Slashdot Mirror
Jail Time for Movie Swappers
ArmenTanzarian writes "The MPAA is at it again, reports CNET in a story from yesterday. Apparently, suing the pants off of teenagers RIAA-style isn't good enough, they want to go ahead and throw you in jail. To that end, their senators will introduce the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act today; which carries with it a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Here's the best part: you don't have to infringe on copyright to be found guilty!"
Nope. You lameasses think that stealing only applies to the actual taking of physical property. Get real.
And, yes, IAAL and am well versed in copyright law.
"Copyright infringement isn't theft, since it doesn't deprive someone else of anything."
Wrong. You can make any other argument you want on this issue but your statement is legally untrue. Copyright infringement deprives someone of legal control over the release of a creative work. If you want to create something and give it away, that's one thing, but just because you want to give something away doesn't give you the legal right to give away something someone else has created.
Whether you are creating "advertising" for them for a future sale, or "depriving" them of revenue by expanding distribution of no-revenue copies is not your decision to make, because you are not the copyright holder. That's the owner's perogative. Period.
Given all that I have plenty of problems with the music industry, attacks on free software, etc. and so on. But let's not be silly and get confused about what the law says. If you have to falsify the facts to advance your opinion then you are wrong and will lose.
ac
And then let's lynch the niggers and burn the faggots. America if finally on the RIGHT track. GO USA!
GO USA!
GO USA!
Thank God for George Bush!
Does that include using any M$ software on an internet connected machine? After all, with their security, your network is pretty open.
But I simply don't get what the problem is here. If one "shares" material in a manner which violates to copyright conditions, or receives something shared that way, it's a copyright violation.
And if you don't like the copyright conditions, than you are perfectly free not to obtain a copy. If you don't like the price, don't buy it, but don't steal it either. I don't like buying things from greedy, exploitative, monopolistic entities any more than others do. So, I only rarely consume their products.
As for "sharing" being a violation even if there is no evidence that someone took it, that seems fair enough. If people blatently commit a crime and run around shouting, "you can't catch me; you can't catch me," then of course there will be changes in the types and standards of evidence used for prosecution.
I think that it is realistic to say that the current level of threat of prosecution and penalties has not prevent widespread copyright violtion. So it is not evil or insane to look at raising penalties and enforcement. (Even if it is a very stupid tactic). Each instance of copyright violation is a very small crime. But if it is widespread it can be very destructive. I guess it is like spam in that respect.
Just because the [RM]IAA are evil, doesn't mean that we should feel justified in violating the copyright. As I've said before, it's not civil disobience if you try to evade prosecution.
Sorry for the rant. And I certainly don't intend this to be a troll (and I hope it won't have the effect of one). Anyone who feels a real need to rake me over the coals for this, should feel free to email me. (A small amount of digging will find my address).
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
McCarthy wasn't "crazy". That is a liberal myth perpetrated to make Patriotism seem "wrong". It is the anti-American liberals in this country who dominate the media and push false ideologies about great people like McCarthy who are the real problem. It is nearing the time when we, the silent majority, will come to take back this country. The good Christians and conservatives built this country, and it is into our hands that America will be delivered unto its righteous and holy glory.
this is not even a crime. Funny isn't it?
"Online sharing, at worst, only represents the latter case if (and only if) the downloader would have paid for a copy had they not been able to get a free download, and that case is apparently quite rare."
I've met dozens of people who quite openly admit to downloading as an alternative to paying for a legal copy. Additionally, CD sales have been in freefall since the file sharing networks have taken off. File sharing apologists claim that it's due to the economy (perhaps partially true, but CD sales in particular have dropped at a higher rate than other forms of entertainment that aren't easily piratable) or because of all the bad music out there (which is a constant, not a variable, in the equation), and other easily disprovable arguments which are really just ignoring the 500-lb. elephant in the room: the music industry is suffering due to widespread piracy.
So, I'm not sure where you're coming from with your "apparently quite rare" statment. The evidence shows otherwise.
"It also doesn't take into account the actual increase in sales due to sharing (try before you buy), increased exposure to artists, and access to music that you could not otherwise buy or find in stores."
This is also a straw man for a couple of reasons: first, CD sales are hurting, so any "benefit" to the industry or artists is being swallowed up by the fact that as a whole, more and more people are choosing to get their music for free rather than buy it. Additionally, almost any illegal act, civil or criminal, has a "well, it COULD have a beneficial side effect" argument. It's useful for rationizing it to yourself if the goal is to feel better about what you're doing, but that's about it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.