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.
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.
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.
And we don't call it theft now do we? Copyright Infringement != theft. You want to label illegal downloading Copyright Infringement, do so. Don't call it theft.
Really? I notice all those DVDs of the movie I just downloaded still being sold at WalMart, so exactly whose time did I steal if the product is being sold everywhere? I also notice the back wall of Blockbuster filled with that same movie and being rented repeatedly. Again, whose time is being stolen? A downloaded movie != a lost sale and may, in fact, result in more sales of not only the movie in question but associated merchandise. Point is, no one knows and no one can claim to know what, if any, impact downloads have.
How about this scenario. Instead of going to the theater or downloading or renting I just wait for it to come on cable for free. I pay nothing extra for it since I pay for cable every month, yet the end result is the same. I did not buy the CD, rent it or download it yet the effect is the same so I have stolen those people's time? Yes, I am well aware that the cable company pays the studios, but I paid the same amount as if I downloaded it. You cannot claim that one behavior steals time and the other does not.
Does it make downloading right? No, but please spare me the theft argument. No one is being deprived of anything or has had anything, including time, stolen. These movies make millions in profit so all the associated people that worked on it were more than adequately compensated for their time. It still makes it wrong, IMO, but don't try to compare it with theft.