|
|
| Author |
Message |
Jason
SearchIRC Developer
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Tampa, FL
|
 Posted: Mar 27, 2004 5:21pm Post subject: 10 years jail for file sharing |
 |
|
I don't condone any illegal activities, but check out the details about the "Pirate Act", which "would seek penalties of fines and prison time of up to ten years for file sharing"
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62830,00.html
Imagine a world when you can be in jail longer for file swapping then murder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2004 7:23pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Imagine a world when you can be in jail longer for file swapping then murder. |
Imagine a world in which people can have their property stolen and there is nothing they can do about it. That's the world P2P has created. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2004 7:43pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am a firm beliver that the punishment should fit the crime. 10 year punishment is only because of the lobbyist and lawmakers getting paid off.
Codemaster: I also think you should read up on how copyright came to be. Maybe you'd change your stance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2004 8:46pm Post subject: |
|
|
codemastr, as a professional artist I have seen my artwork copied without my authorization and used in magazine and newspaper ads, billboards, on restaurant menus, store signs, t-shirts, greeting cards, even large printed posters sold in national chain retailers. My daughter called me up last summer, "Hey Mom, guess what? I was on the Boardwalk in Seaside and this girl walked by with one of your designs tattooed on her shoulder!"
Copyright infringement happens all the time to professional artists and photographers. You know what? The artist can't do much about it. Unless your work is mass produced by a manufacturer that has real assets and operates in the same town where you live (haha), forget seeking legal action. First of all, its a CIVIL matter, not a crime. Second of all, the judge will listen to the person honestly saying they had no idea what they did was illegal, and let them go with just a lecture.
I am not making light of the warez situation. Its a serious problem. But the law should treat everyone equally, and the punishment should fit the crime. The movie/software/music industries should not be treated any differently than I am, as a professional who holds a copyright, when I find my work reproduced without my permission. Someone infringing on THEIR copyright should be treated the same way as someone infringing on MY copyright.
Should that girl with the unauthorized tattoo be given 10 years in jail? Should the owner of the restaurant, who used my illustration on the sign outside their establishment, be put in jail for 10 years? What about the manufacturer in New Mexico who used one of my pictures on 20,000 t-shirts? 10 years for each shirt? Should the college professor who clipped my art and used it on his personal website be put in chains and dragged away? (all true situations, btw)
I don't think so, and I'm the one being robbed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2004 9:06pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That is an excellent way of explaining it all. For copyright infringement, possibly the company/copyright owner should just claim royalties for the people who do steal their design/software/etc, but not throw people away in jail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2004 11:51pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I am a firm beliver that the punishment should fit the crime. 10 year punishment is only because of the lobbyist and lawmakers getting paid off. |
Well, what is the punishment that fits this crime? Right now, people are being sued. Has that stopped anyone? Nope. There are still tens of millions of people logged onto kazaa everyday. A punishment should fit a crime, but what happens when the punishment has no effect? Civil action, as mregit so accurately pointed out, is often impossible to even carry out. So what we have is a crime that you can't be punished for. And if you are punished, the punishment is not a sufficient deterent. What's one way to slow P2P down? Make it a felony. Yeah, we here about these 16 year old kids being sued for $100,000+ but, no one seems to care. See a couple 16 year olds go to jail, and you'll see parents monitoring their kids more closely. P2P usage would drop dramatically almost instantly.
| Quote: | | Codemaster: I also think you should read up on how copyright came to be. Maybe you'd change your stance. |
As the owner of several copyrights, I assure you I will not change my mind. And anyway, I know exactly how copyrights came into being. The first written copyright law was in England in the early 1700's and enacted to protect the rights of artists. The main purpose was to prevent monopolies and to prevent authors from having control over a work after it was purchased. It was enacted in response to a previous act of parliament which basically lead to government censorship of the media. The copyright legislation solved this and made the media once again a free forum for exchanging ideas. The first US copyright laws were built right into the US Constitution. Yes, that's right, the Founding Fathers felt that copyright protection was more important than freedom of speech which was not mentioned anywhere in the original text. How exactly is any of that supposed to change my stance? Sounds to me like copyrights are a good thing.
mregit: Btw, you're wrong about copyrights being exclusively civil. In the US at least, that is not the case. In 1992, Congress passed the "Copyright Felony Act." This law made certain kinds of copyright infringment a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. So this is not a new idea, laws to this effect have been on the books in the US for 12 years now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2004 11:53pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | possibly the company/copyright owner should just claim royalties |
ahhhh... but there's the rub. You can't just send the infringer a bill. You have to go through the courts. Call up your local patent/copyright law office and ask how much it would cost to hire an attorney to represent you in court. The one I called wanted a $20,000 retainer, and told me straight out it wasn't worth their time and effort unless the expected judgement was at least $100,000 with a very high probability they could collect.
So... the little people can't defend their own copyrights, AND get 10 years in jail if they infringe on someone else's copyright.
Last edited by Mary on Apr 18, 2004 5:12am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 12:13am Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: |
Well, what is the punishment that fits this crime? Right now, people are being sued. Has that stopped anyone? Nope. There are still tens of millions of people logged onto kazaa everyday. |
There lies your problem.
The government is run by the people for the people. But what happens when the government makes laws that makes it's population all criminals?
Something will eventually give, and I doubt the public will magically change it's ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 12:31am Post subject: |
|
|
codemastr, you missed my point. Copy my art, or a photographer's photo, or an author's manuscript, or code that you wrote from scratch and never released to the public (all copyrighted material) and its a CIVIL matter. But copying a song is a crime. The laws favor certain groups over others - not because their products are vital to the national interest, but because these groups have strong political influence. Tell me why we're spending millions of dollars of taxpayer's money paying federal law enforcement agents to find and seize shipments of Gucci knock offs, chinese cigarettes, and textiles from Africa -- but a photographer who finds someone signing their name to his pictures and selling prints on ebay, has to scrape together his pennies and take them to court personally?
| Quote: | | See a couple 16 year olds go to jail, and you'll see parents monitoring their kids more closely. P2P usage would drop dramatically almost instantly. |
Why not just put them to death? I bet Kazaa would vanish overnight. No one will risk death over a song. Parents will get rid of their computers rather than risk their children's lives. That will REALLY put a stop to warez.
I'm joking of course... but stop and think about those kids you are so willing to put in jail. How many are on Kazaa now... a few MILLION? Lets move the age up to 18 (not sure if you can convict a 16 yr old to 10 years in jail) and put them in jail until they are 28. You will take their college years away, their first job, their first car, dating, marriage, children... and replace it with a criminal record and ten years in a JAIL. Have you ever BEEN in a jail, codemastr? Its not something you forget. You carry it with you, and it stands between you and everything you want to do, for the rest of your life. How many lives are you willing to ruin over a copy of a movie? Your brother's life? Your friend's life? The kid next door? The woman you might marry some day?
10 years in jail for P2P file trading is the modern day version of people who commit petty crimes being sent to Australia's penal colonies. It is Absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zex-marquis
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 1:28am Post subject: |
|
|
I dont agree at all w\ the language the hard up law makers choose to use to describe file swapping.. they word it as if you are breaking into a persons computer and actually stealing their data.. which is a crime.. however when you willingly ''share'' and allow people to have ur data... whats the name of that crime.. it sure isn't theft....
**secondly.. isn't the only big deal w\ copyright infringment selling it... i really see not much wrong w\ utilizing the technology we have now to share things w\ others... if you comple sets of movies though and sell them for profit... then you will be committing a crime and probably deserve some sort of punishment .. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 8:19am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | however when you willingly ''share'' and allow people to have ur data... whats the name of that crime.. it sure isn't theft.... |
You purchased the right to use/listen/watch the file, but you do not own the data itself. Companies make money by selling rights to use their data, so if its passed around freely, their abilty to profit fairly is compromised. I have no problems with laws protecting the economy by protecting business. I just think copyright and patent laws have been controlled by big business to the detriment of not only the consumer, but also to smaller manufacturers who cannot compete against massive legal warchests.
| Quote: | | **secondly.. isn't the only big deal w\ copyright infringment selling it... i really see not much wrong w\ utilizing the technology we have now to share things w\ others... if you comple sets of movies though and sell them for profit... then you will be committing a crime and probably deserve some sort of punishment .. |
The big deal is about the right to make reasonable profits from your work. If the circus comes to town and you sneak in the back door, you're depriving the circus the cost of your ticket. Not ethical, but the circus will survive. If everyone sneaks in the back door, and the law says the circus can't lock that door because its also used for a fire exit -- then the circus is no longer a viable business unless the law steps in to protect them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 1:10pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The government is run by the people for the people. But what happens when the government makes laws that makes it's population all criminals? |
Ah yes, Mr. Abraham Lincoln, a fine President. You know what though? At the time Mr. Lincoln said that, the majority of the US population was in favor of slavery. And those who were against slavery were just fine with the South leaving the Union. If the government was "by the people and for the people" slavery would not have been abolished. Those who wanted slavery gone were the minority. President Lincoln recognized this. He realized he, as an elected official, was entrusted with the task of making the decisions the people did not want to make themselves. It was his job to do what was right (free the slaves) rather than to do what the majority wanted (leave the south alone).
Think about it. When was the last time you wrote your Congressman asking him to raise your taxes? I'm sure if you took a poll, 99% of the American public would love it if they paid $0 in taxes. Afterall, it's your money, you earned it, why should you give it to the government? So when legislators raise taxes, they are not doing with that people want. However, if they don't raise the taxes, the government might go bankrupt. So, the legislators look at it differently. Instead of saying, do what the people want and abolish the taxes, they raise the taxes because they recognize that is what is better for everyone, even if the people don't see it.
Let us not forget, most of the brutal dictators in the world are doing what the majority wants. The majority of Germans supported killing the Jews for example. So does that mean, since the majority of Germans supported it, the government should have been allowed to kill 6.5 million Jews? That's the kind of action your logic supports. If the majority wants it, the majority gets it.
| Quote: | | Something will eventually give, and I doubt the public will magically change it's ways. |
You're probably right, the public probably isn't going to, overnight think filesharing is bad. But it does happen on a small scale. I used to support P2P 100%. I thought the RIAA was the equivilent to Satan. Then one day, I thought about it. And I realized, if I had made something, and someone stole it and it hurt me financially, I probably wouldn't be too happy either. And now, I'm 100% against filesharing. So maybe the majority of the public isn't going to change opinions, but some people will. Furthermore, again I say, just because people accept something doesn't make it right.
| Quote: |
Why not just put them to death? I bet Kazaa would vanish overnight. No one will risk death over a song. Parents will get rid of their computers rather than risk their children's lives. That will REALLY put a stop to warez. |
You're probably right. However, you don't go from 0 to 60 just like that, you always try and combat something by taking small steps. I mean come on, do you really think someone is going to get 10 years? First off, most criminals serve only 80% of their sentence, so now we're down to 8 years. Then you have probation so lets say you'd serve 5 years with good behavior. Then, most likely you're going to plead guilty (I mean, if they have IP logs, ISP logs, etc. it's really pretty much proven that you did it), so you get a lesser sentence for that. My guess is, the majority of people convicted under this law would serve a couple months in prison. Look at Martha Stewart for example. Her crime carries a sentence of up to 10 years. Most experts say she'll probably serve a month.
| Quote: | | You will take their college years away, their first job, their first car, dating, marriage, children... and replace it with a criminal record and ten years in a JAIL. |
Oh, so you mean it'd be hurting them financially? They didn't seem to care when they were hurting the copyright holders financially...
| Quote: | | Have you ever BEEN in a jail, codemastr? |
Nope, and you know why? Because I follow the law. That's all I'm asking of these people as well...
