Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 141

Thread: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

  1. #111
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It doesn't bother me because people who support IP have yet to reconcile that you can't control intangibles once they have been shared with others.
    So? We can't stop people from murdering people or holding up banks or any other innumerable illegal activities. It doesn't mean we make them legal. The laws are used to formally charge and punish offenders for violations. The laws aren't used to catch offenders.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It's a very retarded punishment system, when your catching .0001% of the people violating copyright, that tells me it isn't working or reasonably enforceable.
    So?

    It's the law.

    What you're saying is that the law needs more funds for more effectively enforcement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I understand that information is an intangible, it doesn't matter if it is copyrighted or not.
    It does to the person who's being robbed, but that's a fine sounding excuse for the thief to haul out and show around.

  3. #113
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    So?

    It's the law.

    What you're saying is that the law needs more funds for more effectively enforcement.
    There isn't really any enforcement to fund since this type of copyright infringement is a civil offense. It's enforced to the extent that the content owners want to enforce it.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    If I am deprived of nothing, it can't possibly be theft.
    And now that we have that cleared up, the cheapskate thieves stealing music and video are depriving the owners of that material their fee, so it really is theft.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I do as I wish, not to just flaunt the law but because I will do what I want.
    Unjust laws will not be followed by me.
    Where's the injustice of the owner of a property requiring payment before that product is taken?

    Oh, the injustice is that poor little college babies will have to spend their own money? How awful. Stolen music is so essential to keeping body and soul together, isn't it?

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    There isn't really any enforcement to fund since this type of copyright infringement is a civil offense. It's enforced to the extent that the content owners want to enforce it.
    The government's do pay attention to the mass market pirates who deal in millions of dollars of stolen copyrighted material.

    The recording companies are going after the little children who play "pirate" on their little laptop computers to show other little children that they two can be caught.

  7. #117
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The government's do pay attention to the mass market pirates who deal in millions of dollars of stolen copyrighted material.
    That's why I said "this type of copyright infringement." Commercial copyright infringement is a criminal offense and is treated like any other criminal offense.

    The recording companies are going after the little children who play "pirate" on their little laptop computers to show other little children that they two can be caught.
    The campaign of lawsuits was a river of bad PR for the RIAA, which is why they stopped filing lawsuits last winter. They kept litigating suits that were in progress, but haven't filed any new ones.

  8. #118
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Even at the peak of piracy, before the corporations started their draconian campaign to attack content sharers, artists were still making money. They will always make money

    What this is about is profit maximization. A select few corporations in the recording industry didn't meet their quarterly projections for a few years, and got mad. They still made money, but because they didn't make as much money as the year before, this alarmed them. This is the context for the entire battle.
    Irrelevant. Copyright holders rights are still being violated. It doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor, tall or small, rights are protected equally under the law.

    Yes, some copyright holders have more resources to allocate towards finding and prosecuting violators but that doesn't mean they are any less protected under the law.

    YES, they are technically correct about IP laws which is why they have the right to pursue it, but IP laws have never been enforced to this insane degree before.
    These are civil cases, not criminal, right?

    Art, literature, and information are not meant to be locked in a tower this way.
    You can't make much money if you locked it all away now could you. Selling and distributing your product widely is what makes IP holders rich. How can you get rich by hoarding a unique product? If you ration your product or raise prices too much the competition weasles its way into your market share with something similiar. This is demonstrated over and over again. Copyrights and patents are narrow enough where competitors can create similiar products without violating others IP.

    ALL people should have access to it, because there will always be people who buy it!
    key word here is "BUY". If everyone paid for the music, software, and movies they illegally used then copyright holders wouldn't have a problem with file sharing. People not paying for a product they use is WHY this is an issue.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  9. #119
    Professor
    Travelsonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 11:20 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,376

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Copyright violation is theft.

    Period..


    Please, somebody, shoot me now, this idiocy needs to end. You either have to be trolling, or incapable of distinguishing between opinion and fact in which case I recommend you look at the two crimes, look at several cases (Dowling v. U.S, Grokster, etc), and get back to us.

    Copyright infringement is copyright infringement - the violation of rights in this case to exclusive control over distribution/use of a work.

    Theft is theft: taking of property with intent to deprive.

    How the **** you could possibly think the two POSSIBLY be the same in a legal system that systematically distinguishes between two very distinct and logically different concepts shows you don't have one iota, don't give a flying **** about intellectual honesty and factual accuracy in my (misinformed maybe) opinion.

    You can believe morally they are the same, but when it comes to FACTS as in what the LAW ACTUALLY says they are not the same. Period. No quantity of high horse can change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    I was not equating the two from a moral standpoint. I was merely pointing out that most people doing immoral things do not mind being labeled.

    It is indeed. Except when the label is simply a statement of fact.
    Except you forgot the part about actually labeling people correctly. Everybody has a problem with that.

