UK Gov't Asks: Is 10 Years In Jail the Answer To Online Pirates?

An anonymous reader writes with a link to this piece at TorrentFreak: Physical counterfeiters can receive up to 10 years in jail under UK copyright law but should online pirates receive the same maximum punishment? A new report commissioned by the government reveals that many major rightsholders believe they should, but will that have the desired effect? A new study commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) examines whether the criminal sanctions for copyright infringement available under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) are currently proportionate and correct, or whether they should be amended. While the Digital Economy Act 2010 increased financial penalties up to a maximum of £50,000, in broad terms the main 'offline' copyright offenses carry sentences of up to 10 years in jail while those carried out online carry a maximum of 'just' two.

Comments

Well, then I guess

[50000BTU_barbecue]

the "property" holders won't mind paying taxes on the property? Right? Like you and me?

Oh, it's different for them.

Re:Well, then I guess

[umafuckit]

I don't agree with a lot of what the recording industry do but, to be fair, they are obviously to be paying taxes on profits. +/- a bit of dodgy account, of course. So I don't see how it's really "different" for them.

Re: Well, then I guess

[cosm]

In the US, you pay taxes on just owning property, even if you are just holding it and have no expected profit. GP is saying same reasoning could be applied to those trying to codify IP as true 'property' to mitigate the propensity to classify it as such.

Re: Well, then I guess

[CrimsonAvenger]

In the US, you pay taxes on just owning property, even if you are just holding it and have no expected profit.

No, in the US you pay taxes on Real Estate. Which is a type of property to be sure, but it's not ALL property.

For instance, I own several computers, a lot of clothes, furniture, etc. No taxes for owning any of that. My house, on the other hand, I pay taxes for owning.

Treating Copyright like Real Estate isn't an unreasonable idea in and of itself. But it sets the precedent for expanding the definition of Real Estate to other things that would affect the rest of us....

Re: Well, then I guess

[__aaltlg1547]

What is the rationale for treating real property differently than other property? That's an assumption worth examining.

Is it because real property can be used to generate rent? Then copyright and patents are kind of like real property.
Is it because a person's ownership of real property imposes a burden on everybody else because it restricts what would otherwise be their right to use it? Then again, copyright and patents are like real property.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you forget about personal property taxes? I pay property taxes on my car, lawnmower, tractor, etc, so why shouldn't they pay taxes on their "property"?

Re: Well, then I guess

[DrLang21]

I pay property taxes on my car, lawnmower, tractor, etc,

Where the hell do you live that you need to pay property taxes on a lawnmower?

Re: Well, then I guess

[duck_rifted]

That's the most interesting question I've seen come up in a Slashdot thread so far. It's a bit of a tangent from the article, but it would be interesting to see it explored more aside from the predictably, "It would make prices go up," line.

It could be because real estate and automobiles have immediate real value but intellectual property only has speculative value. If you invent something, you can be optimistic but you don't know for sure it will fly in the market. The same goes for creative works. Real estate has risk too, but renters less often destroy their residence than people decide not to see a movie or buy a gadget.

It would be awesome if somebody well-versed in IP laws in Britain and the states could chime in.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

As a business owner in the US, I pay taxes all my assets, every desk, chair, computer owned by my company, every bit of saleable product under my roof, etc. etc. Why should intellectual assets be different?

Re: Well, then I guess

[swb]

There's probably no good single explanation, but it might revolve around property tax being something of a usage tax for local government services that mostly relate to property, such as police, fire, and civil infrastructure in the local community.

I think in a lot of ways it's probably an inherited anachronism from an era before income taxes when towns or counties (in the US) needed a source of revenue to provide services. There was no income tax and few other ways to generate funds for local government.

Unfortunately, it's grown very regressive because property owners are taxed on the unrealized market value of the property. If you bought your house for $10,000 and it went up in value to $500,000 (less hyperbolic than it sounds in many places) you're stuck paying a tax on an asset whose value increase you can't realize without selling it and chances are your income hasn't risen as fast as your asset value.

A lot of elderly people on fixed incomes get pushed out of their houses because they can no longer pay the property taxes on houses they own outright -- their fixed incomes don't increase to match the increase in value and taxes.

There's all kinds of ways they try to fix this, like homestead exemptions and income tax based property tax refunds, but it just feels like a bad patch on an obsolete system.

Re: Well, then I guess

[dgatwood]

That's certainly true in many states. We used to take advantage of that law by buying expensive things at a discount from stores in Kentucky right before the end of the year; if they had those products on their books on January 1, they had to pay tax on them, so they had an added incentive to sell them. Thus, they were willing to take a little bit less money for them, because they knew they'd get that much less if they sold them a week later anyway.

Re:Well, then I guess

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Don't buy any furniture at IKEA either...

http://www.economist.com/node/...

Re: Well, then I guess

[dk20]

No, in the US you pay taxes on "property" as the OP stated (not just realestate)

Case in point, property tax on vehicles:
"Motor Vehicles are subject to a local property tax under Connecticut state law. This applies whether or not the vehicle is registered. The local property tax is computed and issued by your local tax collector."

So, if IP is property, why cant we tax it like other forms of property?

Re: Well, then I guess

[dgatwood]

On the flip side of that, business property should be taxed on property's actual value, because it is actively making money using that property, so the business should be able to recover the difference in value through the use of the property. If it can't, then that business isn't making effective use of a scarce resource (commercially zoned real estate) and should make way for a business that will.

That's what bugs me about California's Prop 13. People get stuck in their homes and can't afford to move closer to their jobs because they'd take a huge property tax hit, but businesses just lease from land management companies that own properties forever (literally, because businesses don't ever really die), thus artificially deflating their costs and encouraging businesses to locate themselves in places where housing is most expensive rather than in the suburbs where most of their employees live. All of these factors put serious strain on the highway system, on workers, etc.

And rental housing units have artificially deflated rent because they aren't subject to property tax increases based on the value of the property, thus making it harder and harder for people to justify buying homes. As a result, whenever there's a recession, the housing market falls significantly faster in California than the national average.

If you ask me, property tax should be limited to property that is used commercially, either for a business (not including small businesses run by an individual within his or her home) or for rental purposes, and should be eliminated entirely for personal residences (or at least for your primary residence). This would go a long way towards fixing a lot of problems with one simple law change.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be because real estate and automobiles have immediate real value but intellectual property only has speculative value.

Once it has been used in court to send someone to jail it is no longer speculative value, then a court has decided upon a real value.

You shouldn't be able to send someone to jail based on speculative value.

Re: Well, then I guess

[ShanghaiBill]

What is the rationale for treating real property differently than other property?

Because you can't hide it. It is really easy to cheat on income tax. It is harder, but still pretty easy, to cheat on sales tax. It is far harder to cheat on real estate tax. Your title, the sales price, and the tax appraisal value, are all public information, available at the county courthouse, and very often on the county's website. I don't like paying taxes, but I dislike real estate tax the least, because I know that everyone is paying their fair share.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Noah Haders]

Not to be pedantic, you don't pay taxes for owning your car, just for using your car. There's no requirement to register it as long as you keep it off the roads. This is for US, at least.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Noah Haders]

In CA there's Prop 13 which made it so taxes were assessed on the purchase price, regardless of current value. It bankrupted the state.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Noah Haders]

Surely he only pays taxes on purchasing property, not on selling property.

Re: Well, then I guess

[TechyImmigrant]

No, in the US you pay taxes on Real Estate. Which is a type of property to be sure, but it's not ALL property.

For instance, I own several computers, a lot of clothes, furniture, etc. No taxes for owning any of that. .

Then there's the business property tax in several states, on which you pay tax on the value of every fixture. We pay tax on the Ikea shelves in our store.

Re: Well, then I guess

[CrimsonAvenger]

No, in the US you pay taxes on "property" as the OP stated (not just realestate)

...

"Motor Vehicles are subject to a local property tax under Connecticut state law.

Luckily, I don't live in CT. Nor is CT synonymous with "the US".

Fortunately, most of us in the US do NOT pay property tax on motor vehicles....

Re: Well, then I guess

[networkzombie]

I believe it varies by state. Here in California you must pay/register even if the car is non-operational.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Pharmboy]

Wrong. As a business owner, I pay taxes on things I OWN, not just what I sell. I pay taxes on inventory, for example. You forget we are talking about corporations, which are supposed to pay taxes on property of virtually all kinds.

Re: Well, then I guess

[SeaFox]

That wouldn't be a property tax, though. That would be a sales tax.

Re: Well, then I guess

[kharchenko]

And copyright is requiring government services to maintain. Police, government creating laws, and so on.

Yes, like keeping a fellow who illegally downloaded your copyrighted work locked up in jail for 10 years. Sure as hell will cost taxpayer a pretty penny.

Re:Well, then I guess

[SuricouRaven]

I don't know anything about the music industry, but the movie industry is quite well-known for using the dodgiest of dodgy accounting.

Re: Well, then I guess

[penguinoid]

You're on to something really interesting concerning patents and copyright. I think I can suggest a good way to flesh out the idea more completely: a patent or copyright is worth whatever the owner declares it to be worth, and property taxes are paid based on that value. But if someone thinks that the patent or copyright is worth more than that, they are entitled to buy it at approximately that price because that is its value.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Maxo-Texas]

Businesses pay property on those items as well. It's called "inventory tax".

However, they can also deduct some costs and depreciation of those assets.

Businesses pay property taxes on their offices, computers, vehicles, inventory on hand, etc.

If "mickey mouse" is a "property" that is worth 27 million dollars, then some kind of tax should be due.

While that would only free "copyrighted" properties that had lost their obvious commercial value (which would be huge), it's a start.

We really need to revert back to original shorter copyright periods reflecting human lifespans. We should not use "immortal" corporations as the baseline for copyright periods.

Re: Well, then I guess

[easyTree]

Because! Get over it. If things were meant to make sense, scientists would run the world.

Re: Well, then I guess

[rtb61]

So you are saying if I copy your clothes I should go to jail for ten years, hmm OK, 'er', FUCK YOU.

Re: Well, then I guess

[bitingduck]

That would be terrible for small inventors and great for patent trolls with big bank accounts. Small inventors would have to put the current value at something they could afford to pay tax on. Then trolls can just walk through with little or no opposition and sweep up patents with low current value and potentially high future value. Assuming multiple trolls doing the same thing, it would lead to a forced auction market until someone assigned a value just higher than everybody else was willing to pay, so it would stop changing hands, and the actual inventor would be the person least likely to see a gain in the process.

Re: Well, then I guess

[greenbird]

What is the rationale for treating real property differently than other property?

The rational for the value of real property is scarcity. There is only so much and only one person can use it at a time. It cost time and money to produce more in the case of goods and services.

