Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
This is a key issue. The fine should be large enough to hurt, but not so large as to terrorize people into adopting a "trust no one!" lifestyle. I am thinking along the lines of "30-50 times the price of the illegally uploaded file".
It's interesting that you use the word "liberate", because it seems to confirm what I think: that today's setup is perceived as so unfair that some people illegally distribute media to "fight" it. Well, with a fair copy-protection scheme (of which mine is only a tentative example) these people would stop.
|
I used "liberate" (with quotes) because I was mocking the "stick it to the Man!" mentality.
Say I buy an ebook for $5, that's a $250 fine...and people can make unlimited copies of that file
safely and distributed with no fear of punishment.
No way the publishers will ever, ever, ever sign off on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
Here it seems to me that you are exaggerating. Lock up like firearms? Do you call that having an antivirus and not telling your user password to people you don't know very well? And: do you consider getting a 300dollar/euro fine once in a lifetime a draconian penalty?
Moreover, you seem to think that for everyone of us there's an army of enemies who only waits a mistake of us to intrude into our computers and... stole our media? That's a bit far out, in my view. Yes, this definition is almost correct if you consider people who constantly try and get through our firewalls, but I don't think they are looking for books or music. And for what concerns people with physical access to our unlocked PCs, usually they are family or close friends.
So the risk of getting fined because a media file gets uploaded by someone who "stole" it from us are pretty low, in my view.
|
I'm not saying I think this scenario is particularly common...but still: ""Hey, look, our jerk boss left his MP3/Kindle player sitting on his desk...let's put all of his files on the torrents have him get hit with a $20,000 fine." I
do see that happening.
I see teens doing this to each other
all the freaking time just for spite.
I do think it will happen and the end result is that in order to have these fines levied, you have to PROVE the files were intentionally seeded or...else innocent people are being penalized. It is almost as bad as the three strikes proposals where people could be kicked off the internet without actually proving guilt.
Or else you are setting up the media companies to pay for expensive investigations...no doubt ones that the defendant will be expected to pay for...and so the cost of reimbursing the investigation is going to be much higher than the fine. And so, like the RIAA lawsuits, people will be forced to "admit guilt" even if they are innocent and pay fines, even if they are innocent, because they can't afford to prove their innocence.
It's a system with plenty of potential for abuse IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
Well, this only holds true if the people are your spouse or close friend or mother or son or anyone else so close to you that you trust them enough to let them access your personal files. These people could do much worse that get you fined (once) for illegal distribution of media... such as emptying your bank account, for instance.
|
I do believe that a lot of people don't have the knowledge or won't put in the effort to encrypt their personal files. And many devices don't have the capability to encrypt files or secure users -- most ebook readers or mp3 players, for example.
As for protecting the publishers...honestly, the best solution is for readers to boycott publishers and authors that refuse to sell DRM free. Period. Full stop.
Boycott.
Buy from authors and publishers who get it, make them the new best-sellers. Show how authors who get it are getting rich, rich, rich. There are plenty of great authors who do get it...
Force the publishers to change their policies because they realize they are losing much more than they are gaining.