Bolton Institute of higher education, which was technically a collage, but had a bit of an identity crisis as it taught degree courses.
It was trying to go to university status when I arrived (And when i left). I believe it is actually Bolton University from last year, only 8 years late for me:-)
Yeah, Uni Sysadmins hate to look stupid, because in an environment with a couple of hundred graduatiing CS students they are very easy to replace at the drop of a hat.
When i was at collage, i remember a friend of mine came over, but needed to do some work. Now the work was a document on a server in Preston Polytechnic, so we tried to FTP it over to the local VAX. Eventually we just gave up because it wasnt working
Now we dont know exactly what happened, but next day i got an email from a very annoyed SYSadmin for this system because we had caused some form of system failiure by our actions. I think he called it a "Network breakthrough event" or something. Apparently somehow we had cacked their system in some way (I dont think it was permement, or particularly serious). They were Threataning to sue me and the guy involved.
I send them an email saying we only wanted to get some work off the server and promising never to go near their crappy system again.
From what i found out later, the reason he was threatening me was because the Poly had recently promised someone doing some research that their system was safe and secure, and apparently something died (Probably the FTP daemon) when the guy was in the room. Very embarrasing. So of course it all got blamed on them nasty hackers.:-)
I later found out exacly now flaky a default PrimeOs installation was in person, it always surprised me after that how anyone would ever dream of using it in a production system, but then again, being braught up on VMS and UNIX, i seem to have got the strange impression that more than 10 hours uptime in one stretch is my god-given right:-).
Hmm, VAX hardware can survive a lot. (I've seen one reboot ok after a lightening strike killed most of the LAN it was connected to, ah the joys of Thinnet) but i dunno about that.
Actually if you have a few machines clustered, you may be able to turn off one of the machines to install the hardware without bringing service to a standstill. Clustering is VMS's real strength, VMS had it 10 years before it was done in Unix land.
Yeah, VMS was my first encounter with a production grade operating system. I ended up with DCL scripts to do loads of things when i was at Uni in Bolton UK. Unfortunately, the SYSOP was a damn good Vax hacker, and had the system locked down so we couldnt do a great deal of experimentation without him knowing. he certainly used a lot of fanfold keeping it that way though. I believe they actually still have some Vax's there, although as most of the normal lusers have been migrated to NT, I suppose the system is easier to keep pristine now without us lot there:-)
VMS was pretty secure out of the box. certainly more secure than Unix is by default. Also the process permission way of doing things is far nicer than unix's root/non-root designation. (Actually i think Linux V2.6 has something similar now, have to check)
Yep, i'm a bloke, but i'm also an amateur psycologist, and i also work as a geek in a law firm, i think that means i am not technically a human any more because I sold my soul or something.
Most people tend to think that only other blokes are so pathetic as to sit in front of a computer all day and write viruses. Girls obviously all have a life, and have better things to do.
To be fair, this does seem to backed up by the FBI's arrest record.
Of course it could just be because the girls are smarter and dont get caught.
But you _should_ join the rally! I am almost sure that that kid had bad intentions, but that is not the point. Lawmakers are crossing lines here: in cases like this the _intention_ should not be punishable. Copying a book in a library is not punishable. Setting up your own print shop and illegally distributing copies of that book is and should be punishable. Copying a book, even with the intent of selling illegal copies, is not and should not ever be illegal.
I see your point however the reason the law was put in place was because (Other then the blatent bribary) this sort of thing rarely (if ever) leads to usage that could be classed as Fair.
The library example is different in that there are plenty of non-infringing uses for photocopied sections of books. (Although certainly in the UK, there you can register with the Copyright licensing authority and opt-out for certain special cases) I agree with a lot of the posters in for their Copyright lasts too long and three years minimum jail term is excessive. Never the less, If someone commits an act for which they had the choice, and they knew it was patently illegal, they should be prepared to accept the consiquences. I agree you have some points in the more general sense, but in this specific sense, he had no excuse and should be punished accordingly. These movies do have a warning at the start, so ignorance is no excuse (I'm assuming anyone who can operate a camcorder can also read).
