Slashdot Mirror
FBI Arrests Eight On Copyright Charges
luigi6699 writes "The BBC reports that 'the US authorities have charged eight people in connection with the illegal trading of copyrighted films, music, games and software over the net.' According to Acting Assistant Attorney General John C Richter, 'cases like these are part of the Justice Department's coordinated strategy to protect copyright owners from the online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce.'"
Oh that's right, I don't live in America. I wonder if these other countries will actually extradite people to the US? I doubt theyt would in New Zealand as copyright infringement isn't a serious enough crime and imagine the outrage if you got 30 years jail in the US, when convicted killers often get away with 10 years here.
One actually deprives people of something that they possesed, the other doesn't. Yet which is more heavily punished? It's just crazy.
I had an arguement about copying vs sharing, the guy was saying that copying software isn't the same as sharing, he said if you gave away your copy to the person then that would be sharing. I guess that he also thinks that someone writting down a copy of a recipe for a friend isn't sharing either.
There are many methods that could be used for allowing artists to make money and allowing people to share. One such way that I've thought could be good is for the artists to just with-hold new albums, and saying they need $X amount and once that is reached they will release it for everyone to share. I'm sure that they fans would quickly fund the artist, this way the artist would get money for their art (instead of the big labels soaking it up and dripping a little down to the artists) and more people would have access to the music. The only people that don't like this seem to be those that think 'why should I give money away and then people who haven't get to download the music/movie for free'.
that sweden was one of the countries involved, does this mean swedish law is changing? Will we soon see the ever popular piratebay being closed down? I know they have always taunted in their legal threats section about how swedish law keeps them running. Curious to know how far the grasp of the DoJ reaches on this.
About number three, no kidding on the millionare with lawyers angry at the police department. But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.
I don't like the concept of requiring fingerprints unless someone is convicted of a crime. People not convicted of their first offense ever should have their fingerprint copy destroyed. What if someone has no fingerprints for whatever reason?
About cameras in cities, if the voters approved it, then that's okay. But it needs to be voter approved and temporary. Perhaps require it to be reapproved every 4 years during the mayoral election.
-
Personally I think they should never be lively monitored. Just review the tapes when necessary. Delete footage after 30 days. But still require voter approval every 4 years.
About the terrorist attacks, namely September 11th, let us think about that for a second. What was Osama bin Laden's reason for attacking, if he truly did that? And who had more to gain? Bush being able to sign into law stripping out rights? Or Osama bin Laden's reason?
By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things. But more often than not in our federal Congress we see them voting for stupid things, Democrats and Republicans alike. I think one Senate vote ended up having it 100-0 for something bad.
Over the last couple of years I have sold most of my CDs (several hundred), not gone to a movie and have lived in a world where I listen to a few CDs (the Ally McBeal soundtrack and the Neil Diamond Jonathan Livingston Seagull CD) on an ongoing basis.
Guess what? It doesn't significantly impact the self-perceived quality of my life to any extent.
That would suggest that *much* of the entertainment media (movies & sound-tracks) are "add-ons" -- i.e. they must create the demand and the consumers buy into it.
From my perspective the entire copyright debate tends to boil down to a question of whether or not you are producing something which people are willing to pay to see/hear. From my rather jaded viewpoint the answer is no.
If an individual has a perspective that all copyrighted information will eventually be available for free (which is true to the best of my knowledge) *and* that human lifespan is only limited by our current lack of knowledge with respect to the biology of aging and how to prevent it, then the media producers have a significant problem... I.e. "How do I produce material which people are willing to pay to see now... vs. material which they will (legally) be free to see/hear sometime in the future?"
Even though the material producers have pushed laws which extend copyright protections far beyond their original intent -- the progress in extending the human lifespan has not been locked in stasis either. Unless copyright protections are pushed beyond the maximum feasible human lifespan I will eventually have *legal* access to all of the material for free.
So it would appear the entire "copying" debate is wrapped up in the question of whether or not one has access to it "now" or at sometime in the future. One could obviously draw analogies between the entertainment realm and other forms of self-gratification.