| Quote: | | Its not something you forget. You carry it with you, and it stands between you and everything you want to do, for the rest of your life. |
Yeah you're right. I'm sure pedophiles feel the same way. They make one mistake, and rape a small child and next thing you know they're branded a sexual predator for the rest of their lives! Can't buy a house without all the neighbors knowing, can't move without informing the police. Everyone knows what you did, and shuns you for the rest of your life. I mean, there are some pedophiles who change their ways right? That is the purpose of prison, to make people productive members of society again. So why, once they've served their time, should they be branded for the rest of their lives? Granted, copyright infringement is a much less serious offense, but the same logic applies. Sometimes people need to be used to set an example.
| Quote: | | How many lives are you willing to ruin over a copy of a movie? Your brother's life? Your friend's life? The kid next door? The woman you might marry some day? |
Hold on there. I'm not ruining anyone's life. Did I hold a gun to their head and tell them to go break the law and download copyrighted material? Nope. They chose to do it themselves. I could just as easily turn this around. How many people's lives are you willing to ruin over embezzling $50 million dollars from corporate funds? In my mind the answer is none. No one forced these people to commit crimes, they did it on their own, and they have to accept the punishment. The old saying holds true, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
| Quote: | | however when you willingly ''share'' and allow people to have ur data... whats the name of that crime.. it sure isn't theft.... |
The keyword is "your" data. The music/software/movies/etc. is not your data. You don't own it, you own a license to use it for yourself. Also, "sharing" is a misnomer. If I "share" my car with you, that means, while you have my car, I don't. Only one of us can use it at a given time. With music, I'm not "sharing" it with you, I'm "copying" it for you. We each have our own independent copies. As far as I know, there is no law that says I can't lend you a CD and you listen to it (I'm reasonably sure that would fall under fair use). However, my making you a copy of a CD is something different |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 3:07pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The majority of Germans supported killing the Jews for example. So does that mean, since the majority of Germans supported it, the government should have been allowed to kill 6.5 million Jews? That's the kind of action your logic supports. If the majority wants it, the majority gets it. |
Genocide; the mass-killing of a race does NOT equal copyright infringement. The Germans would not make any money by killing anyone. Your point is totally irrelevant.
Everything comes down to money these days. The rich people get to pass laws and the poor people have little or no rights at all. In Canada, we had some rich guy living in Toronto pass a law to prevent the spring bear hunt one year. Due to the higher number of bears that year, many farmers lost their animals -- bears eat poultry, newborn lambs/cattle and just about every other small livestock. Did the government get rid of this stupid law preventing the spring bear hunt? NO! And we had about 100, 000+ farmers complaining about it. Let alone, those farmers lost profits from this law being in place. Maybe we should put that big rich guy along with the representatives of the government in jail for 10 years because the farmers lost most of their profit one year because of the new law -- OR perhaps we can forget about the loss, ask the government for financial assistance, and carry on with our lives. As the case with illegal file trading, I believe there should be a consequence however, jailtime is a pretty heavy penalty for something as simple as copyright infringement.
As stated, you have never been in jail, and neither has any of the big copyright holders. Even spending one day in jail is hard enough. When I was on a field trip with a class, we were given a tour of the local police station. I can easily imagine what it's like to sit in a concrete room with steel bars in front of you. Since this all revolves around money, why can't copyright infringers just be given a large fine to pay instead? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 3:08pm Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | I used to support P2P 100%. I thought the RIAA was the equivilent to Satan. Then one day, I thought about it. And I realized, if I had made something, and someone stole it and it hurt me financially, I probably wouldn't be too happy either. And now, I'm 100% against filesharing. So maybe the majority of the public isn't going to change opinions, but some people will. Furthermore, again I say, just because people accept something doesn't make it right. |
You used to be right, too. But you aren't anymore. RIAA isn't going out to get money for the artists, they are out to get money for themselves - they are out to make sure they control how music is distributed, and who gets to distribute it.
Imagine if the Horse and buggy companies were able to lobby the government and prevent Cars from being manufactured. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 3:18pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Even spending one day in jail is hard enough. |
Then don't do the crime unless you want to do the time. period.
You should have learned as a young child that you get punished for doing something wrong. Inprisonment is part of your punishment for violating copyright laws. period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