Since both of us are not in the US (from your hilarious example I take it you are from the UK) this does not directly apply to us, but politicians on this side of the atlantic might get the same ideas, just like with software patents. We need to keep our eyes and ears open for nonsense, newspeak and FUD. The entertainment biz is a business and as such does everything it thinks will maximize profits, including lobbying politicians to write bad laws.
Yes, i'm from the UK, Halifax to be precise, and i can see these things happening over here as well. I recently voted in the Euro election specifically to give support to an MEP who did his homework related to software patents (Although it may eventually have no effect) and I wrote to my MP to complain about how this decision was basically overturned on a whim. In the UK however, because the limits on political spending are much lower than the US and most of the MPs are very sensative to putting themselves in a position that could be construed as bribary, it is easier for small groups to get to talk to their local representatives in person. Its a shame more people dont take them up on it.
Of course it helps that my MP only lives two streets over:-)
Don't you see how rediculous this law is? Making 1 copy and only looking at it yourself when you have already paid to see it does no harm and thus should not be punishable. Illegally distributing copies should be punishable.
put that way it is ridiculous. If you ever find a case of someone recording a film in a cinema with the express intention of *only* watching it themselves at home, do inform me so i can join the rally to get the person involved released.
Yes gun laws in the US are stupid. Lots of laws are stupid. That is why we have elected representatives. Of course in the US, your representatives are elected by the Corperations, but you only have yourself to blame for that.
I have to admit, the fact that the CIA can find out what libary books you have got out in the last 30 years, but not what gun your packing raised quite a chuckle. Of course it raised slightly less of a chuckle when the EU decided to give all my personal details to the US authorities on the off chance i may fly there some day.
In the UK it was still allowed to shoot a welshman from a particular bridge in Chester on particular days of the week up until someone actually threatened to do it a few years ago, so the US doesnt have a monopoly on stupid laws.
By the way, the speeding argument is a bad one. I recently saw a boy ran over by a speeding car who couldnt be arsed to stop. I had a very enjoyable day not long after that giving evidence which left the old fart involved permemently without his Licence. The only reason he didnt get jailed was because of his age.
I have perspective.
He was probably going to put this on a P2P network where millions of people across the world could download it and therefore become Criminals themselves. His efforts would have denied the movies perhaps tens of thousands of viewings (assuming only 1% of viewers would go and watch the movies otherwise)
All so he could look cool to the virtual morons he hangs about with on line.
Yes i believe jail time is appropriate. Not the three year minimum the the movie companies have managed to bribe the Senate into giving, but certainly of a few months.
Its a criminal offence because US senetors can be legally bribed. I dont think allowing corperations to donate to policical parties should be allowed.
I dont think there is very much else to say about that really.
Yes, personally i think it should be an offence. Not however an offence which starts at 3 years in jail. It just isnt that serious.
I wouldnt however feel too much grief if it was a Civil suit and the companies were able to leech an amount of money and all the sprogs' computer equipment.
Anyone who doesnt realise this sort of thing is a crime at 15 years old is either very stupid or really has no sense of morals and needs to be taught a lesson.
You have a point actually, after a look around i can only find examples of that cited as a *reason* to Pass the Opiate ban the UK, not any results from *after* the ban was passed. (Its in Hansard), and it has been pointed out to me that it was banned before there was a public medical system in the UK, so i concede the point.
As for tobacco and alcahol. The dangers of Toabcco werent known until the 1950s and we can all see what results of the proabition in the US. Organised crime latched on to it. and it became really nasty. I suspect if you tried to ban drinking alcahol in the UK, they would be a riot.
Unfrortunately, the public order problem must take priority over the people who drink to excess and take up beds in the hospital.
Not that i dont think these should be left out. Saturday evening in Birmingham City centre at about 2 in the morning would give most sober people a good idea of why banning Alcahol would be a good idea. I think that the police should have the power to ban certain users for drinking. Its probably not practical though.
you wont find anything about it in Das Capital because its a side effect of all lawful societys.
All states which have a police force with limited resources are going to concentrate those resources on particlar goals. States that are influenced by particular lobby groups are going to put more resources into those particular issues than if the lobby group did not exist. Non capitalist societies will concentrate thier efforts in other places. (Some may try to argue in more socially redeemable places, but that is open to debate) The Movie companies have a *really* effective lobby in the US at the moment.