    I take it you are taking the "they are both crimes, so they are the same to me" type mentality? If not please do elaborate so I can actually respond to the point without missing the point you are making, as I may be fierce in defending my positions, but I want to make sure it is done by accurately getting the pov of the other side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    I know, right? The ****ing constitution recognizes that IP is for the good of the public, not the good of the content producers, and that it should be protected only to promote more progress
    No, the constitution recognizes copyright/patents, not the abstract concept of IP that it has encompassed and confused the three. Anyways, you can't possibly be thick, so stop playing stupid and actually address the issue addressed in the post you responded. How is copyright lasting for over 100 years beneficial, or even in line with what the founding fathers intended? How do creators possibly benefit from such a long term, and how does the public benefit if the length of time before a work goes into and enriches the public domain is lengthened?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    I agree that legally it proves me wrong at this time.
    And yet their actions still fit the legal definition.
    ... elaborate please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    [SIZE="3"][FONT="Georgia"][I]Yeah, right!
    So what is the harm in it, if I borrow/(Identity Theft) your name for my purposes if I I don't damage it?
    Ah, but the identity itself isn't being stolen, you are using the identity to steal money that somebody has. Not a good example, as you are using a misnomer/misconception about a term/crime to make your point, IMO of course.

    When you knowingly take possession of another's property, when you are not legally allowed, is theft as far as I am concerned
    Problem is, if you can clone property without depriving them of it, from what I have been arguing. If you copy something and make some new copy, without depriving the original owner, how can it be classified the same as stealing somebody's purse/wallet. If there are dubious legality behind instances of copying data so be it I am not arguing that they shouldn't be recognized, but it needs to be (and already is) a separate entity than shoplifting, stealing a purse/wallet, or other acts of real theft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    ... depriving the owners of that material their fee, so it really is theft.
    So those who give a crap review for a product and stop people from buying that product are theives too? After all, you are depriving them of their dues.

    Nobody is owed money just because they make a product. If I work, I get paid per hour/week/whatever, and if I do a crap job, I don't get paid. Software/music/movies should not be, and are not any different.

    You can't take money away from somebody if they don't have it, and not making money != having it taken from you. Actually being ripped off is something that should be prosecuted, but I'm seeing an entitlement sentiment that would make those complaining about that alleged attitude in a pirate (even when the person in question hasn't at all been proven to be a pirate in the first place, no doubt) a hypocrite.
    Last edited by Travelsonic; 08-05-09 at 08:02 PM.
    Nationalism in high dosages may be hazardous to your health. Please consult a psychiatrist before beginning a regular regimen, and if feelings of elitism and douchbaggery continue, discontinue immediately before you become unable to do so on your own.

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Travelsonic View Post


    Please, somebody, shoot me now, this idiocy needs to end. You either have to be trolling, or incapable of distinguishing between opinion and fact in which case I recommend you look at the two crimes, look at several cases (Dowling v. U.S, Grokster, etc), and get back to us.

    Copyright infringement is copyright infringement - the violation of rights in this case to exclusive control over distribution/use of a work.

    Theft is theft: taking of property with intent to deprive.

    How the **** you could possibly think the two POSSIBLY be the same in a legal system that systematically distinguishes between two very distinct and logically different concepts shows you don't have one iota, don't give a flying **** about intellectual honesty and factual accuracy in my (misinformed maybe) opinion.

    You can believe morally they are the same, but when it comes to FACTS as in what the LAW ACTUALLY says they are not the same. Period. No quantity of high horse can change that.



    Except you forgot the part about actually labeling people correctly. Everybody has a problem with that.

    I take it you are taking the "they are both crimes, so they are the same to me" type mentality? If not please do elaborate so I can actually respond to the point without missing the point you are making, as I may be fierce in defending my positions, but I want to make sure it is done by accurately getting the pov of the other side.



    No, the constitution recognizes copyright/patents, not the abstract concept of IP that it has encompassed and confused the three. Anyways, you can't possibly be thick, so stop playing stupid and actually address the issue addressed in the post you responded. How is copyright lasting for over 100 years beneficial, or even in line with what the founding fathers intended? How do creators possibly benefit from such a long term, and how does the public benefit if the length of time before a work goes into and enriches the public domain is lengthened?



    ... elaborate please.



    Ah, but the identity itself isn't being stolen, you are using the identity to steal money that somebody has. Not a good example, as you are using a misnomer/misconception about a term/crime to make your point, IMO of course.



    Problem is, if you can clone property without depriving them of it, from what I have been arguing. If you copy something and make some new copy, without depriving the original owner, how can it be classified the same as stealing somebody's purse/wallet. If there are dubious legality behind instances of copying data so be it I am not arguing that they shouldn't be recognized, but it needs to be (and already is) a separate entity than shoplifting, stealing a purse/wallet, or other acts of real theft.



    So those who give a crap review for a product and stop people from buying that product are theives too? After all, you are depriving them of their dues.

    Nobody is owed money just because they make a product. If I work, I get paid per hour/week/whatever, and if I do a crap job, I don't get paid. Software/music/movies should not be, and are not any different.

    You can't take money away from somebody if they don't have it, and not making money != having it taken from you. Actually being ripped off is something that should be prosecuted, but I'm seeing an entitlement sentiment that would make those complaining about that alleged attitude in a pirate (even when the person in question hasn't at all been proven to be a pirate in the first place, no doubt) a hypocrite.

    Amazing what you people will do to avoid the correct definitions of words and proper uses of logic, isn't it?

    Something is offered for sale, a person finds a way to copy it without paying for it.

    Theft, plain and simple.

    Live with it, stop hiding what you are, come out of the closet and move to San Francisco.

Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •