Prison time for downloading?

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Format C:

No. Sneaking into a movie theatre is more like breaking and entering. It is a completely different thing, and it's wrong on many levels.

Break and enter?

Ahhh, no. If the local constabulary were pushed to apply the law to a couple of fools caught sneaking into a cinema, then the charge would be "Trespass" not "Break and Enter".

Break and Enter is forced entry to a property. Simply opening an unlocked door and walking in is not construed "Break and Enter", especially if it is in the context of sneaking into a cinema to try and watch a movie free.

In reality, police would baulk at even charging for any offence, rather issuing a caution. As my brother in law and cousin have often told me, the paperwork for such a trivial offence is often not worth the time and effort, drawing them away from the real work of policing.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I don't think anyone is really saying that copyright infringement is ok.

More than a few people have made that argument here in that past. I finally decided to mostly stay out of these conversations in consideration of my blood pressure.

[Apache]

Maybe we should return to the 17Th and 18Th century and hang pirates.
Apache

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Break and enter?

Ahhh, no. If the local constabulary were pushed to apply the law to a couple of fools caught sneaking into a cinema, then the charge would be "Trespass" not "Break and Enter".

Break and Enter is forced entry to a property. Simply opening an unlocked door and walking in is not construed "Break and Enter", especially if it is in the context of sneaking into a cinema to try and watch a movie free.
.....

I see, thank you for pointing it out.
My fault.

I was actually thinking about "trespassing", because no physical damage is done. I got it wrong because in Italy the two felonies are filed under the same category ("violazione di domicilio").

Still, the main point remains: to charge a donwloader for every single file he gets from the net rather than for the ones he actually reads is like to charge a theatre "sneaker" for every movie in every theatre and not just for the one he actually watches.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Apache

Maybe we should return to the 17Th and 18Th century and hang pirates.
Apache

Or make them Lords and put monuments in Trafalgar Square.

[kennyc]

Prison time for chronic theft seems an appropriate punishment.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by carld

More than a few people have made that argument here in that past. I finally decided to mostly stay out of these conversations in consideration of my blood pressure.

You and me both.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Or make them Lords and put monuments in Trafalgar Square.

You equate Lord Nelson defending England from the Spanish and French with Pirates?
Apache

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

[snip]With copyright infringement, since the victim are not deprived of anything (potential profit aside), they could recover, where as that is more difficult to do with theft since they no longer have the thing, and so are out what ever resources they invested into that item. Both are bad, but one is worse.

I don't think you should put potential profit in parentheses; that is the actual loss. I'm not sure that there is really too much difference between downloading a song and shoplifting or other types of commercial theft: in both cases the real concern is over lost profits. I.e., the store doesn't care about the actual shirt (or whatever) you stole; they have lots of shirts, they're fungible, and they are only there to make a profit for the store. This is different from theft from an individual, where what's stolen may or may not be easily replaceable.

However, the situation is quite different for uploading, however, since you are enabling millions of people to potentially deprive the owner of money; when you fence a stolen shirt, the owner only loses money for the one shirt.

Originally Posted by Bittybye

I had no idea that Japan had no murder, violent crimes, or any other type of crime because that's the only reason I can see that any government would waste their resources on a relatively minor crime (meaning that no one is physically hurt)

Well, crime is very very low in Japan. And it's not like we're talking about a crime with no victim (like drugs or prostitution). Having your car stolen, your computer stolen, or your money stolen are all property crimes where no one is physically hurt...but I wouldn't call enforcing these crimes a waste of resources.

I honestly don't know how the crime should be punished, maybe the downloader has to actually pay the price they would have had to had they bought the book?

That's not really a punishment at all. Either you pay for the book, or you steal it. If you steal it and get caught, the worst thing that happens is that you have to pay for the book.

But prison time? No.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, prison is too harsh for downloading unless very unusual circumstances exist. And while people do get sent to prison in the US for theft, it takes a lot of small thefts or one big theft to get there.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I don't think you should put potential profit in parentheses; that is the actual loss. I'm not sure that there is really too much difference between downloading a song and shoplifting or other types of commercial theft: in both cases the real concern is over lost profits.

The difference is, when someone shop lifts, even if that person would never have bought the item in the first place, there's still a clearly identifiable financial loss. Namely, you now have one less shirt to sell to another customer.

With digital downloads, there's no clear loss. You still have an infinite amount of copies to continue to sell to anyone and everyone. The only loss is the _potential_ sale you lost to the person who pirated it instead of buying it. It's potential as it's not clear if that person would have bought it had it not been illegally available for free. Some would, some wouldn't.

Well, crime is very very low in Japan. And it's not like we're talking about a crime with no victim (like drugs or prostitution). Having your car stolen, your computer stolen, or your money stolen are all property crimes where no one is physically hurt...but I wouldn't call enforcing these crimes a waste of resources.

Physically no, emotionally, very much so. People can and do feel physically violated when someone has broken into their home to steal items, or threatened them personally during a mugging.

Physical item loss is far from a victimless crime.

Digital loss, well I often have my _digital_ apps stolen. Annoying yes, possible loss of income yes, anything like when we were broken into, definitely not.

That's not really a punishment at all. Either you pay for the book, or you steal it. If you steal it and get caught, the worst thing that happens is that you have to pay for the book.

That wouldn't work very well. Why would anyone bother to ever buy anything if the worst that could happen when they get caught is having to pay for that item. We'd all be way ahead of the game in stolen items before getting caught for one. That's why there has to be fines that outweigh the value of the item by a fairly significant amount, but not into the ridiculous.

Edit: Just read more of the thread and realised you were saying what I've just said in response to an earlier poster, in that case, consider the last paragraph above an additional agreement

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JoeD

With digital downloads, there's no clear loss. You still have an infinite amount of copies to continue to sell to anyone and everyone. The only loss is the _potential_ sale you lost to the person who pirated it instead of buying it. It's potential as it's not clear if that person would have bought it had it not been illegally available for free. Some would, some wouldn't.

Someone in another thread has just informed me that I haven't lost income from pirates "because I never had the money in the first place". I would liken this to me giving someone a pot of paint and saying "paint my fence and I'll give you $100". Then, when my fence is painted, I turn around and say "no, I'm not going to pay you." What's the problem? The painter hasn't lost any money because he never had it in the first place (according to my friend in the other thread)...

The problem of course is that I've taken advantage of the painter's labour and then reneged on my part of the contract - to pay for the painter's time in doing the painting. This is exactly analogous to piracy. You're taking advantage of the creator's labour, but refusing to pay for the work that you've benefited from.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by carld

More than a few people have made that argument here in that past. I finally decided to mostly stay out of these conversations in consideration of my blood pressure.

Well, in this topic, really no one is. I know a few crazies have, and Giggleton usually does (but he doesn't really count).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The problem of course is that I've taken advantage of the painter's labour and then reneged on my part of the contract - to pay for the painter's time in doing the painting. This is exactly analogous to piracy. You're taking advantage of the creator's labour, but refusing to pay for the work that you've benefited from.

No it is not exactly analogous. Since the painter did not produce an unlimited number of painted fences.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Someone in another thread has just informed me that I haven't lost income from pirates "because I never had the money in the first place". I would liken this to me giving someone a pot of paint and saying "paint my fence and I'll give you $100". Then, when my fence is painted, I turn around and say "no, I'm not going to pay you." What's the problem? The painter hasn't lost any money because he never had it in the first place (according to my friend in the other thread)...

The problem of course is that I've taken advantage of the painter's labour and then reneged on my part of the contract - to pay for the painter's time in doing the painting. This is exactly analogous to piracy. You're taking advantage of the creator's labour, but refusing to pay for the work that you've benefited from.

My thoughts exactly. It is silly to turn it around and say "the creator hasn't lost anything" because the pirate would never have bought the item in question, anyway". The only angle one should look at this is "the pirate now has something that doesn't belong to him, obtained by illegal means", or "the pirate enriched himself". That is the bottom line.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

No it is not exactly analogous. Since the painter did not produce an unlimited number of painted fences.

But still, as Hans says in the following message, the pirate has enriched himself at the creator's expense. That's both morally and legally unacceptable.