• 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

Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't care what you or anyone else calls me, it has no real relevance on my life.
Click to expand...

Whatever.

Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Guess what copyright laws are for?

That's riiigght....it's to provide a legal mechanism to punish theives.

The thief described in the OP just had his credit history ruined by a bankruptcy....for enabling others to steal a mere handful of songs.

He was a thief and got caught. Just because not every thief can be caught doesn't mean stealing should be de-criinalized.

Stealing copyrighted material is no different than stealing someone's TV. There's less risk, but the thief is still just a thief.

Harry Guerrilla said:
You zero expectation of control once your idea, song whatever is told, shown or heard by someone else.
Click to expand...

Then again, you could try to even SAY the word "copyright", and then you would at least have a chance of understanding the essential error of your ways.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
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?
Click to expand...

Actually my real problem is with the time that one can hold copyright for, if it wasn't extended to unreasonable, insane periods of time I wouldn't argue my position.

In reality though, that's the issue with IP it's an intangible that can't be controlled.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually my real problem is with the time that one can hold copyright for, if it wasn't extended to unreasonable, insane periods of time I wouldn't argue my position.
Click to expand...

I agree. The IP laws we have are overly weighted towards the content producers

In reality though, that's the issue with IP it's an intangible that can't be controlled.
Click to expand...

The same could be said about classified information. It is intangible and its spread cannot be controlled. We can only hope to punish those who distribute it without authorization. What makes other types of IP different that they should not be protected?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Nonsense.

Guess what copyright laws are for?

That's riiigght....it's to provide a legal mechanism to punish theives.

The thief described in the OP just had his credit history ruined by a bankruptcy....for enabling others to steal a mere handful of songs.

He was a thief and got caught. Just because not every thief can be caught doesn't mean stealing should be de-criinalized.

Stealing copyrighted material is no different than stealing someone's TV. There's less risk, but the thief is still just a thief.
Click to expand...

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.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then again, you could try to even SAY the word "copyright", and then you would at least have a chance of understanding the essential error of your ways.
Click to expand...

I understand that information is an intangible, it doesn't matter if it is copyrighted or not.
 
jamesrage said:
I think the individual should be fined no more than the market value of the songs if he paid for them at a store.
Click to expand...

So Winona Ryder should only have had to pay back the cash value of her stolen goods, and everything would have been just dandy, eh?

The reality is that stealing is a crime, and the intent of the law is to punish the criminal to deter further criminal acts. In the case of shoplifting, making the criminal pay for only his take is insufficient deterrence, since most shoplifters aren't caught.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I agree. The IP laws we have are overly weighted towards the content producers
Click to expand...

It went from a maximum of 28 years to life of the author plus 70 years and corporations get between 95 and 120 years of ownership.

That is insane.

Kernel Sanders said:
The same could be said about classified information. It is intangible and its spread cannot be controlled. We can only hope to punish those who distribute it without authorization. What makes other types of IP different that they should not be protected?
Click to expand...

If the information isn't securely held, then that's the way it's going to happen.
I dislike classified information a lot because in many cases it has been bad things that they have done to us.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I agree. The IP laws we have are overly weighted towards the content producers
Click to expand...

The content producers are the owners. What's arbitrary is the termination of the protection at all. There's no natural reason that protection should not endure forever, being passed down to heirs and sold as property.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It went from a maximum of 28 years to life of the author plus 70 years and corporations get between 95 and 120 years of ownership.

That is insane.
Click to expand...

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

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

If the information isn't securely held, then that's the way it's going to happen.
I dislike classified information a lot because in many cases it has been bad things that they have done to us.
Click to expand...

I don't really think this answers my question. Classified info is intangible, yet valuable, just like other types of IP. Should classified information be protected by law? If so, why should other types of IP be left unprotected by law?
 
Humans are gradually moving towards being an information species, where all content which is released to the globo-sphere is accessible by all people at all times. It increases learning, enrichment, and progression of the species. Content providers will gradually move into the realm of producing content for the sake of distribution, and the transmitters will take that content and send it everywhere.

Think of it as the first step towards a society that is connected beyond the confines of our individual selves. I have no doubt that once the ability to transmit stuff technologically with our minds is created, this system of exchange will accelerate.

Free content providers are already flourishing. The corporate powers stuck in legal battles are the old providers dying off and struggling to continue living. They simply can't.

Human society is evolving the way it interacts and the digital realm, with its content, are the means of doing so. This is the reason why I believe in sharing and distribution much more than I do IP laws. Modern information is made to be shared by its very nature. We aren't dealing with paper and tangible objects anymore, but information travelling via electricity.
 
Orius said:
Humans are gradually moving towards being an information species, where all content which is released to the globo-sphere is accessible by all people at all times. It increases learning, enrichment, and progression of the species. Content providers will gradually move into the realm of producing content for the sake of distribution, and the transmitters will take that content and send it everywhere.

Think of it as the first step towards a society that is connected beyond the confines of our individual selves. I have no doubt that once the ability to transmit stuff technologically with our minds is created, this system of exchange will accelerate.

Free content providers are already flourishing. The corporate powers stuck in legal battles are the old providers dying off and struggling to continue living. They simply can't.

Human society is evolving the way it interacts and the digital realm, with its content, are the means of doing so. This is the reason why I believe in sharing and distribution much more than I do IP laws. Modern information is made to be shared by its very nature. We aren't dealing with paper and tangible objects anymore, but information travelling via electricity.
Click to expand...

