11PM[/editline]
Lankist, here's a story about some [url=http://idolator.com/401107/the-conquering-of-oink-was-just-the-beginning-behold-some-new-riaa+backed-legislation]RIAA-backed legislation[/url] from last year. Why are they allowed to push laws?
Laaaaaannnkissst
Zeeeekeeeee129
time out both of you, 10 minutes in the corner
[QUOTE=KorJax;16684813]Laaaaaannnkissst
Zeeeekeeeee129
time out both of you, 10 minutes in the corner[/QUOTE]
If we both go to the corner, we'll just argue there.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;16684509]Fuck, I put "anti" instead of "pro". Disregard. :downs:
[editline]11:11PM[/editline]
Lankist, here's a story about some [url=http://idolator.com/401107/the-conquering-of-oink-was-just-the-beginning-behold-some-new-riaa+backed-legislation]RIAA-backed legislation[/url] from last year. Why are they allowed to push laws?[/QUOTE]
That is not the DMCA and you don't know what that bill even is.
Hey guys I hate MADD because they have too much power over DUI laws. MADD is way out of control.
They are allowed to push laws because everyone is allowed to push laws.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16684972]That is not the DMCA and you don't know what that bill even is.[/quote]
Never said it was the DMCA. Just an example.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16684972]Hey guys I hate MADD because they have too much power over DUI laws. MADD is way out of control.[/quote]
DUI can physically hurt people. Copyright infringement can't. Don't try to compare.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16684972]They are allowed to push laws because everyone is allowed to push laws.[/QUOTE]
You need money to push laws. Once you have money, you can push laws to ensure you get more money. Rinse and repeat.
Sure strikes a balance between the consumer and the industry, huh? This just loops back to my first point that we need some kind of copyright reform before it gets out of control. And you never did tell me where you think the criminal/civil line should be drawn. (Or address your error on the Jammie Thomas-Rasset issue)
You do not need money to push laws.
MADD is proof of that.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16685177]You do not need money to push laws.
MADD is proof of that.[/QUOTE]
Money or public support. MADD has the later because they're, you know, not evil and such. And that's good. The government is supposed to reflect the will of the public.
Copyright lobbyists don't have much public support, as you've probably seen by reading the internet.
If you don't have public support then honestly nobody gives a fuck about your proposition.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.