• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

scourge99 said:
There was nothing about morals in that at all. You claimed Americans can't legally upload or download. I explained why that statement is wrong. Americans can upload and download. We can even upload and download IP. We just can't upload and download IP in violation of IP laws. So I can upload content for my family to a server or as backup, I just can't upload content for the entire world without the permission of the IP holder.
Click to expand...

I meant downloading copyrighted content. I was just shortening the statement. Everytime I say "download" or "upload" I don't want to have to type out the long form. Everyone knows what I mean. Please stop splitting hairs over this point.

scourge99 said:
Additionally I showed how its illegal for Canadians to upload and download IP in violation of "fair dealing", though music is currently an exception because of levies and ambiguity in the court ruling. However, software, movies, and art are still protected with laws similiar to that in the US.
Click to expand...

Then I respect the Canadian government consulting the Canadian public and making its own laws if necessary. What I don't support is an American company lobbying our government with millions of dollars to change our laws to fit the American system. Your companies can take their lobbying and shove it.

scourge99 said:
The problem is if I can get something for free instead of paying for it then I'm not going to pay for it.
Click to expand...

As I said previously, the corporations would suffer a profit loss under a two-tier system, but they would still make profit. They just don't want to accept the cut.

The system is not going to change for corporate powers. Governments can make all the laws they want and increase punishments, people wil adapt with better programs for hiding their downloading presence, and will continue to trade in the digital world. I'm not worried.

scourge99 said:
The levy system in Canada attempts to address this but it has several serious flaws.
Click to expand...

As I said before, then it's up to owners of IP in Canada to lobby for change, not American mega-corporations,

scourge99 said:
I'm not a corporation and I think IP should stay as it is. Furthermore, even IF the corporations wanted it for whatever strawman you wish to knock down, the rationale for IP continues to stand..
Click to expand...

And I don't care, nor does the majority.

scourge99 said:
Actually it still is. From what I read you can download whatever the hell is on the net but you can't upload except if it falls under "fair dealing", which if you are uploading to torrents or sharing sites would be illegal. However, I doubt they'd come after you but it still clarified as illegal in Canada.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of this, which goes to show you the level of enforcement. Canadians are even more relaxed about downloading. Our government is not going to invest money in enforcement at the behest of American corporations, or at least I'd hope not. If enforcement is needed then it is Canadian companies and IP holders that need to lobby for it. Anything else is undemocratic.

scourge99 said:
I looked for this and found nothing about sampling or demo and this 24 hour grace period. Got a link?
Click to expand...

No I don't... it's what a law professor told me at school a couple of years ago. I have no source.

scourge99 said:
Assuming this demo and sampling you are doing is even legal in Canada. So far I've found nothing that suggests anyone for whatever reason can violate Canadian copyright law.
Click to expand...

The trend of pushing for enforcement comes mostly from the U.S. Your companies are making this campaign global, but I don't see very much crying from companies in Canada, Sweden, or anywhere else that the mega-corporations are trying to undemocratically push for higher enforcement and penalties.

I find it entertaining to watch them chase their tails all over the world, using up millions in litigation, all the while people everywhere continue to share content.

They are dinosaurs and their ways will go extinct. Open source is the future, and so is a two-tier market. The sooner they accept it, the sooner they will stop losing money.
 
jamesrage said:
I think in the long run it will cost the record more money going after these these people.
Click to expand...

It costs them more to sue a person than they will likely ever get back. True. But the thought is that they may prevent other thieves. I don't know if they actually will, but that's the thought.

Theft requires illegally depriving someone of their property, these people were not deprived of their property.
Click to expand...

Yes they were. The law rightly recognizes intellectual property rights. Which is a good thing. A song belongs to the people who wrote and recorded it and it's up to them to decide how it gets distributed. If you distribute their song in a way they do not approve of they have every right to demand compensation. Just like if you made copies of Harry Potter books and sold them. It's not your book to distribute.
 
stekim said:
Yes they were. The law rightly recognizes intellectual property rights. Which is a good thing. A song belongs to the people who wrote and recorded it and it's up to them to decide how it gets distributed. If you distribute their song in a way they do not approve of they have every right to demand compensation. Just like if you made copies of Harry Potter books and sold them. It's not your book to distribute.
Click to expand...

You need to learn the difference between theft and piracy. They are not the same thing. One involves removal of the original, the other involves making copies and distributing without permission.
 
stekim said:
Yes they were. The law rightly recognizes intellectual property rights. Which is a good thing. A song belongs to the people who wrote and recorded it and it's up to them to decide how it gets distributed. If you distribute their song in a way they do not approve of they have every right to demand compensation. Just like if you made copies of Harry Potter books and sold them. It's not your book to distribute.
Click to expand...

You still didn't explain how they were deprived of something, you just said they were and moved on without actually elaborating. :doh
 
Orius said:
You need to learn the difference between theft and piracy. They are not the same thing. One involves removal of the original, the other involves making copies and distributing without permission.
Click to expand...

Amen to that! A lot of people confuse the two because of the music and movie industry's idiotic "piracy = theft" campaign.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Amen to that! A lot of people confuse the two because of the music and movie industry's idiotic "piracy = theft" campaign.
Click to expand...

Then there some people who say the idiotic "theft = piracy" line that - when corrected - respond with the even stupider "They are both crimes (implying that they are therefore the same)" retort.. so? They are both crimes, that doesn't make them the same, and proof by absurdity can be used to re-enforce this logical gap.

To quote a poster on mediafilter.com who put it better than I:

russilwvong (poster on mediafilter) said:
- If A=B, then B=A. Equality is symmetric. Got that? With me so far?
- Therefore, if copyright infringement is theft, then theft is copyright infringement.
- Therefore, if I reach into your bag and take your lunch and run away, I have infringed the copyright you hold in your lunch.

Just in the interest of logical consistency I have to point out this is a flawed argument. Copyright infringement could be a subset of theft; I don't believe so myself but it's a possibility in the logic. As a proof by absurdity, if Murder=Crime then Crime=Murder and therefore if I have jaywalked I am a murderer.

Set theory is very important.
Click to expand...
Suspension de l?abonnement internet | MetaFilter
 
Last edited:
Travelsonic said:
You still didn't explain how they were deprived of something, you just said they were and moved on without actually elaborating.
Click to expand...
They are deprived of distributing 'their' property it in the way they choose.


Dr_Patrick said:
Orius said:
You need to learn the difference between theft and piracy. They are not the same thing. One involves removal of the original, the other involves making copies and distributing without permission.
Click to expand...
Amen to that! A lot of people confuse the two because of the music and movie industry's idiotic "piracy = theft" campaign.
Click to expand...
When a person illegally takes possession of another's property (whether or not it is just a copy), not only are they violating a 'Right", it can still be defined as theft, stealing and even larceny.
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
Theft legal definition of Theft. Theft synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Click to expand...
 
Coolguy said:
They are deprived of distributing 'their' property it in the way they choose.


When a person illegally takes possession of another's property (whether or not it is just a copy), not only are they violating a 'Right", it can still be defined as theft, stealing and even larceny.
​
Click to expand...

How exactly is it their property? To me it's no different than copying songs from a cd to make a mix tape or cd for someone. Downloading a copy of something is not, nor will it ever be theft. I'm not discouraging people from buying cds here. If I'm going to shell out $20 for a cd I'm going to make damn sure beforehand that I like that album. The current system of picking 2 or 3 tracks off of an album for radio play and expecting people to purchase that entire album blindly based on that is not only disingenuous but incredibly stupid. You may choose to purchase albums based on this system, but I don't.
 
Another thief gets busted.
 
Orius said:
Thanks for failing to add substance to a thread...

...again.
Click to expand...

What else is there to add Osrius? I approve of this guy getting busted for being a thief.

Would you like a long worded explanation for why I have little patience for people that both download, and share IP that is not theirs to share. Why I believe that artists, actors, software designers, writers and others vulnerable to this sort of theft should be given all the support we can to STOP the stealing?

The kid should be in jail IMHO, not just fined.
 
Coolguy said:
They are deprived of distributing 'their' property it in the way they choose.


When a person illegally takes possession of another's property (whether or not it is just a copy), not only are they violating a 'Right", it can still be defined as theft, stealing and even larceny.
​
Click to expand...


That doesn't make sense since in this cae you are making a copy of the property, not taking control of another's property in such a way where theft was originally (and continually to this day) defined. You must deprive them of their property, not infringe upon rights, to constitute a theft.