This is all true, but it still makes me wonder how bands are going to support themselves, especially those that aren't big on live shows. Authors, too.
 
The abstract parts of socitey are shifting towards ad-sponsored communism
 
sam_w said:
Last year we saw the end of SciFi channel's Stargate Atlantis and Battlestar Galactic.
Click to expand...

Of the topic here, but that's excellent news. Is SciFi going to find good shows, finally, to put on the air?

Maybe I'll start watching SciFi again, if they do.

sam_w said:
Doesn't take rocket science to figure out if the revenue drops and it no longer makes economic sense to continue, who loses? Everyone does.
Click to expand...

Such is the nature and impact of theft on society.

Would Feanor have made the Silmarils if he knew not only that they could be taken but nothing was going to be done to return them to their rightful owner?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
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

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Click to expand...

Even when you point that out, you'll still get a line of people saying over 100 years is reasonable.

Kernel Sanders said:
I don't really think this answers my question. Classified info is intangible, yet valuable, just like other types of IP. Should classified information be protected by law? If so, why should other types of IP be left unprotected by law?
Click to expand...

For the time being, I think I'll hold the stance that it shouldn't, mainly because it has been abused in years past. Not only that but anything produced by the government is owned by us.

Case in point, army field manuals on how to make dangerous things are free available to the public.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm a thief, whoopty ****ing do.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some pedophiles don't mind being called that, either. That's up to you. I'm merely pointing out a fact. Your response to said fact is neither here nor there.
 
galenrox said:
The record company has the right to pursue this course of legal action, but that said the fine is only so substantive because it is a given that the law will be applied inconsistently. As the chances of any individual downloader getting caught is very small, they have to make the fines gigantic in order to make it prove to be a significant disincentive. The problem with that logic is that they mostly go after college kids, who are usually within throwing distance of bankruptcy anyway, so it's guaranteed to fail in the goal which it is set out to achieve. So as it's punishing one for the crimes of others (as the punishment would be much less if it weren't for all of the uncaught individuals they are attempting to dissuade) and it doesn't get any of the benefit it seeks to get, it's a bad law.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the guy who broke the law, by uploading the material, is an innocent babe.

Nice.

No. The accused was found guilty, the law allows, as the link in the OP states, a wide range of damages to be found, from $750 to $30,000 per violation, and it was the jury, his peers, that set the fine, not the court itself.

One could argue over the injustice of $30,000 per violation, but that's irrelevant to the fact that the boy did the crime, so he shouldn't be whining about doing the time (or paying the fine).
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
This is all true, but it still makes me wonder how bands are going to support themselves, especially those that aren't big on live shows. Authors, too.
Click to expand...

The answer is simple: people are still going to buy their works.

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.

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. What they are lobbying for is more common enforcement, and harsher enforcement.

Art, literature, and information are not meant to be locked in a tower this way. ALL people should have access to it, because there will always be people who buy it!
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
This is all true, but it still makes me wonder how bands are going to support themselves, especially those that aren't big on live shows. Authors, too.
Click to expand...


It's getting tougher. I cannot imagine being able to survive as a musician without touring. At least the thieves can't steal that from you.
 
stekim said:
I'm sure some pedophiles don't mind being called that, either. That's up to you. I'm merely pointing out a fact. Your response to said fact is neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

It's pretty lame to equate information piracy to pedophilia.

Labeling people is a weak attempt to win an argument when you have nothing else to go on.
 
stekim said:
It's getting tougher. I cannot imagine being able to survive as a musician without touring. At least the thieves can't steal that from you.
Click to expand...

Artists sign contracts with these big record companies. Their alottment is already guaranteed from the start. The artists in the big corporate sector are not hurting. It's the corporations themselves who are, because they cannot maximize profit. Notice how it's only American companies who are staging this global campaign against downloaders?

Other companies don't give a damn, and if they do, they aren't attacking their own society for it.

Their campaign will fail in the long term.
 
Lerxst said:
I always wondered about this from a property rights stance. I buy the CD, it's mine. Period. If I want to make a copy and give it to my son, that should be my right.
Click to expand...

No.

You bought the CD, not the copyright.

Lerxst said:
What's next? Cars? "Well sir, YOU bought the car, not your son. He cannot drive it unless you pay an additional fee."
Click to expand...

Wrong analogy. To be similar, you'd have to be willing and able to build an identical copy of that car, violating any number of patents to do so.
 
Orius said:
Artists sign contracts with these big record companies. Their alottment is already guaranteed from the start. The artists in the big corporate sector are not hurting. It's the corporations themselves who are, because they cannot maximize profit. Notice how it's only American companies who are staging this global campaign against downloaders?

Other companies don't give a damn, and if they do, they aren't attacking their own society for it.

Their campaign will fail in the long term.
Click to expand...

You mean the stockholders of the record company are being robbed when you download illegally. You're taking money from them.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's pretty lame to equate information piracy to pedophilia.
Click to expand...

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.

Labeling people is a weak attempt to win an argument when you have nothing else to go on.
Click to expand...

It is indeed. Except when the label is simply a statement of fact.
 
Orius said:
Artists sign contracts with these big record companies. Their alottment is already guaranteed from the start. The artists in the big corporate sector are not hurting. It's the corporations themselves who are, because they cannot maximize profit. Notice how it's only American companies who are staging this global campaign against downloaders?
Click to expand...

Even if what you said is true, and it's not, it doesn't matter. Stealing from Bill Gates is still stealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom