Slashdot Mirror
Sharing 2,999 Songs, 199 Movies Is Safe In Germany
unassimilatible writes "Torrentfreak is reporting that German prosecutors will now only pursue larger-scale file sharers on the Internet, as they are tired of being the entertainment industry's profit collector. 'Prosecutors in a German state have announced they will refuse to entertain the majority of file-sharing lawsuits in [the] future. It appears that only commercial-scale copyright infringers will be pursued, with those sharing under 3,000 music tracks and 200 movies dropping under the prosecution radar.' And the money quote: 'It seems that the legal system in Germany has had enough of this "abuse" of the criminal law system for "civil" monetary gain.' If only an American politician would make this point. Why should taxpayers underwrite their government becoming enforcers for the entertainment industry? Then again, when you see how much politicians are being paid, an answer suggests itself."
The RIAA is using civil suits.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
s/downloaded/shared
come on people, its about distributing, not obtaining, it's ALWAYS about sharing, NEVER about downloading. STOP SPREADING THEIR FUD FOR THEM! [/rant]
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Well, sure. Why should taxpayers underwrite their government becoming enforcers for car owners?
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
OTOH, it doesn't really take much to be up to 200 "movies".
A nice long running single TV series will get you to that point.
My current total is up to about 2200.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Your argument would actually have merit if there were a private organization (say, the Vehicle Owner's Association of Germany or some such) that was filing suit against thousands upon thousands of individuals with at best flimsy evidence. Furthermore, if numbered among their victims were people that were bedridden, paralyzed, legless or otherwise physically unable to drive a car, and if they continued to pursue those cases when clear evidence was presented that the person in question could not possibly, under any conditions, be the perpetrator then yes, you might have a point.
Court time is a limited resource, and prosectors in Germany are making the point that it shouldn't be spent on hundreds or thousands of frivolous lawsuits. Not all crimes are the same, and some "crimes" have no business in court, particularly when they're only there as part of a multinational private-sector terror campaign having nothing to do with redress of grievance.
The Courts have better things to do.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You're comparing theft of actual property with making duplicates of intellectual property.
In the former case, you deprive the owner use of said property. In the latter, the owner still has the property.
The slippery slope is actually people like you making stupid analogies about this kind of thing, prompting ever more draconian laws and malicious prosecution.
I've already seen it:
This is akin to the local sheriff saying he will no longer prosecute muggings where the victim did not go to the hospital.
This equivocations seem to say that these people want *all* the laws enforced without any regard to a prioritizing by benefit to society.
The key they mentioned was "criminal law for monetary GAIN."
They are right in refusing to criminally prosecute citizens where no appreciable harm was incurred for the monetary enrichment of a single party. Its like watching a car speeding a little but otherwise safely and *NOT* pulling them over and giving them a ticket.
There isn't a single country in the world in which you would want all the laws enforced consistently.
They came first for those who downloaded 3000 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 1000 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 100 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 1 song, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for me,
And everyone complained because I stopped seeding the torrents
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
I think the system needs to be fixed.
Now that's funny! Too bad most moderators will only hear the "whooshing" as it goes way over their heads...
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
you have a strange notion of the meaning of the word "fact."
Apples and oranges my friend, but, nice try.
In OS, the plan was to transfer money (sub-cent fractions) from the bank's customers into a central account and let them aggregate. Ignoring plot holes like simply editing the account balance, money in this system can only be in one account at a time. It can go to Peter & friends, the customers, the bank, or the void, but not to more than one at once.
File sharing is making clones, at near-zero cost of something that can very well exist in multiple places at once, without affecting its original owner's or creator's ability to use it.
Note: I understand why unauthorised sharing can be bad, and is immoral. I also see that we desperately need a new system of content distribution that takes into account the new model presented by P2P and customers being able to choose exactly what they want on their own and being able to make informed decisions without the need for a content cartel to tell them how to choose.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
This reads like a Martian found a Thesaurus and a copy of English: the Journal of Literary Criticism and then got stoned on too much Dr. Pepper.
The entire point of communication is to transfer ideas. This is just a really bad attempt at that. It's like someone juggling chainsaws as an attempt to build a house.
I drank what? -- Socrates
True, but if mods were fair they would give the original off-topic post an off-topic moderation before giving one to a response to the original off-topic post.
Well, the actual actors, directors and set workers may lean democratic, but I posit that the actual owners lean heavily to the Republicans. You know, companies like General Electric and so on. Board members, people like that. The sort of people that see movies and songs as commodities, not as artworks. The people behind the RIAA and MPAA, who constantly lobby for longer copyright protections.
It isn't much different in newspapers either. The reporters may be more liberal and social-minded, but the owners often are Authoritarian and will lean on the editorial staff to ensure that the peons don't rock the boat.
All you are doing is repeating an old canard, one that has been stated for so long that "everyone knows" without even stopping to consider who "everyone" is. Cheers!