Then again, copyright and patents are like real property.

No they're are not. Scarcity is what gives property value. Copyright and patents are a way to artificially create scarcity. In a market economy the the price of a good or service should approach it's marginal cost over time. Copyright and patents prevent that. Copyrights are an artifact from a bygone age where publishing creative works was expensive and difficult. The current copyright laws address a 20th century problem. The rapid evolution of most technological areas means patents primary function is to retard advancement and provide rents for unproductive entities. I neither case are these the intended functions of there respective laws. There intended (and in the US only Constitutional purpose) should be to encourage advancement.

Re: Well, then I guess

[rtb61]

Because Boob, no one id denying you access to that property. You are just making an unsubstantiated claim that they are copying it, they are not stealing the content from you. Although routinely pigopolists do exactly that steal other people's content, claim it as their own and then sue them for it.

This obviously is pursuing the idea of declaring war on countries that infringe copyright, like as if those countries were forging a currency and seeking to bankrupt a country. So Hollywood studios declare war on a country, seek to kill 10% of the population and seize the assets of the rest because they systematically copied stuff.

Copying is not stealing, copying is not rape, copying is not murder, and copying is not piracy on the high seas. Got a civil dispute over who is the owner of the content solve it in the civil courts and don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.

Want to launch into a mass extortion scheme where the parents of children a subject to massive fiscal penalties, ten of thousands of dollars or their children's futures are destroyed in the courts, well, seriously fuck off, you are a sick fuck and we are not stupid.

Re: Well, then I guess

[penguinoid]

You say that as if it would be a bad thing for people with valuable patents who intend to make poor use of them, to be forced to sell them to someone who would make better use of them. Remember, the purpose of patents is not "to protect someone's intellectual property", it is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

Incidentally, patent trolls are the least likely to like my suggestion, as not only would they be paying taxes on their arsenal, but anyone could buy their patents relatively cheaply rather than pay for a lawsuit.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Paradise Pete]

My house, on the other hand, I pay taxes for owning.

You're really just renting it from the government. Don't pay the rent and they'll kick you out, just like any renter. Except you paid a huge fee to be able to rent it. And when you're done with it you can't just leave, you have to find somebody else willing to pay a huge fee to take over the rent.

Re: Well, then I guess

[drinkypoo]

If you bought your house for $10,000 and it went up in value to $500,000 (less hyperbolic than it sounds in many places) you're stuck paying a tax on an asset whose value increase you can't realize without selling it

Right, so sell it, and move. Now you can buy a much nicer home. You could move to a part of town which hasn't yet become gentrified, and keep the rest of the money, use it to pay future property taxes or invest it and use the dividends for same, whichever takes your fancy.

A lot of elderly people on fixed incomes get pushed out of their houses because they can no longer pay the property taxes on houses they own outright

But why should you get to live in the same place all your life? Other people want to live there, too. How do we decide who gets to live where? Under Capitalism, there's only one reasonable way.

The people who really get boned without recourse are renters. If we're going to dick around with property tax laws with exemptions to permit people to not have to move, we should also tamper with them in ways which make it prohibitively expensive to be a rent-seeker. For example, a law linking property taxes for individuals to the number of dwellings owned, increasing equally and linearly, and offset such that the multiplier when owning one dwelling is zero might solve both problems.

Re: Well, then I guess

[MPBoulton]

But in practice that isn't true, you do pay taxes for owning a car. This is because there is no point in owning a car but keeping it off the road.

Re: Well, then I guess

[bingoUV]

I agree it is not suitable for the regular kind of patent trolls. But it will give rise to a new kind of patent trolls.

A business making use of some patents cannot price each patent separately. Loss of any patent is disastrous - dependent on business model, supply chain length etc. A troll can blackmail this business by the fear of buying ONE of those essential patents.

This gives rise to the necessity of being able to group patents and paying tax and selling only the whole group, not one of those patents individually. This then will be exploited by the new trolls who will group together diverse patients. Only weapon against them will be to buy their big group of patents, which is comparable to the current weapon of buying out the whole payment troll company.

Re: Well, then I guess

[penguinoid]

Yes, I had considered that too, before you had mentioned it. It doesn't seem like too difficult a problem to solve -- for example, the original patent holder could retain a non-transferable license to use his patent but have to sell the remaining rights at his declared market value, or perhaps only has to sell a non-transferable license to use the patent. In either case, this means they have to pay for the privilege of preventing others from doing things, but can't be blackmailed by a troll. It seems to me it would encourage competition, which is a win in my book.

Re: Well, then I guess

[bingoUV]

the original patent holder could retain a non-transferable license to use his patent but

This non-transferability will have to transfer across change in corporate structures otherwise the trolls will blackmail against that event. Then it doesn't give much protection because the original patent holder or seller might incorporate into a challenging company. Again you need "no sue clause" into the patent sale - either inherently or negotiated separately.

And it protects only original patent holder - so "selling" a bought patent will hold that risk.

or perhaps only has to sell a non-transferable license

A perpetual license to one's own patent can always be negotiated very easily even under current patent laws. This is because patent owner is always the monopolist so can name his terms if it is a big company. And big companies wouldn't mind giving perpetual license to an individual / very small company because they don't pose much of a threat.

It doesn't seem like too difficult a problem to solve

Sun revolving around the Earth wasn't a difficult problem to solve either. Nor was another planet. Nor yet another.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Reziac]

Some states have Personal Property taxes, where you're supposed to inventory everything you own (exclusive of Real Property) and pay a tax based on its value.

http://www.mtrules.org/gateway...

http://www.mtrules.org/gateway...

What GP was saying is that IP should be regarded as "personal property" (which is to say, business assets) and taxed accordingly.

Re: Well, then I guess

[swb]

You're kind of making an economic argument that basically says that property taxes serve as an incentive to keep economically valuable assets from sitting idle.

I actually considered this, but I'm not sure I buy the argument.

For one, a single family house isn't really a productive economic asset. It's principal value is that it provides shelter for a person. An executive living in an apartment isn't going to be any more productive as human capital living somewhere else.

It might produce property tax revenue, but it largely produces the same revenue whether some old guy who bought in 1950 lives there or whether some executive lives there. There's some marginal argument that a new owner might spiff the place up, but unless it's a rundown dump in a neighborhood full of new construction, the market value will only go up so far and the property tax increase will be relatively small.

Your arguments about the value of moving make financial sense, but impose a lot of externality costs on the people living there, often costs society is forced to pay for when you consider that the low income people living there are old or handicapped or have some other reason they aren't making tons of money -- those kinds of people who lose access to their support system can become an economic burden, experience negative health outcomes, etc.

But why should you get to live in the same place all your life? Other people want to live there, too. How do we decide who gets to live where? Under Capitalism, there's only one reasonable way.

Well, how about because I own the place outright? A long and deep legal tradition of special rights conferred on property ownership, especially of one's dwelling? I'd say the burden of proof is on you to tell me why I *can't* live on property I own forever when the alternative is just somebody else occupying my home.

I'd go even further to say that I don't think "we" should get to decide who lives where. That certainly isn't the purpose of the property tax even if it is an unintended consequence. Ironically it's often an unintended outcome of high poverty and overextended government.

Re: Well, then I guess

[dgatwood]

My position is that businesses make money using the property, and their location is a significant contributing factor to their financial success, so because they gain the most from owning a particular piece of property, they should also have the highest property tax burden. Residents receive less benefit from owning property, so they should pay less.

Re: Well, then I guess

[Zaelath]

A lot of elderly people on fixed incomes get pushed out of their houses because they can no longer pay the property taxes on houses they own outright -- their fixed incomes don't increase to match the increase in value and taxes.

Good?

The baby boomers are going to be sitting on an ocean of "urealised wealth" while insisting they're paid pensions and medical costs so they can eventually divest their property onto the next generation which will be at about the same time of life by the time they die... WHY do retirees need to live near work?

screw the system

[rickybobby12]

10 years in jail for illegally watching a movie....No it is not ok!

Re:screw the system

[postbigbang]

Tangible vs intangible is a huge difference. Ten years is a stiff deterrent and doesn't really fit either crime, depending on the value. In the case of say, check/cheque fraud, forgery for gain, converting property/conversion, these have a directly cost that can be calculated and audited. Intangibles, the crux of various publishers, is more difficult to do.

Although stealing is horrendous, the RIAA/MPAA/publisher's actual injuries/damages aren't what they claim them to be, IMHO. Ten years is too much.

Re:screw the system

[beelsebob]

Even then, that's ludicrous. Prison should be used as a way of removing a dangerous person from society until they're no longer a danger. Even people who sell millions of pirated copies are not dangerous. Sure, they should face stiff financial penalties, and/or be made to repay society in some other way (community service etc), but prison is not the right place for them.

Re:screw the system

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an upperbound.

No, its an opening for a politically ambitious prosecutor. Expecting a government elected through ignorance and apathy to "do the right thing" is ludicrous.

Re:screw the system

[harvey the nerd]

Never forget that these cretins wanting "10 yrs for piracy" are in fact, raiders of the public domain.

Re:screw the system

[DrLang21]

Prison is also supposed to be for punishment.

He said should. I have to agree with his sentiment. When people go into prison, they spend years learning from the worst of society. When they get out, no one will hire them for a serious job with their record. So when you put people in prison who are not dangerous, you are consciously deciding to transform them into a dangerous person. This is about as counter productive of a justice system as you can get.

Re:screw the system

[brainnolo]

This. Prison is an abused form of punishment which we for whatever reason perceive as normal. Actually prison is absolutely inhumane and ofter disproportionate punishment to most kind of crimes. I also doubt that someone comes back from prison less dangerous then they entered. I mean being in a closed space with only criminals and (sometimes violent) cops is not something that makes you turn to the good side, quite the opposite.

Economic punishment for all kinds of economic crimes makes much more sense, and it must be proportionate too. Heck, physical punishment is more humane if it does not leave permanent scars/disabilities and probably more effective, too.

Re:screw the system

[Anonymous Coward]

And how about that loaded phrase they use, "rightsholders"?

Seem to imply that the general public does not have any rights, and only these big media cartels do.

Re:screw the system

[ultranova]

be made to repay society in some other way

Repay what? Society doesn't lose anything due to copyright infringement. The corporations who bought Mickey Mouse Protection Act will have the efficiency of their bribes diminished, but that's hardly something they should be paid damages for.

Re:screw the system

[Somebody Is Using My]

Prison is also supposed to be for punishment.

Actually, there's a difference of opinion on that matter.

There are those who believe the purpose of prison is to reform the convicted, that prisons need to be reformatories. Their argument is that just sticking a criminal into a holding cell for a few years does nothing to change his behavior; in fact, it more likely reinforces the behavior by fostering a "me against them" attitude between the criminal and civilization while at the same time exposing him to like-minded people. Reformatories try to teach the criminal new habits and skills so that - when he is released - he can find a new path through life. The most extreme example of this is Sweden, although many nations in Western Europe follow this path to some degree or another. It appears to work for them but it is arguable whether or not their methods would have the same results in other countries.

The US, on the other hand, largely follows a philosophy of punishment (in concept if not enshrined in law); the idea is that the fear of prison as a punishment will keep people out of mischief. That is, if you go to a penitentiary you should expect to be stripped of all rights, beaten by the jailers, raped by the other inmates and probably lose the ability to ever find decent work once you get out, therefore it is better not to break the law. Whether this philosophy works or not I'll leave up to others to argue; on the one hand, violent crime rates have dropped dramatically in the country, but on the other hand, there are high recidivism rates and the US has the largest population of inmates in the world.

Then there is simple detention, a concept where there is no innate intent to penalize (or reform) the criminal; rather, the goal is to simply isolate the wrong-doer to protect society from his evil ways. These differ from penitentiaries in that they aren't used as a threat to convince people not to do crimes, nor is there any goal to reform the convicted. Detention centers are not necessarily unpleasant places (but due to budgeting issues usually are) Most often used for the irredeemable (repeat offenders, murderers, etc) when it is felt it would be too dangerous to let them go, or for people who are temporarily incarcerated before being banished from the jailing society (e.g., illegal immigrants).

Personally, I lean towards the first example as how prisons are best used, but in truth best results would be from a mix of all three. Unfortunately - at least in the US - too many people refuse to even consider that prisons should be anything but the most dire of dungeons, an attitude encouraged by a legal and penal system which benefits monetarily from ever-increasing criminalization and incarceration.

So prison doesn't have to be about punishment; we in America just chose to make it so.

Re:screw the system

[Opportunist]

So far the theory.

You may rest assured though that such a law would be used to pressure people into accepting insane fines because "you know, we could drag you to court with all our superspecialawesome lawyers that we can afford and you can't and you'll sit in the slammer for 10 years, so ain't it better to accept the 6 million settlement?"

Re:screw the system

[Opportunist]

They don't create jobs. I create jobs if I buy something from them. But no company has ever, in the history of mankind, created a job.

Hiring someone is not something a company does because they want to. It's a necessary evil, if anything. It's the means to the end, not the end itself. It's what they HAVE to do to reach their goal: Profit. They will hire someone if, and only if, whatever this someone does can be sold. To me, to you, to anyone. And if you, me or anyone else don't buy that product, that job is gone quicker than it was created. Because before some company creates a job, it will first attempt to press whoever else they have into doing it.

So please, stop the bull that companies create jobs. They don't. They would love to do without.

Re:screw the system

[ATMAvatar]

The US, on the other hand, largely follows a philosophy of punishment (in concept if not enshrined in law); the idea is that the fear of prison as a punishment will keep people out of mischief.

Of course, we as a country also like to ignore the fact that we have the largest prison population in the world, which disproves that idea rather handily. Note that it is not merely the largest per-capita. We have more than twice as many people in jail as any other country save China, who we still beat by around 50%.

Re:screw the system

[fustakrakich]

Prison is a sexual thing. Some people are turned on by punishing others. They are perverts. Unfortunately they also win elections.

Re:screw the system

[fustakrakich]

Imply? No it is explicit.

Re:screw the system

[Joe_Dragon]

so let's lockup some non dangerous person for 10 years while for rape you get 5-8 years

Re:screw the system

[skegg]

Why doesn't the UK government also introduce (and enforce!) ridiculously high prison sentences for politicians who break laws?

Cash for Honours?
United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal?

Re:screw the system

[Altrag]

Pfft. If these companies stop making record profits and drop down to making merely outrageous profits, they're obviously going to just take their toys and go home.

We'd all be living in a grey world with no entertainment. And there's no way newer, more innovative people could come in to take their place. We absolutely discourage that kind of crazy idea in our society!

Re:screw the system

[HiThereImBob]

Prison is also supposed to be for punishment.

He said should. I have to agree with his sentiment. When people go into prison, they spend years learning from the worst of society. When they get out, no one will hire them for a serious job with their record. So when you put people in prison who are not dangerous, you are consciously deciding to transform them into a dangerous person. This is about as counter productive of a justice system as you can get.

Exactly. It is also a significant expense to incarcerate someone, generally estimated to be $20,000 - $40,000 per year per inmate. Take into account the lack of employment options with a prison record you mentioned (aka, lack of tax revenue from the former prisoners income), and the taxpayer pays twice when we send someone to prison.

When we incarcerate someone, we are taking away their freedom in the interest of the general public. This should be reserved for people who pose a genuine threat to the public. Using it as out go-to form of punishment for any offense is akin to shooting ourselves in the foot.

Re:screw the system

[beelsebob]

The problem with "prison is a punishment" is that it's a really crappy punishment. What society gets out of punishing someone with prison is a person who's become educated in the ways of criminals. That's not a valuable thing. Because of that, use of prison as a punishment should be avoided, and instead, other punishments (like community service) should be used. Then society gets something valuable from the person being punished, they potentially get educated in a task that they weren't before, and is useful to society, and we all win.

As I asserted before, prison should be reserved only for separating people from society when they are dangerous.

Re:screw the system

[DNS-and-BIND]

That is such backwards thinking I don't even know where to start. Ex-cons don't get hired because they spent time in prison being educated (really?!?), they don't get hired because the #1 predictor of committing more felonies is being convicted of a felony. My Dad hires people from the halfway house because he's a tightwad...Half of them steal and then run off the job, half of them have absenteeism issues and usually stop showing up after a few days or weeks, and the other half are good workers. He wouldn't even bother but he's cheap. Most of the good workers were people in for DWI or were thrown in debtors' prison. Do you know we have debtors' prisons again? Well, for men anyway.

Re:screw the system

[gweihir]

The little dirty secret is that the justice system does not work at all, in particular with regard to prison sentences. Really dangerous people do not go into prison, but a forensic psychiatric institution (or should go there), for all others, prison just serves a base and primitive concept of "revenge". A society based on revenge is about the worst possible and eventually collapses.

Re:screw the system

[gweihir]

I agree. It is about sadism. Not a society anybody sane wants to live in.

Re:screw the system

[Opportunist]

Of all the rebuttals you choose taxes? Taxes based on money changing hands is a rather irrational concept, I mean, just because A gives money to B is sufficient reason for a government to butt in and say "hey, I want some too!"?

Does seeding

[invictusvoyd]

The recently banned ( in India) BBC documentary constitute online piracy ?

Well then, let's roll out large.

[Anonymous Coward]

Put 99% of the people in jail for 2 years then. Don't take one 'example' or two. No, if this is really as illegal as you're saying, put everyone in jail. Including yourself.

Oh right, you can't. Empty threats, only leading to more extreme 'examples'.

I Don't Know

[KermodeBear]

I don't know what an "appropriate" punishment is for illegally downloading or distributing someone's content, but ten years sounds incredibly excessive unless you're running a vast, far-reaching network, distributing content to a million people and charging them for the convenience or something like that.

Some Average Joe sitting at home, downloading a bootlegged copy of the latest Hollywood movie... I don't know, a $50 fine maybe?

The thing is, the Internet has, and will continue to change, how media can be distributed and consumed. The old model of ticket and physical media sales just doesn't seem viable anymore. I think the media companies are going to need to find other ways to pick up revenue. Advertising in the movie itself, of course, is an option, but I think we're missing part of a bigger picture somewhere.

Someone, someday, is going to figure it out and make a bazillion dollars.

Re:I Don't Know

[rasmusbr]

Someone, someday, is going to figure it out and make a bazillion dollars.

Yeah, one day a company like Netflix may no longer ship physical discs, but instead rely on digital streaming over the Internet. Remember where you heard it first!

Re:I Don't Know

[Anonymous Coward]

"Someone, someday?"

Really?

This problem has been solved for years.

We invented the legal fiction of copyright for exactly one reason. To find a way to pay artists to create their work. We wanted successful artists and a society made rich and beautiful by their work.

There are a total of 12 business models that are known to have ever made money at all. One of them is to make a product and sell it above cost. Others include things like loaning money and charging interest, leasing a property, buying wholesale and selling retail, providing insurance against risk. What all of these have in common is that none of them make any sense at all for turning art into money on the Internet.

There are a few models that obviously work just fine.

1. Become famous and sell tickets to live concerts. Been done too often to think about.
2. Become good enough to aggregate an audience, use your influence to advertise things that people actually want to buy. Every Youtube star does this. Every TV show does this. Everyone who puts on a "free" show at a coffee shop or a bar does this.
3. Build a catalog and charge for access - make sure it is sufficiently convenient an inexpensive that the "happy to pay crowd" outweighs the "I'll just copy it" crowd. Musically I know about the weird case of Magnatune. Also done by every single Porn site in existence, and you don't exactly hear the Porn industry complaining that the Internet ruined their movie business, do you?
4. Lastly, and most directly, is to recognize the obvious: Distribution online is effectively free. Creating the work in the first place is expensive. So quit trying to prop up the DISTRIBUTION industries and start paying the artists for CREATION. If you need crowd funding, take a look at Kickstarter. You want a crowd funding subscription to the service of artistic creation, head over to Patreon.

Again. This problem has been solved for years.

It may be hard to become a great artist, but there is absolutely nothing complicated about paying artists to create work that we can download and copy for free. The only reason we have this problem is because we keep listening to corporate mouth-pieces of the completely redundant distribution companies who were NEVER INTERESTED IN PAYING ARTISTS TO BEGIN WITH.

Stop listening to the corporate mouth-pieces. Please. You are far to intelligent to fall for their BS.

Re:I Don't Know

[__aaltlg1547]

Why not make it a punishment that fits the crime, but per count? Put a realistic value on the illegal downloading. A song is worth (in the market) $1, so petty theft. A movie is worth, in the market, maybe $10 to $15. Again, petty theft. We don't put people away for 10 years for petty theft, no matter how many times they do it.

Instead, let the copyright owners sue for actual damages and let them make the case that they were actually out $1 for the illegal song download or $10 for the illegal movie download, or upload. Massive infringers could be put out of business. You uploaded a movie and provided it to 10,000 downloaders? You owe us $100k, and you're guilty of 10,000 counts of petty theft.

Re:I Don't Know

[Solandri]

I don't know what an "appropriate" punishment is for illegally downloading or distributing someone's content, but ten years sounds incredibly excessive unless you're running a vast, far-reaching network, distributing content to a million people and charging them for the convenience or something like that.

That is precisely whom these heavy fines in Copyright law were intended to punish. Someone running a bootleg CD or DVD operation could stand to make thousands if not millions of dollars in profit. So the punishment had to be severe enough to discourage them. Otherwise they could just use a fraction of the profits to pay the fine as a cost of doing business.

The problem is, Hollywood has been abusing the law given to them to combat these cases, by applying it to "home use" filesharers. And the courts have been negligent in failing to toss that argument out the window. Proof? Just look at their argument in court. When they claim Jammie Thomas-Rasset "made available" songs for other people to download, exactly what are they saying?

By definition, the number of downloads of a fileshared song equals the number of copies uploaded. If 1000 people are filesharing a song, then they each want a single copy of the song, and a total of 1000 copies are made. If you can wrap your head around this amazingly difficult math, that works out to each single person being responsible for one illegal copy.

But in court the RIAA has been arguing that the one person is somehow responsible for the thousand copies made in total. What exactly does that mean? If you accept their argument, then that one person is responsible for the thousand copies so the other 999 people are not responsible. That is exactly the reasoning you'd use against someone running a commercial bootleg CDs operation. He sells 1000 copies of a CD. The 1000 people who bought CDs from him paid for them, so you can't really consider them guilty. Instead you make him solely responsible for all 1000 copies. That's what the law is designed to punish.

But this argument doesn't work against a single-use downloader. If the courts convict one person claiming she is responsible for the thousand copies made, then they convict the next person and claim he's also responsible for the same thousand copies made, and so on until they've convicted all 1000 people, what exactly has happened? In total they've convicted 1000 people of making 1 million copies of a song. But there were only 1000 copies of the song ever made! The math doesn't add up because the making available argument is wrong! It is fundamentally flawed. It is logically erroneous.

The courts should've spotted this flaw in the RIAA's "making available" arguments, but they haven't. Or they have and have failed to slap it down for the silliness it is. The legislatures badly need to revise copyright law to distinguish between commercial copyright infringement, and single-use home filesharing. What going on now is akin to the EPA abusing laws meant to punish companies illegally dumping toxic waste with millions of dollars in fines, and applying the same punishment to someone who fails to recycle a CFL light bulb (they release a tiny amount of mercury into the landfill when you throw them away in the trash).

The thing is, the Internet has, and will continue to change, how media can be distributed and consumed. The old model of ticket and physical media sales just doesn't seem viable anymore. I think the media companies are going to need to find other ways to pick up revenue.

Wedding photographers already went down this route. They used to shoot your wedding for a nominal fee, or even for free. Then they'd charge you for prints of the photos. If you wanted extra prints, they'd charge you extra. Then scanners came way down in price and people started just scanning and printing co

Re:I Don't Know

[gman003]

Let's split pirating into two crimes:
IP Theft
IP Infringement

IP infringement would be commercially using someone's IP as though it were your own. Selling bootleg DVDs, straight-up counterfeiting, plus corporate copyright/patent/trademark infringement. This can be left under the laws currently.

IP theft would be equivalent to regular theft of the same product, for non-commercial personal use. If you have to make it a separate crime, give it penalties on the scale of "five times the retail value of the product" - this should be a misdemeanor, not a felony, crime.

Re:I Don't Know

[gnasher719]

I don't know what an "appropriate" punishment is for illegally downloading or distributing someone's content, but ten years sounds incredibly excessive unless you're running a vast, far-reaching network, distributing content to a million people and charging them for the convenience or something like that.

That's why you have "maximum" penalties, and you'd hope that a judge would handle this sensibly. There may be a "maximum" penalty for selling drugs, and it should be obvious that someone selling 1,000 kg of cocaine should likely get the maximum, and someone selling 5 grams should get much much less than the maximum. I'd fully agree with the maximum being horrendously high so that the guy selling 1,000 kg can get a fair punishment, but that maximum should be totally irrelevant for the 5 gram seller.

For something like murder it's different; there isn't that much difference between the most harmless and the most evil murder. For assault there is a huge difference, between a harmless slap, and breaking every bone of someone. For copyright infringement, as you say, an enormous range from a single download to a multi million dollar illegal enterprise.

Quite obvious that the maximum penalty will be excessive except for the few that deserve the maximum penalty. Instead of setting a maximum, they should have a guideline for the penalty depending on the severity of the crime.

Re:I Don't Know

[drkstr1]

"Someone, someday?"

Really?

This problem has been solved for years.

We invented the legal fiction of copyright for exactly one reason. To find a way to pay artists to create their work. We wanted successful artists and a society made rich and beautiful by their work.

There are a total of 12 business models that are known to have ever made money at all. One of them is to make a product and sell it above cost. Others include things like loaning money and charging interest, leasing a property, buying wholesale and selling retail, providing insurance against risk. What all of these have in common is that none of them make any sense at all for turning art into money on the Internet.

There are a few models that obviously work just fine.

1. Become famous and sell tickets to live concerts. Been done too often to think about. 2. Become good enough to aggregate an audience, use your influence to advertise things that people actually want to buy. Every Youtube star does this. Every TV show does this. Everyone who puts on a "free" show at a coffee shop or a bar does this. 3. Build a catalog and charge for access - make sure it is sufficiently convenient an inexpensive that the "happy to pay crowd" outweighs the "I'll just copy it" crowd. Musically I know about the weird case of Magnatune. Also done by every single Porn site in existence, and you don't exactly hear the Porn industry complaining that the Internet ruined their movie business, do you? 4. Lastly, and most directly, is to recognize the obvious: Distribution online is effectively free. Creating the work in the first place is expensive. So quit trying to prop up the DISTRIBUTION industries and start paying the artists for CREATION. If you need crowd funding, take a look at Kickstarter. You want a crowd funding subscription to the service of artistic creation, head over to Patreon.

Again. This problem has been solved for years.

It may be hard to become a great artist, but there is absolutely nothing complicated about paying artists to create work that we can download and copy for free. The only reason we have this problem is because we keep listening to corporate mouth-pieces of the completely redundant distribution companies who were NEVER INTERESTED IN PAYING ARTISTS TO BEGIN WITH.

Stop listening to the corporate mouth-pieces. Please. You are far to intelligent to fall for their BS.

(Bumping insightful AC comment rated at 0)

Re:I Don't Know

[currently_awake]

Lets split it into Comercial and Non Comercial. If you do something for profit it's Comercial. And have high fines for Comercial, and public service for Non Comercial.

Re:I Don't Know

[kheldan]

This. Is little Timmy, aged 12 years, going to be in prison until he's 22 because he wanted to see Game of Thrones? If there's no profit involved then there should be little or no fine, let alone any jailing of anyone. If it's something that was broadcast for FREE over-the-air in the first place, then nobody should give a fuck, unless they want to get into the Time Machine and go back to just before the first VCRs were available to the general public and make them completely illegal -- or for that matter, go back even further, to before any audio recording equipment was available, and make it illegal to record music from the radio, too! Of course if the media industry was actually making all this fuss because they were actually trying to protect the artists and content creators instead of just wanting to line their own pockets I might have a different attitude, but we all know that's not the case.

Re:I Don't Know

[ewibble]

A song worth $1, yea right why to put the value that is paid to the artist per download of that song

from http://business.time.com/2013/...

But the company estimates that the average song generates between $0.006 and $0.0084

Re:I Don't Know

[ewibble]

I don't think I have ever seen actual proof that there is even loss of expected return. Just random speculation because someone downloads a movie for free they would automatically have purchased it at the higher price. It maybe seen as advertising and actually increase sales.

Re:I Don't Know

[__aaltlg1547]

That's per time it's played. The $1 is based on the value a typical copyright holder charges a user to gain a permanent, non-transferable license to play the song in private.

Re:I Don't Know

[SeaFox]

I don't know what an "appropriate" punishment is for illegally downloading or distributing someone's content, but ten years sounds incredibly excessive...

That's probably what they're really trying to find out. Not if the populace thinks the punishment is appropriate, but if concept is frightening enough people will obey regardless of how they feel about copyright infringement.

Re:I Don't Know

[Altrag]

$50 probably isn't sufficient given that buying the bluray is damned near $50, so when you multiply out the risk factor you'd actually be encouraging infringement at that rate!

Up here in Canada we have a pretty good system IMO. There's a $5000 maximum penalty. That is, its high enough to be punishing but not high enough to be life-destroying (for most people.) There's also a distinction for commercial infringement which allows for much higher penalties.

Its probably not perfect.. I'd like to see a scaling system (based on real, objective numbers rather than based on completely unjustified "damage" claims by the labels) so that the worst offenders could still be prosecuted without unduly punishing people who are legitimately too broke to afford the getting-rather-insane price of legit copies these days (or worse, things like Game of Thrones where you have to subscribe to an entire bloody service for one show.)

Defendant's income would be a good measure here but of course that would raise some privacy concerns (the labels would need to know your income before determining if you're worth pursuing legal measures against. Even if you somehow route it so that the labels only can learn the maximum potential judgement award, they could reverse the calculation to at least put you in an income bracket.)

Commercial copyright infringement on the other hand I'm fully behind opening wide up. I have no problem shutting down any business that's primarily illegal. Things like torrent farms and search engines are a bit of a grey area. There's a difference between a generalized torrent farm that can be used for both legitimate and illegitimate content vs trackers that are explicitly dedicated to copyright infringement. Its hard to write that sort of distinction into law, so probably best to leave the infringement penalties to those who are actually infringing and leave the "enabling" context out of it (or up to the judge on a case-by-case basis.)

Re:I Don't Know

[SuricouRaven]

When effective enforcement isn't possible, one option is to resort to lottery enforcement and disproportionate consequences. You can't prosecute a million people for a crime - but you can prosecute a hundred and hit them with life-runing consequences that will destroy everything they have and everything they hold dear. Then you rely on intimidation to stop all the rest: Even if the risk of getting caught is very low, when the consequences are severe enough people will be too afraid to break the law.

Re:I Don't Know

[Altrag]

There are a total of 12 business models that are known to have ever made money at all.

What? That's a horrific oversimplification. And if you're going to do that you may as well go all the way: There's only one business model that works -- make more money than you spend.

you don't exactly hear the Porn industry complaining that the Internet ruined their movie business, do you?

Nope, not ever. And that's just a few from the first page of Google results.

recognize the obvious: Distribution online is effectively free.

While true, recent history has shown that this isn't the biggest issue. The problem is that piracy is more convenient. If I want to watch a movie legitimately I have to obtain the discs, plug it into the machine, sit through 1-2 minutes of unskippable copyright warnings (being shown only to the very people who aren't infringing.. I get that legally they need those warnings but there's no reason to make them unskippable.) 30 seconds of stupid menu animations, probably a handful of ads for other shit (which are thankfully mostly skippable but still..) Then sometimes you get shown the damned copyright notices again after you finally get to the menu to hit play. 4-5 steps and several minutes of useless shit in order to finally view your show. Assuming you're wanting to watch something old enough to have discs available in the first place. And you're paying for all that shit.

Oppose that to a torrent. Yes you have to wait for the download but with modern internet speeds that's usually less than an hour and frequently only a few minutes depending on number of seeders and the quality (file size) you're picking up. Less time than having to go to the store to pick it up for a lot of people, and far less than ordering from Amazon or other online sellers. And when you get it you hit play and you're immediately watching your movie. Two steps and no wait time beyond the initial obtaining which is comparable to obtaining a legitimate disc.

Thanks mostly to Netflix and Apple, this is improving quite a bit -- primarily in the sense that they've mostly proved that people will actually pay for content if its a) reasonably priced and b) convenient. The recording industry has mostly realized this and most music is available through iTunes, Google Play and a few other big name services (often available through all of these services.) That's exactly what people want and will pay for. Simple, fast and not unduly expensive.

The TV industry is slowly catching on. They're not there yet. Every studio is making their own access site which destroys that "convenient" aspect that's so important: If I want to watch Game of Thrones, I have to know which site is distributing it in the first place, and if its not one I've signed up for I've got to go through that whole hassle. Rinse and repeat for every single show I'm interested in.

That "knowing who distributes it" in particular is terrible. If they want to create a competitor to Netflix and Hulu for whatever reason then great -- but having 47 competitors that all offer only one or two (popular) shows each isn't going to solve anything (of course they'll use the fact that nobody cares enough to sign up for that much shit as yet more evidence that copyright infringement is destroying their business, even though that's not the underlying problem.)

The movie industry on the other hand is still stuck in the past for the most part. They usually distribute "ultraviolet" codes with discs nowadays which is great but it means I still have to pick up the discs.

Re:I Don't Know

[Altrag]

If you want the punishment to fit the crime, force infringers to make their own song and distribute it for free!

You'd end up with a lot of crap of course, but there's already a lot of crap out there so that's not a significant detriment. And who knows you might end up with a few beauties going straight into the public domain.

Of course that wouldn't recompense the labels so it'd never fly.. but it would make for an interesting world.

As for charging damages based on retail pricing, that's an immediate failure: If I have a 100% chance to pay $10 for a movie legally, or a 1% chance to pay $10 for a movie illegally, I have exactly zero motivation to purchase it legally. But at the same time multiplying in the risk factor (so it would be $1000 penalty for an illegal movie using these example numbers,) you get into the situation where the defendant's entire life effectively destroyed over a handful of movies.

There needs to be a middle ground between "meaningful deterrent" and "annihilate a person's entire future." Unfortunately few people seem interested in finding such a middle ground in the legal arena.

Companies like Netflix, Hulu and Apple are helping in the sense that they're removing the incentive to infringe in the first place but avoiding the problem is not the same as solving it (unless you can completely avoid it which is unlikely in this case.)

Re:I Don't Know

[gweihir]

Right on the mark. The distribution industry has zero benefit these days and is just a problem. It needs to die. Unfortunately it has a lot of money, mostly gotten by ripping off artists, and hence can by laws and politicians and is dying slowly.

Re:I Don't Know

[cas2000]

I propose making it a crime to say "IP" or "Intellectual Property" unironically as propaganda can cause severe damage to both the thought processes of individuals and to the judicial processes of society.

Re:I Don't Know

[david_thornley]

Your models do not work for all types of art. People who write novels have nothing comparable to live concerts, and the closest they get is doing live appearances to try to sell copyrighted material. I don't think they'd be all that successful at advertising things, and the idea would be anathema to many creative people.

Your third model is, basically, copyright with a lot of ability to profit removed. Novels do not in general sell in quantities such that would pay the author decently, if the author collects only a nominal fee.

Your fourth model just isn't going to work. Who decides how much a new artist gets, and from whom? Patreon may or may not work for established artists, but it sure wouldn't work for beginners. There have been a handful of authors I'd consider Patreon for, and there have been a lot of authors I paid by buying copies of their book(s). People are going to work harder on something for less money if there's a possibility of making lots and lots of money on it, which the Patreon model pretty much rules out.

Re:I Don't Know

[david_thornley]

Under some circumstances, free stuff has been excellent advertising. About the turn of the century, Baen was trying out free science fiction and fantasy books, and found that they increased sales considerably. This was partly due to putting only the first one or two in a series out, and perhaps partly due to reading novels on the computer being significantly less convenient than reading the paper edition.

Re:I Don't Know

[david_thornley]

That's one theory, sure. In practice, a fairly certain small punishment is a better deterrent than an unlikely large punishment. People do subscribe to your theory, and put it into practice, but it really isn't going to be very effective.

It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

Longer sentences don't matter. Never have, never will. Especially not for white collar crime. You could put the death penalty, or lifetime in prison, behind it and it wouldn't make a difference.

6 months in prison would be enough of a deterrent if it worked. Because the people who commit this ... erh ... "crime" are usually not the hardened criminals that need a revolving door in the jailhouse 'cause they spend more time going in and out that on either side.

Now, it doesn't work, does it? Nope, doesn't. Mostly for two reasons. First, it's a law that is not backed by popular consent. There is exactly ZERO chance that someone would turn someone he knows in for this. Or convince him that it's better to turn himself in. WAY different for laws that have popular support. Make this quick comparison: Imagine you know someone and you learn that he copies files. Do you turn him in? He's not a close friend, just someone you know. Would you? Probably not. You would probably not even ask him to not do it again. Now imagine him having stolen something from a shop. Does it get more likely that you at least ask him to stop doing it and "get clean"?

And that ties in with the second reason: Nobody thinks of getting caught when doing something. I'm not even going to cite the near zero chance to actually get caught because the sentence for armed robbery of a bank is already at 10 years around here and the chance to get caught is near 100%. Still, people do it. Why? Because that's not on their list when they commit that crime.

Now let's string it together: People not thinking of the consequences, a near zero chance of getting caught and no popular support for the law. Fuck, you could have public beheadings and it wouldn't change shit.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

Correction, it may change shit: People would actually cry out against the law because the alleged crime is very visibly in no relation whatsoever to the punishment. It already is. It just is way less public.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Make this quick comparison: Imagine you know someone and you learn that he copies files. Do you turn him in? He's not a close friend, just someone you know. Would you? Probably not. You would probably not even ask him to not do it again.

Actually, some people would use it as a way to get rid of people they don't like or stand in their way. Because so many people do it in small doses (especially young people), a rival can make a wild guess and turn in someone they don't even know infringed.

Then the burden becomes on the police? What kind of evidence do they need to investigate? It's unlikely a single tip is going to be enough because the police would get so many tips they'd never be able to investigate them all. No judge is going to give a warrant for a wiretap or search a home and computer based on "We got a phone call that says this guy is a pirate."

You can bet that this technique will be employed to ridiculous end in grade and high schools. Kids don't understand real consequences and many will have no issue turning in a classmate they don't like for their own amusement. They don't realize that ruining someone's entire future (over a download) because that kid wears unpopular shoes is not a good thing to be doing--and they're definitely not smart enough to realize that it goes both ways and they'll find themselves accused of the same things.

Re:It doesn't matter

[MrKaos]

Longer sentences don't matter. Never have, never will. Especially not for white collar crime. You could put the death penalty, or lifetime in prison, behind it and it wouldn't make a difference.

Copying movies isn't really white collar crime though where peoples life savings are often defrauded from them. I'd like to see the courts *enforce* penalties against those who ruin the lives of so many for their own compulsive greed so that they are in prison for ten years.

Bur not people who copy movies.

Correction, it may change shit: People would actually cry out against the law because the alleged crime is very visibly in no relation whatsoever to the punishment. It already is. It just is way less public.

For sure. It's ridiculous that this is even an issue when corruption in corporate and government areas are treated as trivial when they affect a lot of peoples lives. Where are copying movies is affecting a few peoples lives, so existing punishments are not really equitable.

Re:It doesn't matter

[harvey the nerd]

Never forget that these assh*** demanding "10 yrs for priracy" are in fact raiders of the public domain and corrupt usurpers of real law and order.

Re:It doesn't matter

[fustakrakich]

Let's not forget the fact that the assholes who write these laws still win elections.

Re:It doesn't matter

[gweihir]

And there is the problem: Most people are still cave-men or medieval at best. Pandering to their base instincts wins elections.

Re:It doesn't matter

[fafalone]

I'm not even going to cite the near zero chance to actually get caught because the sentence for armed robbery of a bank is already at 10 years around here and the chance to get caught is near 100%. Still, people do it. Why? Because that's not on their list when they commit that crime.

Clearance rate for bank robbery is on the high side, but 100%? Try closer to 60. Bank robberies happen often because when you're desperate, those odds become acceptable. Not to mention the odds for a level headed pro vs. detoxing junkie on getting caught. I've met a bank robber before. He did get caught on 1 job but had been successful many times. Put a lot of thought and planning into it, was white and even had some college education. The police would certainly like to make people think youd never get away with it, but unless you screw up bad it's 50/50 for a reward of up to 1000s.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

Well, it's closer to about 80 to 85% around these areas. And while yes, it's usually desperate idiots acting without a plan that drives this rate up, the risk/reward ratio still blows. 1000 bucks, even for a 50 percent chance of 10 years in prison (usual sentence 'round here, they tack "holding people hostage" onto it routinely, and that's expensive!)?

Sorry, but there are way more profitable crimes to commit with way lower chance of getting caught AND a much lower sentence if you do.

Betteridge's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

black markets

[Lawrence_Bird]

Is 10 years enough if you sell/buy bootleg cigarettes or booze? Instead of looking at the fundamental issue (cost) that creates the black markets, the "leaders" seek ever higher penalties that never seem to stop the undesired actions.

it is all about pricing and availability. If the media companies want to reduce piracy then make their products priced and available in a manner that people want - that need not equat to "free". If instead, they insist on maintaining prices and policies that encourage blackmarkets, they should treat it as a cost of doing business.

Re:black markets

[rsilvergun]

True, but there's not really any downside to it. The put someone away for 10 years for pulling the latest Britney Spears magnum opus and it's going to have an effect. A pretty large one I'd say. Sure, it won't completely stop the behavior, but it'll slow it. Plus, what's the downside to the record labels and movie studios? Tough on Crime _always_ plays well with the base. The UK and US both are scared shirtless of Yaboos and the like. Or at least the people who vote are (doesn't count if you don't vote and young people don't). Heck, not sure about the UK but in America our white collar prisons are privately run and most of the tops 1% own stock in the companies. Plus we do prison labor in parts of the South (Elon Musk's company just got caught using it to build solar panels, I wish I could say it's a scandal but nobody cares).

Less piracy, more profit for their prisons and they get to tell the base how tough on crime they are? It's a net win for the ruling class.

Re:black markets

[dk20]

+1 for this (no mod points, plus i already posted on this as well).

Several years ago bootleg cigarettes were a huge issue here (Ontario). Since most of the price of them is taxes the government was actually forced to lower the taxes to compete and try to end the black market.

This "10 years in jail" sure sounds like a "cobra effect" waiting to happen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Who will pay to house the inmates? Since this law benefits a specific industry, they should fund it. Why should my tax dollars go to imprison someone for downloading music?

Re:black markets

[fustakrakich]

Actually pricing in the 'black' market is controlled through selective enforcement of existing law. That is how it works with all contraband. When the authorities get hungry, the price of everything goes up until it depresses the market enough to affect their take, then they back off a tiny bit.

the only punishment that will work:

[Xicor]

the only punishment that would actually work is one that is actually reasonable... how about, you get caught, you have to pay 5x the price of the item you pirated? people might actually stop pirating. the issue with these ridiculous punishments is that the only people you could reasonably go after for are the outliers who are the ones uploading tons and tons of content and profiting off them. if you attempted to put the average joe in jail for 10 years for piracy, first of all, there would be riots on your hands, second, you would have to put 9/10 of the US in jail... and we dont have enough prisons for that, we are already letting murderers loose because we dont have room for ppl who smoke pot.

Who will that include ?

[Alain Williams]

Will it include corporates such as newspapers who grab images, etc, from individuals' web sites and publish it on their web site and ignore any attempt by the copyright holder (individual) to get proper compensation ?

I doubt it - such laws do not seem to apply to corporates.

Re:UK = a good place to NOT be.

[pjt33]

Is filesharing that high on your list of things to do on holiday?

Huh...

[koan]

One wonders if decades of digital piracy is what leads to the inevitable oppression we are coming under.

Re:Huh...

[Altrag]

No. Digital technology probably does -- people in power have always used every available option to oppress as many people as possible -- but copyright infringement specifically has very little to do with it.

Geo block

[monkaru]

If the UK actually goes through with something this stupid, and thier track record indicates they probably will, I will simply geo block the UK.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Check Mike First

[MrL0G1C]

Here's an idea, how about we check all of Mike's families PC's and phones and cassettes first to see if there's any copyright infringements.

No?

Longer sentences don't prevent shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Longer sentences don't do a damn thing to prevent anything other than removing the problem from society.
In fact, the longer the sentence, the considerably higher chance that person is going to just go straight back to criminal business BECAUSE they will end up blacklisted by a considerable number of companies for work. (which is retarded and only makes society worse for everyone due to it)

The only people that get screwed over in all of this is literally the lesser grunt-work people, very rarely do the higher-ups actually get caught.

The only way to deal with this problem is the media industry stop screwing over customers with region restrictions, overpriced goods and unwillingness to adapt to new technology.
They could be making a killing with online media, which some already are right now and the market is growing.
These companies are the ones that are going to profit most. These dinosaurs that only want to sue their way to a profit are going to die off sooner or later.

Re:Longer sentences don't prevent shit.

[fustakrakich]

Longer sentences don't prevent shit, but the talk still wins elections, which is very revealing as far as public attitudes go.

Is it worth it?

[websitebroke]

How much does it cost to put a person in minimum security prison for a year? If we jailed enough people to be a deterrent, the cost to society would be enormous. Certalnly higher than the cost of piracy.

how about 10 yrs for execs

[harvey the nerd]

How about 10 yrs in the slammer for execs guilty of corruption and bribery? Like creating retroactive changes to the laws, raiding the public domain, and making perpetuities out of basic, limited copyright in faster world of the internet. My contention is that copyright for ephermera, like news, TV and movies, should have been SHORTENED from 28 yrs to a lower number !

Re:how about 10 yrs for execs

[Opportunist]

You don't throw aristocracy into jail!

But if history serves me right, it's ok to remove the head.

They've apparently learned nothing...

[Karmashock]

I welcome the next round of idiotic legislation that accomplishes nothing.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

The people that reelect the politicians certainly do welcome those things. Who are we to argue with success?

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[Karmashock]

An individual with the right to form his own opinions, express them, and have them felt if only fractionally by the state through his elected representatives.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

Form all the opinions you want. Your vote provides all the consent they need to do what they do, and it renders all conflicting opinion moot.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[Karmashock]

So does my lack of vote which means my vote isn't what gives them that authority but the power to act. Which means the justification is power.

And since power is the justification, I can counter it with power. Just as one army's right to rule the land is countered by another army's refusal to submit. And the argument such as it is will be decided by whether the first army can dislodge the second.

In this context, they're presuming the ability to come find someone in the deep web, crack through all the VPNs, and trace things back through all the anonymizing protocols.

It took them how many years to get ONE guy running the Silk Road? Exactly how do they think they're going to track down enough people to actually create a credible climate of fear of prosecution?

The instant they actually start trying everything is going to go to VPNs and Tor.

So as I said... they've apparently learned nothing.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

And your VPNs and Tor packets will be simply dropped. All the power you want depends on the amount of kinetic energy you can control. The words are bullshit.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[Karmashock]

No they won't. Corporations and other interests that need a level of privacy will prevent that from happening. These interests are so strong that even in Iran VPNs are used commonly without much trouble.

You are telling me that your new order is going to be more restrictive than the Chinese and Iranian models?

Come now.

It seems like not only have the politicians learned nothing... but neither have you.

We're done... I don't respect you in this discussion anymore and if I continue talking to you in it, then I'm going to be rude since that respect threshold was just crossed.

So in the interests of maintaining what civility I have left, I will say "Good day, sir."

*tips hat*

*leaves*

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

Pfft! Things will only get as bad as people let it. The power is theirs (yours). Use it or lose it, just don't complain about it. When your actions and words collide, it only makes you all sound like idiots and naive fools. At which point only mockery and ridicule serve any purpose. Your government is your fault. Accept and embrace it.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

:-) Even the shallowest thinkers see that you continue to play the blame game. You will accomplish nothing until you recognize the role you play as an enabler of corruption when you vote for it. And for the rest of the viewing audience (since you can't be bothered), ask yourselves what does the successful politician have to 'learn', besides, of course, keep on doing what made them successful to begin with? Do you shock the dog when it obeys your commands?

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[Karmashock]

No, the evidence that I'm right came through recently. The UK government was talking about banning Tor and banning strong encryption and forcing VPNs to go through some sort of government check system.

And the parliament just came back from deliberation and said "no."

So... no.

The corps and other interests with enough power to get the politicians to pay attention need to keep secrets as well. And their needs will ultimately serve ours because in protecting their right to keep secrets they will passively protect ours.

They need VPNs and strong encryption as well. Not only that, but they're actually under international attack from intelligence agencies all over the world with people trying to get access to their systems. They need the security. And they're not giving it up.

And if they have it, then it wont' be illegal and if isn't illegal then you can have it too.

You want to make an argument? Back it up with something. I just cited that the UK parliament which is contextually relevant to the topic because it was the UK government asking the question has just rejected policies that would make cracking down on piracy more possible.

Seriously... end of discussion.

Good day, sir.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

The use of encryption can be easily controlled by licensing its use. The service providers will be given the appropriate white list. There is no 'argument', that would be your personal fantasy. They is only influence, and how to apply it. You're looking for something that isn't there. And I don't care if you respond or not. I'm posting for the rest of the audience to decide. Have a good day yourself, sir. I have a good day every day.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[Karmashock]

You're saying they're going to impose something that hasn't been imposed in China or Iran.

You're wrong.

We're done. Good bye.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

It already has been imposed everywhere, crapflooders vs. firewalls, You are so deluded if you think you are hiding anything. And to see you blather on about China and Iran just shows you are regurgitating mass media BS, hardly anything thoughtful on the subject.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[Karmashock]

You've got literally nothing backing up your position. I cited recent efforts to stop strong encryption in the UK that were shut down and I pointed out that your policies have not even been imposed in Iran and China.

To rebut me, you have childish insults.

You lose.

http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/

Good day.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

:-) What did I 'lose'?

Are you one of those people that think publicly available encryption actually works? Well, I'm sure you're in good company, even if you are wrong. Dream on, my friend. It gives you purpose.

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[Karmashock]

In what way does 512bit blowfish encryption not work?

Re:They've apparently learned nothing...

[fustakrakich]

I am not privy to classified information. Under the circumstances, it is always best to assume the worst.

In the case of dangerous fakes....

[flightmaker]

My main problem is with the jerks who put out fake booze made from industrial methanol, dangerous fake electrical products, fake brake parts, fake aircraft parts etc. Any of these can cause injury or death, so the perpetrators, when caught, need to be put away where they can do no harm for a damn sight longer than 10 years.

Re:In the case of dangerous fakes....

[gweihir]

Making unsafe copies of safety critical equipment needs to be fought. But: The copies actually have to be unsafe. There are quite a few that are not a problem and some even exceed the specs of the original item. Hence if it is determined by sound, scientific methods that a counterfeiter made significantly worse copies, they should go away for attempted man-slaughter or a similar, to-be-defined crime. But the same should happen to OEMs that make dangerous parts. The copying is not the problem here, the quality of the part is.

Yes

[thegarbz]

Yes. If the crime is comparable then the punishment should also be comparable.

Now the real question is are the crimes actually comparable? Typical cases of physical piracy involve people duplicating and selling software for personal profit. I see no problem with the same punishments being applied to people who do this online. Typical online piracy on the other hand is not done for profit. The most common case is actually for personal use with the side effect that sharing is part of the acquiring process and no money changes hand.

So while the answer is yes another question needs to be asked:
Would you lock up your friend for 10 years for giving you a mixed tape or photocopying a chapter out of a textbook?

Making fake Game of Thrones episodes?

[jfdavis668]

Counterfeiters make and sell fake products. Is someone going around selling fake episodes of Game of Thrones? Copying something and sharing it for free is not the same as selling something and passing it off as the real thing.

chutzpah

[harvey the nerd]

The industry sponsored copyright legislation (I won't call it "law") being expnded with demands for "10 years" on thefts of the public domain is like a massive counterfeiter demanding execution of people that refuse its currency.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Did the 'theft' debate die?

[trippin_efnet]

Did the debate about whether or not this is really theft get answered?

Is a kid watching a movie on some streaming site stealing? Is it the same as looking around and slipping a Blu-Ray in your pocket at the local store? I think we should finish that debate before we change the question to how much prison time is appropriate.

Equal crimes

[Livius]

How about a 10-year sentence for maintaining a spiteful monopoly stranglehold on distribution?

There are 'pirates' who believe they are entitled to receive something for nothing because they simply feel entitled, and I don't have sympathy for anyone like that. But many people copy intellectual property illegally that they would gladly pay a reasonable price for if there was simply some reasonable means for doing so, rather than dealing with obnoxious monopolies and inconvenient delivery channels and being forced to pay for garbage programming that they don't want. I like the fact that the BBC makes Doctor Who and I want to encourage them to continue doing so - why do they make that hard?

Corruption Over There, Too?

[BrendaEM]

Hey, your politicians are taking money from media companies, too!

Try before you buy

[rjforster]

What about the people who download music then either buy it if its good or delete it if its rubbish?

Only last night I went to a gig for a band touring for a new album. I didn't buy the ticket or the cd until the album was released. You can work out the rest for yourself. That's ~£75 I spent (CD, ticket, travel, parking etc) only because I heard the album without paying for it first. If I hadn't heard it because it was impossible to get or the death penalty scared me too much then that's money that wouldn't have been spent on the music industry. It really is that simple.

If I get the chance to meet and speak with the musicians I see I often tell them that I'm only a fan and only here to see them because at some point I downloaded their music - and you know what, every single one of them has been cool with that and glad that I became a fan.

Over half the miles I do in my car are going to gigs - I need BP as a character witness.

What about stuff that you literally cannot buy? I know of several CDs (and TV series for that matter) that I would happily pay a sensible price for but it seems that nobody wants my money.

Re:Try before you buy

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the people who download music then either buy it if its good or delete it if its rubbish?

Try doing that at a restaurant. Order some food, and if you don't like it, walk out and don't pay.

The problem here is that people are trying to create good-sounding arguments to justify behavior that arose out of personal convenience. When people don't think they can be caught, they behave differently. It's rationalization.

Re:Try before you buy

[coofercat]

In the downloading sense, no one spent any (appreciable) time or money delivering the content, Further, by listening to it, you didn't deprive anyone else of that quantity of content. This, this is nothing like ordering food (or indeed anything else) and not paying for it.

The point here is to clearly understand the differences between digital content and physical property or goods. It's then to clearly understand the similarities between them and design new laws, or apply existing ones appropriately. At the moment, all we have is the media distribution companies (who have a dwindling business model) talking about how digital content is just like physical - but unfortunately for them, that's simply not true. It doesn't matter if you're a so-called "freetard", a hardened criminal, a law abiding citizen, a media exec, a politician or an alien from the planet Zod - digital content is never, ever going to be the same as physical property. Thus, laws surrounding it cannot be the same either.

A fine is sensible

[duck_rifted]

If a pirate is caught downloading, charging them a fine that's a little higher than the price to legally see the content makes perfect sense. That's not even $50 most of the time, but after court costs are added in, $50 seems about right. Ten years is ridiculous. Hollywood really over-values itself to the point that we'd all be better off it the whole thing were put out of business. Do they really think that ninety minutes of one of their screenplays or three minutes of a song is worth ten years of anybody's life? That movie or song better damn well confer a PhD just by viewing/listening to it because that's what ten years is worth.

Not just dangerous people

[Roger W Moore]

Prison should be used as a way of removing a dangerous person from society until they're no longer a danger. Even people who sell millions of pirated copies are not dangerous.

Not quite, prison is used to remove people who damage our society and to prevent them causing further damage. Someone who embezzles money or commits fraud can hardly be classed as "dangerous" but at the same time society should not have to put up with them.

Piracy, both online and offline, should have the same, long sentences for those who run commercial operations which make significant money from selling copies of films, music etc. Sharing a legal copy with friends and family should not be illegal because the vast majority of the people see nothing ethically wrong with it: the artist was paid for the copy and that copy is now being shared. So the dividing line should not be online vs offline but commercial vs. private and for private I would argue that it should not be a crime.

Re:Not just dangerous people

[ShanghaiBill]

Someone who embezzles money or commits fraud can hardly be classed as "dangerous"

Then they should NOT be in prison. Put an ankle transponder on them, and sentence them to 60 hours per week cleaning toilets at the veteran's hospital. If someone is not physically dangerous, then there is always a more constructive punishment than just putting them in a cage.

America spends more on prisons than we spend on universities. We imprison more people per capita than any other country, ten times as many as some European countries, yet we get worse results. We are clearly doing something wrong.

Re:Not just dangerous people

[gweihir]

And they tried that in Germany. Guess what: After a short time any small time file-sharing teenager was classified as a "commercial" copyright infringer by having completely insane criteria. The copyright industry has no honer and unlimited greed. Nothing they want does any good for society.

Re:Not just dangerous people

[gweihir]

You know, in some countries forcing anybody to work more than 50 hours a week is classified as assault and can put the perpetrator in prison for up to 8 years.

Re:Not just dangerous people

[Roger W Moore]

Then they should NOT be in prison. Put an ankle transponder on them, and sentence them to 60 hours per week cleaning toilets at the veteran's hospital.

How does that stop them continuing to commit crime? Someone could easily continue to perpetuate fraud with an internet connection. It is not enough to know where they are you also need to know what else is there and what they are doing otherwise they can just continue to operate.

Hack thoughtfully

[ITRambo]

Harsher penalties will simply drive people to hack into the LAN of those that they hate, or their bosses home network. Two problems solved and a possible promotion when the former bosses' position opens up.

Entertainment Cartel Cruisin for a Bruisin

[rubycodez]

One day people will have more than their fill of the entertainment cartels' BS, and after they day those smug little shits who buy their own laws and judges will get a big big surprise

Re:PIRATES or pirates?

[Bert64]

Not so much that its "cool" to share stuff...
Most of the kids share stuff because that's the only way to get hold of it. We used to trade games (on floppies) as kids because we couldn't afford to buy all the games and lending the originals to friends was irritating (floppies get corrupted/lost, etc).
Also cracked copies were often better, as they took out various irritating copy protection schemes, there were many games where i kept both the original disks and a cracked copy because i preferred to play the cracked copy.

Piracy is...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Piracy is robbery, kidnapping, and murder on the high seas.
2) Intellectual property is a generalized term which supposedly covers copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret law.

Do not allow corporations to frame arguements in these terms. When they say "piracy of intellectual property", respond with "copyright infringement". Then it may be possible to have a rational discussion.

Re:Piracy is...

[fustakrakich]

Then it may be possible to have a rational discussion.

Only up to, but not including the purpose of the law and who it serves. Supporters of copyright are wagging the dog. Copyright was specifically designed to impede the progress and use of new technology to spread knowledge, explicitly to protect established industries and authorities. It is the Red Flag Law of information and communications.

Re:Piracy is...

[ewibble]

This article is saying copyright infringement is counterfeiting which unless the copyright infringers are pretending that their movies are the genuine article and the proceeds/ or the creators have given there permission for you view it, then the movie is not a counterfeit.

Counterfeiting is fraud because you are fooling the purchaser into believing they are purchasing something that they are not really purchasing.

But why not call it counterfeiting, you call it piracy and equate it to a bunch people stealing and killing on the seas, it is probably closer the that than real piracy. Or stealing when nothing is actually physically taken.

Hell why not equate it to murder and make the penalties the same there. You are effectively killing the poor soles that would otherwise have had jobs in the movie industry, because they cannot afford to feed themselves.

Re:Piracy is...

[Altrag]

1) Piracy is robbery, kidnapping, and murder on the high seas.

Stop this. Just stop. Language changes. Live with it. There are very few contexts in which one could possibly confuse tween girls downloading One Direction songs with "robbery, kidnapping, and murder on the high seas."

If you ever run into such a situation, then please do be careful to make the distinction. Lawmakers need to make the distinction when putting the law down on paper because you never know where it might be applied in the future. In all other situations, you're just shutting down the conversation without accomplishing anything beyond making people think you're a dick.

Then it may be possible to have a rational discussion.

Not if your first argument in any discussion is "Nyah nyah I won't even listen until you've consulted a thesaurus." Rational can't even come into it because there's no "discussion" in the first place when you throw down this sort of pedantry right off the top.

Re:Piracy is...

[suutar]

that's kind of the point. "piracy" is a term loaded with negative connotations. "copyright infringement" isn't. That's why those who wish to increase penalties for infringement like to use the term "piracy"; it whips up more outrage. But many people don't feel that the act of copyright infringement for personal use deserves that much approbation, and therefore the term "piracy" is not appropriate.

Re:Piracy is...

[SuricouRaven]

I prefer to harness rather than fight the change in the language. It's going to happen, but that's not a problem: Pirates can be cool! Look how successful the Pirate Bay was - they took pirate into their name and their logo, turning it from an insult into an icon of pride.

Re:Piracy is...

[penguinoid]

When they say "piracy of intellectual property", respond with "copyright infringement".

Or when they say "piracy" respond with "alternate interpretation of '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.'".

Re:Piracy is...

[cas2000]

So propaganda is OK merely because it's old? In that case, how old does a propaganda term have to be before it becomes legit?

copyright infringement was called "piracy" back then in an attempt to make it seem like an actual crime, and one of the worst crimes rather than a relatively harmless evasion of rent-seeking monopoly.

BTW, corporate tax evasion sounds like a harmless white-collar crime, so i propose calling it paedophilia just so that the public understands how dangerous and destructive the crime really is. In a century or two (perhaps less), that should be OK, because propaganda is OK as long as it's traditional.

Re:Could work if they complete it

[gnasher719]

There needs to be more-than-ten years of imprisonment for using DRM. One work sold with DRM makes multiple people need to pirate it in order to watch it. If you sell a DRMed work that results in six people pirating it, then you get 60 years.

If I was a shop owner, I'd have to shoot you in self defense, so I won't go to jail when you steal my goods.

My Rant.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about people abandon proprietary software and start using gpl free open source. Gimp,blender, inkscape are not that bad of a product compared to their windows counterparts. The more ppl adopt gpl license software the more contributions($$$, source code) will take place. Not bad donating $5 - $20 towards gpl free open source projects compared to pissing thousands of $$$ on maya, adobe CS, etc... Yes, the professional spends money to make money, but, maya and photoshop to name a few still have plenty of bugs that have not been fixed for a long time and it gets very frustrating working with some of these products especially when you wasted $$$.

Look at windows 10, the menu will finally have transparency, wooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, and people were applauding stating Windows 10 will be the best OS, give me a fucking break. MS still has so much legacy crap(com, activex, win32, registry, etc...) and this is what you really pay(home, professional, ultimate) for which is the same old shit. You wan't WinRT apps(requires Hotmail Account) just use your web browser. I'm currently using Windows 7(no second taskbar, no panorama wallpaper, no free pdf, compression utility which is hidden sucks, paint and wordpad useless, just to name a few) and will dump it for linux in the near future.