I seriously doubt the bulk of Law enforcement efforts go into one thing. selling drugs is not a victimless crime, the buyer is the victim and it tends to force the victim to create more victims. Whether this would be better if it were legal is up for debate.
Still its an important point and deserves thinking about.
I currently disagree with you, but its a free country, and i am up for persuasion.
It is clear that you have fallen for the newspeak and brainwash of the music biz. Making a copy of something is _not_ a criminal act. Making a profit of selling illegally copied content might be (in some countries), but criminalizing making 1 copy in a movie theatre is absurd. Also, have you forgotten fair use rights?
newspeak is may be, but illigal in the country it was caught in it definately is. Otherwise the boy involved would have been just thrown out rather than given into the custody of the police.
he please explain the difference between
1) me going to see a movie (and paying for it)
2) me going to see a movie, paying for it, and making a recording so I can see it at home again
3) me going to see a movie, paying for it, and 2 years later make a video-recording from that same movie that is broadcasted on TV
The legal aspect of this has been already debated so i wont go into that again. (Unless you disagree that it *is* illegal
The Moral aspect is that the film company is the owner of the film and it is up to the film company to say what it wants to happen to the film. When you record something from a TV, the film company will not loose any money if you do that. If you record from the movie theitre, they will loose the custom of everyone who chooses to view your copy rather than the official copy. Now Personally i dont buy the bullshit that widespread internet distribution will kill off the film industry, but never the less, you are choosing to harm the film maker by denying them the customers. (BTW, while i find (2) an interesting point, as i doubt it rarely happens in real life, its
a moot point).
So the point is, if you *wont* be harmed if you dont, but the film maker *will* be harmed if you do, you have a moral obligation to *not* do this.
You seem to classify a 'criminal' as someone who breaks criminal law. I do not agree. Is someone who steals a bread from a wealthy comglomerate of bakeries to prevent his family from starvation really a criminal?
Technically this is a criminal act, but the punishment should represent the circumstances of the crime. Just because the crime may be justified, makes it no less criminal. I suspect the person involved in this case would get a servere telling off, and then let go. This also brings into question the criminality of a state that would let this happen in the first place. Not having to descend to Criminality to survive is a fundemental human right which is why most civilised socieies have social security of some sort. I would hope this would be treated differently than the person who steals bread to sell on the black market. This boy however is just doing this so he can be thaught of l33t by his peers.
And what would happen if you normally do X and a criminal law against X was created? This makes you a criminal. In some US states there are laws against oral or anal sex between consenting adults; this means these consenting adults are criminals in one state, but would be perfectly innocent in another.
Unforunately the fact that laws are not uniform doesnt mean they are not valid. The people in those states have the option of voting out the morons that would put together such a law. Failing that, they can move state. If they have none of these options, i can see where that would be another failure of the state in these cases. I personally believe that it is wrong for people to try to force their morality on others if they are doing something that does not affect others. Just because laws are not wrong does not make you any less of a criminal if you knowingly violate them.
Again, this is not the case in this boys case.
Drugs like cocaine, marihuana, heroin were once free to use for all. Now if you smoke a joint you are a criminal? 100 years ago you most certainly were not, why are you a criminal now? Drinking alcohol once was a criminal offence in the US, yet a lot of people drank alcohol in that time. All criminals?
Again, see above, just because you consider a law to be wrong does *not* give you the right to break it. Drugs in general were banned because of the servere social problems they were creating. It all comes down to the affect on others, in this case, indirectly. Banning drugs serverely reduced the pressure they put on health services. You can make the case as to wether they are a good thing or not (My personal point of view is that certainly in the case of marihuana they should either legalise it or completely ban tobacco) using them is still illegal, and the majority of people object to it.
Someone who makes a recording of a movie IMHO simply cannot be called a criminal (even if you put a 'minor' label in front of it) just because a group of politicians says so while under campaign contribution influence from the movie biz.
Unfortunately this is where we disagree.
If you make a recording of something which has cost millions to make, against the express wishes of their owners, they you are a criminal.
There are no Mitigating circumstances in this case. He was not being forced, he was not doing it to survive or to feed his family, he had already paid for his ticket to the movie, so he was not poor, he basically had no excuse other than he wanted to be considered l33t by his friends. He has no moral justification for his actions.
He got caught and he is likely to get convicted.
In the Uk, there was a program not so long ago called "Short sharp shock".
What it meant was that in some areas, juverniles convicted of a crime spend up to a month in jail rather than having a 6 month suspended sentence. The idea of this was to give them an idea of what Jail was really like rather than letting them find out after they had graduated to more serious crimes (This does happen very frequently).
Now i know two people who ended up on this program, including a relative, And for them at least it worked.
You are right in that Two years in jail isnt justified for this offence. I do however a few months in jail would do this person some good. It would scare them while still at an impressionable age.
I dont know the results of this in general though. There is also the scare stories of it turning these jails into a "School for criminals". I do remember noticing however that the people who were claiming this could never provide any proof.
This already happens, and indeed is the case here. As for the poor not being to afford investigations, that is what the police are supposed to be for.
If someone decides they can do a better job and get it investigated privately and bring their own prosecution, then they have that right. Of course in a perfect world this wouldnt be nessesery because the police would have an infinate amount of resources, but then we have a police state, as a significant proportion of the population do nothing other than enforce the law. In this case that would have a police officer in every movie showing of every movie theitre.
The discovery of copyright infringement is rightly a low priority compared to things like Murder and Rape investigations, therefore the police are less pro-active in trying to get these things reported.
On the other hand, if they are reported, (As here when they handed the boy over to the local police) and they should investigate it properly. The movie companies have just provided some people with the tools to be easilly discover the criminals. Similar to when a person installs an alarm in their own appartment.
'Yes, he certainly is an unperson'. NOT. You are falling for the big brotherian newspeak. Someone who makes a copy of a (probably crappy) movie is to be considered a criminal, and put on the same level as murderers and rapists? This is insane.
The person involed is not a non-person and i dont think that i implied that. What he is however is part of a particular clique of humans called "Criminals" who do things that are illegal. Unlike most criminals he isnt doing it to survive or feed his family, he is doing it because his *peers* make him feel good about doing it. He probably knows its illegal, and is aware of the risks.
Within the group of citizens who come under the class "criminal" there are a number of subcategories,
He definately falls into the "Minor criminal" in that he was doing something illegal, but there are no immediate victims. Thats why he will get two years maximum, and probably wont even go to jail at all for a first offense.
murderers and Rapists fall firmly into the "Major criminal" sub category and are looking at quite significanly more jail time up to execution in the US.
What he did is nothing compared to Murder or Rape, but thats why the penalties are significantly less (Despite the efforts of the movie companies)
Saying that I class what he did in that group is a misrepresentation of what i said. The only relation is that both activities are classed as Criminal behavior and should be punished.
That doesnt mean however that i think he should get away with *no* punishment. That breeds contempt for the law and will result in an escillation of the seriousness of any crime in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, they only become litigious bastards when they actually start litigating.
Ah, i get it now.
:P
I'm a geek, I dont do none of your fancy "Spelling" an "Puntuation"
Bolton Institute of higher education, which was technically a collage, but had a bit of an identity crisis as it taught degree courses.
:-)
It was trying to go to university status when I arrived (And when i left). I believe it is actually Bolton University from last year, only 8 years late for me
Yeah, Uni Sysadmins hate to look stupid, because in an environment with a couple of hundred graduatiing CS students they are very easy to replace at the drop of a hat.
:-)
:-).
When i was at collage, i remember a friend of mine came over, but needed to do some work. Now the work was a document on a server in Preston Polytechnic, so we tried to FTP it over to the local VAX. Eventually we just gave up because it wasnt working
Now we dont know exactly what happened, but next day i got an email from a very annoyed SYSadmin for this system because we had caused some form of system failiure by our actions. I think he called it a "Network breakthrough event" or something. Apparently somehow we had cacked their system in some way (I dont think it was permement, or particularly serious). They were Threataning to sue me and the guy involved.
I send them an email saying we only wanted to get some work off the server and promising never to go near their crappy system again.
From what i found out later, the reason he was threatening me was because the Poly had recently promised someone doing some research that their system was safe and secure, and apparently something died (Probably the FTP daemon) when the guy was in the room. Very embarrasing. So of course it all got blamed on them nasty hackers.
I later found out exacly now flaky a default PrimeOs installation was in person, it always surprised me after that how anyone would ever dream of using it in a production system, but then again, being braught up on VMS and UNIX, i seem to have got the strange impression that more than 10 hours uptime in one stretch is my god-given right
I wonder how long it will be until someone has ported Quake to it.
Hmm, VAX hardware can survive a lot. (I've seen one reboot ok after a lightening strike killed most of the LAN it was connected to, ah the joys of Thinnet) but i dunno about that.
Actually if you have a few machines clustered, you may be able to turn off one of the machines to install the hardware without bringing service to a standstill. Clustering is VMS's real strength, VMS had it 10 years before it was done in Unix land.
Yeah, VMS was my first encounter with a production grade operating system. :-)
I ended up with DCL scripts to do loads of things when i was at Uni in Bolton UK.
Unfortunately, the SYSOP was a damn good Vax hacker, and had the system locked down so we couldnt do a great deal of experimentation without him knowing. he certainly used a lot of fanfold keeping it that way though.
I believe they actually still have some Vax's there, although as most of the normal lusers have been migrated to NT, I suppose the system is easier to keep pristine now without us lot there
VMS was pretty secure out of the box. certainly more secure than Unix is by default. Also the process permission way of doing things is far nicer than unix's root/non-root designation. (Actually i think Linux V2.6 has something similar now, have to check)
Oh happy days.
Yep, i'm a bloke, but i'm also an amateur psycologist, and i also work as a geek in a law firm, i think that means i am not technically a human any more because I sold my soul or something.
:P
Its social conditioning.
Most people tend to think that only other blokes are so pathetic as to sit in front of a computer all day and write viruses. Girls obviously all have a life, and have better things to do.
To be fair, this does seem to backed up by the FBI's arrest record.
Of course it could just be because the girls are smarter and dont get caught.
No! your not serious!! surely it cant attach Windows 2003, Bill PROMISED me it was more secure.
:-)
now COULD he do such a thing.
Thats it, i want a divorce.
I see your point however the reason the law was put in place was because (Other then the blatent bribary) this sort of thing rarely (if ever) leads to usage that could be classed as Fair. The library example is different in that there are plenty of non-infringing uses for photocopied sections of books. (Although certainly in the UK, there you can register with the Copyright licensing authority and opt-out for certain special cases) I agree with a lot of the posters in for their Copyright lasts too long and three years minimum jail term is excessive. Never the less, If someone commits an act for which they had the choice, and they knew it was patently illegal, they should be prepared to accept the consiquences. I agree you have some points in the more general sense, but in this specific sense, he had no excuse and should be punished accordingly. These movies do have a warning at the start, so ignorance is no excuse (I'm assuming anyone who can operate a camcorder can also read).
Yes, i'm from the UK, Halifax to be precise, and i can see these things happening over here as well. I recently voted in the Euro election specifically to give support to an MEP who did his homework related to software patents (Although it may eventually have no effect) and I wrote to my MP to complain about how this decision was basically overturned on a whim. In the UK however, because the limits on political spending are much lower than the US and most of the MPs are very sensative to putting themselves in a position that could be construed as bribary, it is easier for small groups to get to talk to their local representatives in person. Its a shame more people dont take them up on it. Of course it helps that my MP only lives two streets over
put that way it is ridiculous. If you ever find a case of someone recording a film in a cinema with the express intention of *only* watching it themselves at home, do inform me so i can join the rally to get the person involved released.
Yes gun laws in the US are stupid. Lots of laws are stupid. That is why we have elected representatives. Of course in the US, your representatives are elected by the Corperations, but you only have yourself to blame for that.
I have to admit, the fact that the CIA can find out what libary books you have got out in the last 30 years, but not what gun your packing raised quite a chuckle. Of course it raised slightly less of a chuckle when the EU decided to give all my personal details to the US authorities on the off chance i may fly there some day.
In the UK it was still allowed to shoot a welshman from a particular bridge in Chester on particular days of the week up until someone actually threatened to do it a few years ago, so the US doesnt have a monopoly on stupid laws.
