File-sharing case prompts push for copyright reform

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by sabredog

I do not think that is the case at all. Speak to younger people about file sharing and you will certainly find that it is far more common that you would think. As well as that, purchasing of songs using itunes is just a prevalent and just as popular.

I know how popular it is among that subset. And yet juries have no problem imposing large fines on people who file share because they believe that it's wrong.

Ripping and sharing of music amongst friends amongst teenagers is also very common as well and has been since the days of LP's and cassettes.

I actually do live on this planet, you know.

Most people simply do not care about the issue of file sharing.

Most people seem to think it's wrong based on the results of court cases.

A prison term for file sharing?

Good grief. In a day and age where a murderer or rapist only gets 5 years for violently ending or destroying someone's life, you are calling for a prison term for sharing digital data?

Do you build new prisons to hold the offenders and will the prison be funded and the prison staff going to be employed by the RIAA or MPAA?

Tell the front pieces of the entertainment industry that they will need to build and fund such "naughty corners" and they might back away from such suggestions and keep suing Mr and Mrs Joe Average. As it is far, far more lucrative and easier than actually making changes to their business and distribution models that belong in the past.

No. Read for comprehension. Mr. Ploppy wants criminalization and prison terms (I believe because he is of the opinion that this would shock the public). I think that criminalization and prison terms are a really bad idea because people would actually convict file sharers with no more hesitation than they convict shoplifters, thieves, or people who commit fraud.

I do not think that there is much understanding for or sympathy with file sharers among the population at large, and it's important to recognize this.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

When people see crimes they don't care about getting much harsher sentences than crimes they do care about (like old lady-mugging) they will start to question it.

The problem isn't public outcry against stupid copyright laws--it's that criminal law is enforced at taxpayers' expense, regardless of the wishes of law enforcement personnel. They don't have a choice to ignore "not-a-problem" offenses (like, for example, someone copying & fw'ding someone else's email)--they'd have to prosecute every instance they saw of copyright infringement. They'd either need very extensive lists of what qualified as "fair use," or they'd have to drag it all to court, and let the defender argue that the use was fair.

This wouldn't be limited to downloading; every use of a photocopy machine is a potential crime, and someone calling the police to say "someone is copying a whole book at Kinko's" would require action--at least a report being filed, possibly an inspect-and-arrest.

Copyright law doesn't at all switch over to criminal law easily. There are criminal aspects--for commercial use over a certain value. But noncommercial use, whether or not that's "infringement," has always been up to the copyright owner to track down and decide whether to sue over.

Is it legal to print out a (non-creativecommons) webcomic to post in one's cubicle, or is that infringement? Do you want tax dollars spent deciding that?

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I know how popular it is among that subset. And yet juries have no problem imposing large fines on people who file share because they believe that it's wrong.

Only because they can. The mere application by the RIAA of 75 trillion dollars damages to a judge proves that. In Australia, such an application would have been laughed out of court. It is to the presiding judges credit that he told those idiots to go back and take a smell of the real world.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I actually do live on this planet, you know.

No one is saying you are not. I was merely implying that file sharing has been going on for over 40 years in that form alone.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Most people seem to think it's wrong based on the results of court cases.

No, not really. A jury should never be considered to have the opinions of the vast majority of people. How can it? A mere selection of 12-15 (whatever number) selected jurists could never represent a true cross section of the community.

Locally, AFACT tried to get the court system to agree with their assertion that a major ISP was "encouraging and facilitating" piracy. They have lost both the initial court case and the first appeal. They want others to do the police work for them with little evidence provided. A classic case of guilty until proven innocent.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No. Read for comprehension. Mr. Ploppy wants criminalization and prison terms (I believe because he is of the opinion that this would shock the public). I think that criminalization and prison terms are a really bad idea because people would actually convict file sharers with no more hesitation than they convict shoplifters, thieves, or people who commit fraud.

Oh I comprehended that quite well thanks. This is why I would like to know how many prisons are going to be built to house the huge number of people convicted of such a "heinious" crime. Just like jailing kids for shoplifting, it will never stop the issue.

While it is possible for the industry frontpieces to sue for huge sums of money, it is a much more lucrative option than actually making changes that will prevent a good deal of file sharing from occurring. This has been proved by just how popular itunes is and the fact that the movie industry still made billions of dollars regardless of movies bein file shared.

Ask any ebook enthusiast who is geographic restricted from buying a ebook and having tried everything possible to buy that book, go down the darknet route because the ebook is simply available.

Until the attitudes of the entertainment, music and publishing change and evolve to meet the modern world, nothing is going to change. It does not stop there either with Disney being the worst of 'em. They all manipulate the copyright act to suit their own business practices and to protect their own profit margins. Disney even artificially restrict distribution of their product (Disney Vault), often for years, to manipulate the market.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Obviously jailtime comes with downsides, namely, the support infrastructure. But it's the mark on their criminal record that's the most important and effective deterrent here.

So, if you gave convicted filesharers fines (with or without specific community service designed to pay it back), and put the conviction on their criminal record, it would accomplish the same as jailtime as far as their future was concerned: A black mark they'd have to spend years overcoming.

[sabredog]

I would much rather have the courts dealing with true criminals, not created ones. Those people who have committed offences against society rather than those who have supposedly denied the entertainment, music or publishing industry several sales. Our police resources are stretched enough trying to deal with the increasingly violent elements of modern society to even have time to deal with such trivial and unecessary imposts.

Why legitimise the rorting these groups are undertaking against consumers? If they want piracy to stop then be proactive and constructive rather than sue the crap out of all and sundry. There will be no change because they make bucketloads doing just that.

Do you truly believe slapping a young person, student or single mum with a criminal conviction to be the way to stop this? If you do, then you certainly occupy the next door stall to the entertainment and publishing industry in cloud cuckoo land.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

(I'm not sure why you think that copyright infringement would be "much harsher" than battery on an old lady, though)

Have you seen the average sentences for those sort of crimes recently? What you are suggesting for unauthorised downloading is already multiple times harsher than what you would get for crimes people actually care about.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No. Read for comprehension. Mr. Ploppy wants criminalization and prison terms

Read for comprehension yourself. I don't think "crimes" that hardly anyone cares about should be punished much more heavily than crimes that people do care about, like ones with actual victims.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Obviously jailtime comes with downsides, namely, the support infrastructure. But it's the mark on their criminal record that's the most important and effective deterrent here.

So, if you gave convicted filesharers fines (with or without specific community service designed to pay it back), and put the conviction on their criminal record, it would accomplish the same as jailtime as far as their future was concerned: A black mark they'd have to spend years overcoming.

Small fines similiar to what you would get for speeding offences would make the most sense. But there would be no logical reason to have them go down on someone's public record, because listening to an mp3 without permission from the copyright holder wouldn't pose a risk to the general public. Having such a non-crime (in the eyes of the majority of the population) affect the rest of someone's life would put it back into the territory of the punishment being wildly out of proportion to the crime.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Small fines similiar to what you would get for speeding offences would make the most sense. But there would be no logical reason to have them go down on someone's public record, because listening to an mp3 without permission from the copyright holder wouldn't pose a risk to the general public. Having such a non-crime (in the eyes of the majority of the population) affect the rest of someone's life would put it back into the territory of the punishment being wildly out of proportion to the crime.

Right on

[HansTWN]

The punishment must be harsh enough so that people think twice before uploading. The deterrent effect is the point.

As for downloading, that is a different story. Sure, a fine like 100 times the value or so would make sense. Enough so that it hurts, not enough so that people are being ruined.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by sabredog

I would much rather have the courts dealing with true criminals, not created ones. Those people who have committed offences against society rather than those who have supposedly denied the entertainment, music or publishing industry several sales.

Dog, I highly resent the implication that I, a card-carrying member of said society, and one of the people whose creative works are being hijacked and sales denied, am apparently unimportant to you and yours. I have rights, too, whether you personally like to trample on them or not.

Originally Posted by sabredog

If they want piracy to stop then be proactive and constructive rather than sue the crap out of all and sundry.

Since I already sell my ebooks at low prices, in multiple formats and with No DRM... and they are still torrented... I consider that I have been proactive. It didn't work. So, let the punishments apply.

Originally Posted by sabredog

Do you truly believe slapping a young person, student or single mum with a criminal conviction to be the way to stop this? If you do, then you certainly occupy the next door stall to the entertainment and publishing industry in cloud cuckoo land.

Best I can think of. What do you have? Sunshine and pretty flowers? Maybe you should come down from your ivory ladder, there, and join the rest of us in the real world. In the meantime, welcome to my ignore list.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Dog, I highly resent the implication that I, a card-carrying member of said society, and one of the people whose creative works are being hijacked and sales denied, am apparently unimportant to you and yours. I have rights, too, whether you personally like to trample on them or not.

But they are not on the level with the right not be to mugged, stabbed, raped, murdered, and so on, and should not be treated as such.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But they are not on the level with the right not be to mugged, stabbed, raped, murdered, and so on, and should not be treated as such.

Exactly correct.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Dog, I highly resent the implication that I, a card-carrying member of said society, and one of the people whose creative works are being hijacked and sales denied, am apparently unimportant to you and yours. I have rights, too, whether you personally like to trample on them or not.

Since I already sell my ebooks at low prices, in multiple formats and with No DRM... and they are still torrented... I consider that I have been proactive. It didn't work. So, let the punishments apply.

Do you wish to deny my search for knowledge? Embrace piracy. Thank you for contributing to the infosphere, is there a link in your book for sending monetary contributions? If not, why not? It definitely wouldn't hurt would it? The torrenting you speak of would become another marketing tool.

My Kindle is beginning to remind me of books that I have read, to review them, to remember highlighted passages, one more step to a reminder about paying for books that I have enjoyed. Copyright is archaic.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But they are not on the level with the right not be to mugged, stabbed, raped, murdered, and so on, and should not be treated as such.

I never said being stolen from equated to being mugged, etc. However, it's still a crime deserving of punishment. What, you think there are no 7-11 robbers in prison? Hijacking my books are no different.