I have been running ubuntu 14.10(ran previous versions on and off for the past 7 years) and no problems for me so far even installing newer software that is not in the repository, although, I had to use dpkg in terminal. But the amazing thing about ubuntu(thanks to gtk) is that it's cleaner looking and has crisper gui and font rendering compared to any Windows OS. I also have tried arch, gentoo, fedora, centos, opensuse and many more.

Yes, some linux and bsd out of the box might be for geeks, but, once something goes wrong with the friendly Windows 7/8/10 for the average joe you will either have to call someone(friends, or spend $$$) to fix the issue or become a geek yourself and fix it. Sorry, but troubleshooting Windows OS(cryptic error messages and their online solutions) is a pain in the ass. Linux is a lot easier to troubleshoot and solutions are all over the web with easy instructions.

Re:My Rant.

[Altrag]

MS still has so much legacy crap

Most people consider backwards-compatibility to be a good thing. Not to mention it save MS having to try to redo 30 years of development every release cycle. I'm not saying the system is perfect (there's a lot of weirdnesses in the common controls that could probably have been corrected if they didn't have to worry about compatibility -- and doubly so as a C# developer where you have to break paradigm and drop into C-style win32 code in order to solve/work around some problems.) But its a hell of lot better than having to start from scratch every 2-4 years.

no second taskbar

This one bugs me as a dual-screen user. I've found third-party utilities to help with the situation but they're nowhere near as nice as the "real" taskbar. But MS is definitely not the only company to mostly ignore dual screen users (I'm not sure whether EDID detection is a video card or an OS issue or a combination, but holy hell is it annoying.. about 90% of games and other full-screen apps only support dedicated full screen -- no borderless windows -- and half of them force it to be on the primary monitor to boot.. MPC-HC refuses to stay in full screen under certain conditions (and its a totally free, open-source media player.. I even examined the code at one point and if my reading was correct, it was intentionally done that way.. not just a bug.) No idea if Linux or OSx handles multiple monitors significantly better but since most things I need to do don't support Linux and I can't stand Apple products, I'm rather stuck where I am anyway.

no free pdf

And if they included one, they'd run the risk of another antitrust lawsuit. Its not like they have a much of a choice on that one. The rest of your examples probably would fall into this category as well except a) they suck (as you pointed out), b) they've (mostly) always existed in Windows and c) most of them don't have any competition anyway (nobody is going to claim that Paint is a legitimate competitor to Photoshop.) Its kind of odd that Winzip or someone hasn't tried to challenge MS' inclusion of a compression program but maybe they just don't think its worth the legal costs.

once something goes wrong...have to call someone

That goes for any computer issue. Doesn't matter what OS (or even if its something other than the OS.) Hell it goes for any moderately complex technology.. I have to call someone if something goes wrong with my car too. Expecting everybody to be experts with every piece of technology they ever touch is just stupid.

cryptic error messages

Because "Segmentation fault" and "Kernel panic" are so much clearer than "The program has stopped working" or a blue screen. People who know what they're looking for will glean info from it. People who don't are just as confused either way.

And you sure as hell can Google Windows issues just as easily as Linux issues. I have no idea how you figure Linux is in any way easier to troubleshoot (unless you're a kernel programmer and then yes, being able to inspect the source code may help.. but most end users -- even among other programmers -- aren't kernel programmers.)

The big fact everyone ignores when making these kind of stupid claims is that most people who can't figure out Windows issues on their own also wouldn't be able to figure out Linux issues on their own. There just happens to be a significantly larger number of that type of user among the Windows world.

To go back to the car analogy, it would be like comparing your average driver to a professional racer. Even if the racer isn't actually a mechanic, there's a good chance that they know a hell of a lot more about cars than most "normal" drivers. So yes, they probably can do a lot more minor maintenance themselves without having to call a "real" mechanic. But putting a bunch of normal people into Nascar-ready cars isn't going to reduce the need for mechanics to any great extent.

It'll be handled like our drug laws

[rsilvergun]

wealthy and upper middle class will be given a free pass and go into treatment. The poor will be locked up and the middle class will just have their financial lives destroyed from the high cost of defense. Both UK & US justice systems have enough leeway built into them to protect the people who matter and the rest? Well, by definition they don't matter...

WHAT THE FUCK IS "ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING"!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no such thing. fuck off.

Easy

[nospam007]

The only existing online pirates are in Eve Online. Good luck catching them.

still more than most paedophiles get

[ihtoit]

for raping babies.

Google:

Jimmy Savile
BBC Coverup
Rotherham
Rochdale
Beechwood
Wood Nuck
Rampton
Elm Guest House
Dolphin Square
Haute de la Garenne
Haringey LB
Coventry
Doncaster
Leeds
Derby
North Wales
Great Ormond Street
St. James'
Alder Hey
Little Ted's

All massive scandals in the public eye, yet the only ones that have seen convictions are Little Ted's and... nope, that's it. The others are very well protected under colour of Law and Establishment protectionism.

Taxation is theft

[7-Vodka]

NT, there's no need to elaborate.

Did the heliocentrism debate die?

[Uberbah]

You can't stop idiots from voicing their opinions, so there will always be "debates" on subjects that aren't really debatable. The sun revolving around the earth, atheism being a religion, or copyright infringement being theft, whatever. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Re:Did the heliocentrism debate die?

[trippin_efnet]

This debate needs to happen. Even if its just to make the media companies realize how ridiculous their pricing is. I think anyone who doesn't question the movie and music industries pricing regarding digital delivery is an idiot. If pirates sites and many independent legal content sites can stream movies to people for basically free, why can't the movie industry? Yes, I realize there are costs to recoup but surely the cost of digital delivery is no where near the cost of a physical disc.

Clearly the markets are not ready to accept their pricing of 17.99 for a digital copy of a movie they can't even have the file for.

There are only a few ways this is going to go imho.

1) The content industries will continue to gouge and pretend there is a sparsity of their product and the vast majority of the internet will continue to make copies for free.
2) The content industries will be successful in killing net neutrality and gain control of the method of distribution in the same way they did television and radio.
3) They will be successful in making laws such as tfa is discussing. Piracy will still be rampant. People will needlessly be in prison.
4) The industries will realize they can't use the same business models they used pre-internet and price as if there was competition and their product is not scarce anymore.

They also need to get off of this "No one will make movies or music anymore if they wont be paid" delusion. You don't even have to stretch your brain to see how much of a fallacy that is. Garage Bands. Basement DJs. Youtube level Movie makers. Hobbyists all over. Starving artists. etc..

Re:Did the heliocentrism debate die?

[Uberbah]

By this logic, we should just let people tell us what is and what isn't.

That logic would be idiotic, yes. Good thing it's yours and not mine.

Just out of curiosity, who will be your decision makers?

Just out of curiosity, are you the very sort of idiot I'm talking about? Anti-vaccer? Maybe one of those wingers who goes on blaming Clinton for Ruby Ridge, even after he's been told that happened before Clinton was elected, much less took office?

This isn't hard. Idiots are people who keep holding on to thoughts, opinions or beliefs that have been categorically debunked. Moreso when confronted with mountain after mountain of evidence - but you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The Earth orbits the Sun, vaccines do not cause autism, Obama was born in Hawaii, and copyright infringement is not and never has been theft.

Period.

Re:Did the heliocentrism debate die?

[Uberbah]

Visual demonstration.

Re: Did the heliocentrism debate die?

[Uberbah]

Would be interesting if the confrontational AC and the GP were the same person. But they're not.

Worse punishments...

[JDLazarus]

A far worse punishment would be to stick them with dial-up.

key differences

[cas2000]

Key differences between offline counterfeiting and online piracy that the copyright maximalist fascists are glossing over include:

1. counterfeitiing of physical goods is a for-profit activity, online piracy is, mostly, not. copyright laws already have higher penalties for commercial piracy (e.g. selling copied CDs or DVDs) than non-commercial piracy.

2. counterfeiting is trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. it's comparing chalk and cheese. copyright and trademarks are two completely different, unrelated things with completely different laws and rationales.

3. counterfeiting also affects the consumers and is often an act of deception against them. In some cases, that doesn't matter much (where the buyer knows they're buying a "fake" because, e.g., one t-shirt or handbag or gaudy watch is pretty much the same as any other), in other cases it matters a lot because the consumer can get an inferior, or at least wildly different, product to what they thought they were buying.

Re:Just burn them in cages

[gweihir]

It is for any religion with a "book". Even things like capitalism and communism qualify. Fanaticism (even in more moderate forms) is a mental disease, what the fanatics latch on to is just determined random chance.

Re:sharing movies = counterfeiting?

[gweihir]

It is completely bunk. So are the therms "piracy" and "theft" for copyright infringement. They are an attempt to make people see something as a huge problem which obviously isn't one. The only ones suffering is the distribution industry. And that one has zero worth for society. They are scared people will realize this.

How about 10 years jail for false DMCA takedowns?

[GrumpySteen]

If violating copyright by pirating a work is worth 10 years in jail, surely fraudulently claiming copyright and preventing the distribution of a work is worth an equal sentence.

The correct answer is ZERO

[Kirth]

Because it's supposed to be a matter of civil and not criminal law.

Did you already forget this? And did you also forget that copyright was NEVER about downloading, but always PUBLISHING?

If they give

[Cafe Alpha]

everyone who has torrented 10 files, 100 years in jail, then there won't be anyone left who knows how to use a computer.

AN answer

[TheCarp]

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H L Menken

Its an answer, kind of like an answer to "What is 3 plus 4" is 900.

Its an answer, its not correct, its not even useful, but, its words you can speak in response to a question....which is good enough for most politicians regardless of the system you put them in.

hmmm

[sociocapitalist]

Might as well be an insider trading as the risk / return ratio seems a hell of a lot better.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

It's better to be a white collar criminal.

[Methadras]

Seriously, it's better to be a white collar criminal and steal tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars at this point if you can. Spend it until you get caught.

I'll say yes when..

[kuzb]

...corrupt politicians and corporate CEOs face similar stiff penalties for breaking the law.

Re:Could work if they complete it

[Cajun Hell]

If you're a shop owner, then presumably your goods are actually for sale, so you're willing to accept money in exchange for goods which don't suddenly explode and retroactively bind me to a previously-unknown contract after I step out of the store. Few people would be interested in stealing your goods, because they can simply hand you money for them.

I was talking about a very different scenario than anything you will ever face involving shopkeepers: DRM, i.e. a form of fraud. That situation presumes you intend harm to others, so yes, shooting all would-be-customers as they walk into your "store" (if I may use that term very loosely) just might blend into that context seamlessly.