Grokster/morpheus, Dowling v. U.S... they prove you wrong.

BTW: They still have their right to go after those who violate their rights - to maintain their rights, so to day they are deprived of the right to distribute, IMO, is fallacious.
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
You need to learn the difference between theft and piracy. They are not the same thing. One involves removal of the original, the other involves making copies and distributing without permission.
Click to expand...


Prirates are thieves, too.
 
stekim said:
Prirates are thieves, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if they were simply making copies of the money they took rather than just stealing it from people their historical mark probably wouldn't be as big.
 
stekim said:
Prirates are thieves, too.
Click to expand...

And your factual basis for this is? Last I checked, piracy was priracy, murder was morder, rape is rape, and theft is theft, but piracy != murder != rape != theft.

I think the kid should have some sort of penalty for what he did since he was caught, but certainly the punishment - especially with the likes of the RIAA/MPAA in control - do NOT fit the crime.
 
Travelsonic said:
You still didn't explain how they were deprived of something, you just said they were and moved on without actually elaborating. :doh
Click to expand...

Because it's seems too obvious to have to elaborate on! They are missing out on the money that is due them from creating the song. It's the exact same as taking money right out of their wallet. And, luckily, the law recognized that to the tune of $650,000. Same applies to an endless number of other things. You cannot copy and then distribute a drug or any other patented or copyrighted product for the exact same reason. It's theft, plain and simple. And I would also have criminal penalties added on the civil ones.
 
Last edited:
Travelsonic said:
And your factual basis for this is? Last I checked, piracy was priracy, murder was morder, rape is rape, and theft is theft, but piracy != murder != rape != theft.
Click to expand...

My factual basis? He took something that did not belong to him and then distributed it. That is theft. Sorry. Piracy is, by definition, stealing.

I think the kid should have some sort of penalty for what he did since he was caught, but certainly the punishment - especially with the likes of the RIAA/MPAA in control - do NOT fit the crime.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with that bit. I think the penalty should depend on how many copies were distributed. In other words, actual damages to the artist, plus a little fine because he's a thief. But what he got was indeed too harsh.
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
Not only is the law inconsistently applied, it flies in the face of the will of the people. How many people in the United States actually want to see downloading made illegal so people can face such steep penalties? Definitely not the majority.

The U.S. continues to prove that it is looking out for the assets of the barons of industry before they are looking out for the welfare and security of citizens. $650,000 for 30 songs is an outrageous penalty, and it could have been even higher.

The student said that if the verdict sticks, he will have to file for bankruptcy. Another life ruined, all because the music industry wants to set an example. These companies are the ones destroying music, not the downloaders.

Now please excuse me while I download 50 songs in protest.
Click to expand...

Copyright violation is theft.

Period.

The will of the people be damned, theft is theft, and the wonderful "people" should stick to raising taxes if they want to steal.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Copyright violation is theft.

Period.

The will of the people be damned, theft is theft, and the wonderful "people" should stick to raising taxes if they want to steal.
Click to expand...

Sorry but once something moves from your sphere of control you have zero reasonable expectation of control.

That is the problem with this situation, your expecting to own something outside your direct control which defies the principle of ownership.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sorry but once something moves from your sphere of control you have zero reasonable expectation of control.

That is the problem with this situation, your expecting to own something outside your direct control which defies the principle of ownership.
Click to expand...

No, theft is theft. The laws are against copyright violation.

Sorry cheap people that steal music off the internet are theives. You can't handle the label? Tough.
 
It appears thieves do not like to be called that.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, theft is theft. The laws are against copyright violation.

Sorry cheap people that steal music off the internet are theives. You can't handle the label? Tough.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you or anyone else calls me, it has no real relevance on my life.

The problem with your argument is that you can't control intangibles once you release them from your brain. That's it, no more control.

You zero expectation of control once your idea, song, whatever is told, shown or heard by someone else.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sorry but once something moves from your sphere of control you have zero reasonable expectation of control.

That is the problem with this situation, your expecting to own something outside your direct control which defies the principle of ownership.
Click to expand...

So is your problem with IP laws the fact that there's no way to prevent them from being broken, but only a way to punish those why have broken them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom