Or, more likely, it will be singing a unique ID # that would allow anyone with access to the government's database (not "anyone who's curious") to get that information. Please spare us the hyperbole.
I think you're confusing criminal law with formal logic.
You're right that if only 25 downloads occured for a $500 total value, neither party has committed a criminal offense, but if Person A had $1000 worth of software that he allowed to be downloaded from his machine, by any combination of downloaders, and one of them, Person B, downloaded $1000 worth of software from any number of uploaders, they've both committed a federal crime.
Again, you can't claim 2 murders occured if you've only got one body, but you can sure as hell send 2 people to jail for 25 to life for the one crime. Criminal law is not mathematics.
Casual pirates might not copy $1,000 worth of software in a 180 day period, but there are certainly people who do so. Hell, there software packages that cost more than that on their own; copying any of those is a crime.
As for the argument both people can't possibly be committing an offense, that's ridiculous. The person hosting the file is, of course, more likely to be distributing over $1,000 worth of copies, as multiple people will most likely be downloading. But saying that both can't be guilty is not "clear" at all. The act of making the copy is a result of two people's actions. Unless the uploader caused the file to be reproduced onto the downloader's computer without his knowledge or consent, they can definitely both be held responsible.
If you go, unarmed, with a friend who has a gun to rob a liquor store, and your friend kills someone, you're guilty of 2nd degree murder, and your direct actions had a whole lot less to do with the victim's death than the direct actions of the downloader have on the reproduction of a copyrighted work. The law doesn't work the way you think it works.
How is downloading a copyrighted work not "reproduction by electronic means"? The action of downloading creates a copy that didn't exist before. It's not that complicated.
Ok, say I run some cable from my house next door, to provide cable service to a neighbor who never had a relationship with the cable company. Under the statutes, he is guilty of "theft", even if he never agreed to pay the cable company for their service.
It should be considered illegal because the standard to consider something illegal is whether there's a law against it, which there is.
Whether any action at all is "immoral" or "unethical" is a matter of debate, as no absolute standard for either exists. Kant would certainly say it's immoral based on the categorical imperative; Nietzsche would probably say it's ok to copy the software, and then go to Adobe's corporate headquarters and burn it down and rape all of the women just because you felt like it. Your favorite moral philosophy may vary.
I personally think it's fairly obvious that if everyone agreed that it's ok to get software without paying for it, and it wasn't illegal to do so, no one at all would ever pay for commercial software and the companies that produce it would stop doing so. Again, whether you think that would be good or bad is a matter of personal philosophy, but I've used both Photoshop and the Gimp and I have to say the commercial product is more enjoyable to use.
Well, since it's a federal crime, it would be the responsibility of the Justice Dept. to investigate. Of course, since the newly-appointed Attorney General is going to be a really good friend of whoever won the election, good luck getting them to do anything about it.
The worst thing about Clinton's affair was that it showed that a politically-motivated special prosecutor could really waste a lot of money pursing a scandal that really had nothing to do with the government, which led both parties to happily get rid of the special prosecutor law. Now when there's an actual political scandal, no one will investigate it.
There is no room for debate about whether someone is in prison, or 18 or a felon or a citizen.
Well, you may be right on 3 out of 4, but when the states hire incompetent corporations to purge thier voter registrations of felons and they decide to include people with similar names as felons (as loong as they happen to be Black), you open room for debate.
No, obviously the moderator who moderated it "off-topic" knows that the Sopranos are not the topic, and knowing anything about them wouldn't change things a tiny bit.
Wait a second... why would you want a more rugged casing on a drive that's in a machine bolted to a rack in a machine room somewhere than you do in a machine you're walking around with all day? Isn't that a bit counterintuitive?
And the fact that Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill since he took office is probably a pretty good indicator that the White House and Congress are working together more closely than any other in the history of our country. Maybe Bush himself doesn't have the influence to pass whatever he wants; maybe he and Congress are just influenced by the same people (Karl Rove, et al.) so their interests seem to line up, but if so that seems like a good enough reason to get rid of him anyway. What good is a leader who can't lead? If Bush wants a bill passed and Tom DeLay or Karl Rove can tell him "No", why don't we just make one of them President, so we know we have someone who can actually back his words with actions as our leader?
You just need a bit of economic and historical understanding to see that the gap between the richest people and the poorest people keeps getting bigger, and that producing more with less is great for the people that own the companies doing the producing, and not so great for those who have no jobs and no money to buy all of the great things we (the wealthy company owners, through our foreign laborers who actually do the production) are producing.
We can only hope that Marx was horribly wrong and that we won't wake up one day to find that the poor people have had enough and either violently revolt or, if they grow enough to gain a majority, elect a Socialist government to screw the wealthy and middle class out of everything they have.
Positions that require just a 2-year degree, like an RN, can't be filled by H1-B workers, unless they're in a specialty that requires specific expertise, like a CRNA or nurse practioner.
For the Jobs of the Future. We don't know what they are yet, but we know they'll require an associates degree, and will be created by the Invisible Hand once taxes are low enough. You must have Faith.
While there's nothing illegal about changing channels during commercials, people like you will be morally responsible for head-explosion deaths when the networks are forced to develop blipverts. Can you handle that kind of responsibility?
On the other other hand, back then (or, even 20 years ago), people didn't feel the need to have the government require helmets for kids riding bicycles or seatbelts for adults in cars, either. Our society is more obsessed with safety than any other in history.
You can probably find lots of people who would be willing to take on a mission like this, and have it killed by government people who feel its their business to decide whether or not someone's allowed to risk their life. That's why they've suspended the space shuttle program for enormously long periods after each accident.
What we need is for some crackhead intelligence analyst to write a report that says there are terrorists on Mars building weapons of mass destruction, so the government will decide that the mission is worth the risk of life.
Not wanted a well designed nuclear reactor on the ground may qualify as "Chicken Little"-ish. Being glad the Challenger and Columbia weren't loaded up with plutonium when they exploded doesn't. Until you can show that you can get radioactive materials into orbit with a damn close to 0% probability they will turn into a really big airborne dirty bomb, people will be uncomfortable with the idea. Even people who wouldn't worry about living near a power plant.
Umm, when they ask for ID to accept your credit card, it's to prove that the credit card is yours, not to prove that you're old enough to purchase something.
Exactly, if the total value of the pirated items copied/distributed for no profit in a 180 day period is under $1000. Which is a lot different than the statement "Copyright infringement is not a crime."
Casually copying a small number of low-value copyrighted works isn't a criminal offense, and, quite frankly, larger infringements are unlikely to be prosecuted since US Attorneys generally have more important stuff to deal with. But, yes, if you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, you may very well be a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, more likely, it will be singing a unique ID # that would allow anyone with access to the government's database (not "anyone who's curious") to get that information. Please spare us the hyperbole.
You're right that if only 25 downloads occured for a $500 total value, neither party has committed a criminal offense, but if Person A had $1000 worth of software that he allowed to be downloaded from his machine, by any combination of downloaders, and one of them, Person B, downloaded $1000 worth of software from any number of uploaders, they've both committed a federal crime.
Again, you can't claim 2 murders occured if you've only got one body, but you can sure as hell send 2 people to jail for 25 to life for the one crime. Criminal law is not mathematics.
Because on slashdot, any joke about how much Windows sucks is about as likely to get you moderated "Insightful" as it is to get you modded "Funny".
As for the argument both people can't possibly be committing an offense, that's ridiculous. The person hosting the file is, of course, more likely to be distributing over $1,000 worth of copies, as multiple people will most likely be downloading. But saying that both can't be guilty is not "clear" at all. The act of making the copy is a result of two people's actions. Unless the uploader caused the file to be reproduced onto the downloader's computer without his knowledge or consent, they can definitely both be held responsible.
If you go, unarmed, with a friend who has a gun to rob a liquor store, and your friend kills someone, you're guilty of 2nd degree murder, and your direct actions had a whole lot less to do with the victim's death than the direct actions of the downloader have on the reproduction of a copyrighted work. The law doesn't work the way you think it works.
How is downloading a copyrighted work not "reproduction by electronic means"? The action of downloading creates a copy that didn't exist before. It's not that complicated.
Well, you have to admit that it's not often you run into many Americans who can spell better in Latin than in English.
Ok, say I run some cable from my house next door, to provide cable service to a neighbor who never had a relationship with the cable company. Under the statutes, he is guilty of "theft", even if he never agreed to pay the cable company for their service.
RTF US Code. Title 17, section 506, which covers criminal copyright violations.
Whether any action at all is "immoral" or "unethical" is a matter of debate, as no absolute standard for either exists. Kant would certainly say it's immoral based on the categorical imperative; Nietzsche would probably say it's ok to copy the software, and then go to Adobe's corporate headquarters and burn it down and rape all of the women just because you felt like it. Your favorite moral philosophy may vary.
I personally think it's fairly obvious that if everyone agreed that it's ok to get software without paying for it, and it wasn't illegal to do so, no one at all would ever pay for commercial software and the companies that produce it would stop doing so. Again, whether you think that would be good or bad is a matter of personal philosophy, but I've used both Photoshop and the Gimp and I have to say the commercial product is more enjoyable to use.
The worst thing about Clinton's affair was that it showed that a politically-motivated special prosecutor could really waste a lot of money pursing a scandal that really had nothing to do with the government, which led both parties to happily get rid of the special prosecutor law. Now when there's an actual political scandal, no one will investigate it.
Well, you may be right on 3 out of 4, but when the states hire incompetent corporations to purge thier voter registrations of felons and they decide to include people with similar names as felons (as loong as they happen to be Black), you open room for debate.
And who are you claiming they sold it to?
No, obviously the moderator who moderated it "off-topic" knows that the Sopranos are not the topic, and knowing anything about them wouldn't change things a tiny bit.
Wait a second... why would you want a more rugged casing on a drive that's in a machine bolted to a rack in a machine room somewhere than you do in a machine you're walking around with all day? Isn't that a bit counterintuitive?
And the fact that Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill since he took office is probably a pretty good indicator that the White House and Congress are working together more closely than any other in the history of our country. Maybe Bush himself doesn't have the influence to pass whatever he wants; maybe he and Congress are just influenced by the same people (Karl Rove, et al.) so their interests seem to line up, but if so that seems like a good enough reason to get rid of him anyway. What good is a leader who can't lead? If Bush wants a bill passed and Tom DeLay or Karl Rove can tell him "No", why don't we just make one of them President, so we know we have someone who can actually back his words with actions as our leader?
We can only hope that Marx was horribly wrong and that we won't wake up one day to find that the poor people have had enough and either violently revolt or, if they grow enough to gain a majority, elect a Socialist government to screw the wealthy and middle class out of everything they have.
Positions that require just a 2-year degree, like an RN, can't be filled by H1-B workers, unless they're in a specialty that requires specific expertise, like a CRNA or nurse practioner.
For the Jobs of the Future. We don't know what they are yet, but we know they'll require an associates degree, and will be created by the Invisible Hand once taxes are low enough. You must have Faith.
While there's nothing illegal about changing channels during commercials, people like you will be morally responsible for head-explosion deaths when the networks are forced to develop blipverts. Can you handle that kind of responsibility?
You can probably find lots of people who would be willing to take on a mission like this, and have it killed by government people who feel its their business to decide whether or not someone's allowed to risk their life. That's why they've suspended the space shuttle program for enormously long periods after each accident.
What we need is for some crackhead intelligence analyst to write a report that says there are terrorists on Mars building weapons of mass destruction, so the government will decide that the mission is worth the risk of life.
Not wanted a well designed nuclear reactor on the ground may qualify as "Chicken Little"-ish. Being glad the Challenger and Columbia weren't loaded up with plutonium when they exploded doesn't. Until you can show that you can get radioactive materials into orbit with a damn close to 0% probability they will turn into a really big airborne dirty bomb, people will be uncomfortable with the idea. Even people who wouldn't worry about living near a power plant.
Leela: When you were planning this peace ring, didn't you realise spaceships can move in three dimensions?
Free Waterfall Sr: No, I did not.
Plus it doesn't have all that pesky weather to consider when determining if you can launch on a given day.
Umm, when they ask for ID to accept your credit card, it's to prove that the credit card is yours, not to prove that you're old enough to purchase something.
Casually copying a small number of low-value copyrighted works isn't a criminal offense, and, quite frankly, larger infringements are unlikely to be prosecuted since US Attorneys generally have more important stuff to deal with. But, yes, if you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, you may very well be a criminal.