By the way, the speeding argument is a bad one. I recently saw a boy ran over by a speeding car who couldnt be arsed to stop. I had a very enjoyable day not long after that giving evidence which left the old fart involved permemently without his Licence. The only reason he didnt get jailed was because of his age.
I have perspective. He was probably going to put this on a P2P network where millions of people across the world could download it and therefore become Criminals themselves. His efforts would have denied the movies perhaps tens of thousands of viewings (assuming only 1% of viewers would go and watch the movies otherwise)
All so he could look cool to the virtual morons he hangs about with on line.
Yes i believe jail time is appropriate. Not the three year minimum the the movie companies have managed to bribe the Senate into giving, but certainly of a few months.
Its a criminal offence because US senetors can be legally bribed. I dont think allowing corperations to donate to policical parties should be allowed. I dont think there is very much else to say about that really.
Yes, personally i think it should be an offence. Not however an offence which starts at 3 years in jail. It just isnt that serious.
I wouldnt however feel too much grief if it was a Civil suit and the companies were able to leech an amount of money and all the sprogs' computer equipment.
Anyone who doesnt realise this sort of thing is a crime at 15 years old is either very stupid or really has no sense of morals and needs to be taught a lesson.
You have a point actually, after a look around i can only find examples of that cited as a *reason* to Pass the Opiate ban the UK, not any results from *after* the ban was passed. (Its in Hansard), and it has been pointed out to me that it was banned before there was a public medical system in the UK, so i concede the point.
As for tobacco and alcahol. The dangers of Toabcco werent known until the 1950s and we can all see what results of the proabition in the US. Organised crime latched on to it. and it became really nasty. I suspect if you tried to ban drinking alcahol in the UK, they would be a riot.
Unfrortunately, the public order problem must take priority over the people who drink to excess and take up beds in the hospital.
Not that i dont think these should be left out. Saturday evening in Birmingham City centre at about 2 in the morning would give most sober people a good idea of why banning Alcahol would be a good idea. I think that the police should have the power to ban certain users for drinking. Its probably not practical though.
So in answer to your question, Yes, its not *just* a side effect of capitalist societies, so my original post was wrong.
you wont find anything about it in Das Capital because its a side effect of all lawful societys.
All states which have a police force with limited resources are going to concentrate those resources on particlar goals. States that are influenced by particular lobby groups are going to put more resources into those particular issues than if the lobby group did not exist.
Non capitalist societies will concentrate thier efforts in other places. (Some may try to argue in more socially redeemable places, but that is open to debate)
The Movie companies have a *really* effective lobby in the US at the moment.
I seriously doubt the bulk of Law enforcement efforts go into one thing. selling drugs is not a victimless crime, the buyer is the victim and it tends to force the victim to create more victims.
Whether this would be better if it were legal is up for debate.
Still its an important point and deserves thinking about.
I currently disagree with you, but its a free country, and i am up for persuasion.
newspeak is may be, but illigal in the country it was caught in it definately is. Otherwise the boy involved would have been just thrown out rather than given into the custody of the police.
The legal aspect of this has been already debated so i wont go into that again. (Unless you disagree that it *is* illegal
The Moral aspect is that the film company is the owner of the film and it is up to the film company to say what it wants to happen to the film. When you record something from a TV, the film company will not loose any money if you do that. If you record from the movie theitre, they will loose the custom of everyone who chooses to view your copy rather than the official copy. Now Personally i dont buy the bullshit that widespread internet distribution will kill off the film industry, but never the less, you are choosing to harm the film maker by denying them the customers. (BTW, while i find (2) an interesting point, as i doubt it rarely happens in real life, its a moot point).
So the point is, if you *wont* be harmed if you dont, but the film maker *will* be harmed if you do, you have a moral obligation to *not* do this.
Technically this is a criminal act, but the punishment should represent the circumstances of the crime. Just because the crime may be justified, makes it no less criminal. I suspect the person involved in this case would get a servere telling off, and then let go. This also brings into question the criminality of a state that would let this happen in the first place. Not having to descend to Criminality to survive is a fundemental human right which is why most civilised socieies have social security of some sort. I would hope this would be treated differently than the person who steals bread to sell on the black market.
This boy however is just doing this so he can be thaught of l33t by his peers.
Unforunately the fact that laws are not uniform doesnt mean they are not valid. The people in those states have the option of voting out the morons that would put together such a law. Failing that, they can move state. If they have none of these options, i can see where that would be another failure of the state in these cases. I personally believe that it is wrong for people to try to force their morality on others if they are doing something that does not affect others. Just because laws are not wrong does not make you any less of a criminal if you knowingly violate them. Again, this is not the case in this boys case.
Again, see above, just because you consider a law to be wrong does *not* give you the right to break it. Drugs in general were banned because of the servere social problems they were creating. It all comes down to the affect on others, in this case, indirectly. Banning drugs serverely reduced the pressure they put on health services. You can make the case as to wether they are a good thing or not (My personal point of view is that certainly in the case of marihuana they should either legalise it or completely ban tobacco) using them is still illegal, and the majority of people object to it.
Unfortunately this is where we disagree.
If you make a recording of something which has cost millions to make, against the express wishes of their owners, they you are a criminal.
There are no Mitigating circumstances in this case. He was not being forced, he was not doing it to survive or to feed his family, he had already paid for his ticket to the movie, so he was not poor, he basically had no excuse other than he wanted to be considered l33t by his friends. He has no moral justification for his actions. He got caught and he is likely to get convicted.
Yes, for a reason.
In the Uk, there was a program not so long ago called "Short sharp shock".
What it meant was that in some areas, juverniles convicted of a crime spend up to a month in jail rather than having a 6 month suspended sentence.
The idea of this was to give them an idea of what Jail was really like rather than letting them find out after they had graduated to more serious crimes (This does happen very frequently).
Now i know two people who ended up on this program, including a relative, And for them at least it worked.
You are right in that Two years in jail isnt justified for this offence. I do however a few months in jail would do this person some good.
It would scare them while still at an impressionable age.
I dont know the results of this in general though. There is also the scare stories of it turning these jails into a "School for criminals". I do remember noticing however that the people who were claiming this could never provide any proof.
I missed that. I have got to admit it, three years minimum is silly for a crime of that magnetude. They must have really pissed Disney off bad.
Still, the original applies. I suspect he knew what would happen if he got caught, even if it is silly.
Ah, the land of the free (But not for much longer)
This already happens, and indeed is the case here. As for the poor not being to afford investigations, that is what the police are supposed to be for.
If someone decides they can do a better job and get it investigated privately and bring their own prosecution, then they have that right. Of course in a perfect world this wouldnt be nessesery because the police would have an infinate amount of resources, but then we have a police state, as a significant proportion of the population do nothing other than enforce the law. In this case that would have a police officer in every movie showing of every movie theitre.
The discovery of copyright infringement is rightly a low priority compared to things like Murder and Rape investigations, therefore the police are less pro-active in trying to get these things reported.
On the other hand, if they are reported, (As here when they handed the boy over to the local police) and they should investigate it properly. The movie companies have just provided some people with the tools to be easilly discover the criminals. Similar to when a person installs an alarm in their own appartment.
The person involed is not a non-person and i dont think that i implied that. What he is however is part of a particular clique of humans called "Criminals" who do things that are illegal. Unlike most criminals he isnt doing it to survive or feed his family, he is doing it because his *peers* make him feel good about doing it. He probably knows its illegal, and is aware of the risks.
Within the group of citizens who come under the class "criminal" there are a number of subcategories, He definately falls into the "Minor criminal" in that he was doing something illegal, but there are no immediate victims. Thats why he will get two years maximum, and probably wont even go to jail at all for a first offense.
murderers and Rapists fall firmly into the "Major criminal" sub category and are looking at quite significanly more jail time up to execution in the US.
What he did is nothing compared to Murder or Rape, but thats why the penalties are significantly less (Despite the efforts of the movie companies)
Saying that I class what he did in that group is a misrepresentation of what i said. The only relation is that both activities are classed as Criminal behavior and should be punished.
That doesnt mean however that i think he should get away with *no* punishment. That breeds contempt for the law and will result in an escillation of the seriousness of any crime in the future.