Prison time for downloading?

[heySkippy]

Gotta love all the various justifications for thievery. Some things never change.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

So would you say that counterfeiting is OK if the bills are indistinguishable from those produced by the legitimate sovereign printer? I would say it is equally wrong.

No, it's still wrong because they're still not legal tender. It can be 100% identical, but unless they're authorised by the mint, they're not legal tender and at some point someone will be screwed over when serial numbers are found to be duplicates. Even if you assume they somehow manage to also grab a set of unique serials, you're still potentially flooding the market with more money than should exist.

If someone sells a book via Amazon and makes out it's the real book when it's actually just an infringing copy, then imo that would be akin to counterfeiting. People are buying something that isn't the real thing. This can devalue the market for the real item.

If someone uploads a book to a site and doesn't make any pretence that it's legit/authorised, then it's copyright infringement. Arguably this also devalues the real items market since it's available for free, but, it makes no difference to the real market for people who are honest and _want_ to buy the real thing and not a knock off.

I see the two as different. Both harmful but in different ways.

[johnnyb]

Originally Posted by JoeD

No, it's still wrong because they're still not legal tender. It can be 100% identical, but unless they're authorised by the mint, they're not legal tender and at some point someone will be screwed over when serial numbers are found to be duplicates. Even if you assume they somehow manage to also grab a set of unique serials, you're still potentially flooding the market with more money than should exist.

The money comparison makes me think that ebook file sharing (or any file sharing) is simply the "consumers'" answer to modern trading practices of financial institutes around the world. Check out Michel DeCerteau for some insight into "consumer tactics"...
When those are allowed to create something out of nothing, why shouldn't they?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

Gotta love all the various justifications for thievery. Some things never change.

The thing that never change is people wrongly calling copyright infringement for theft or thievery.

[heySkippy]

^^ My point, exactly!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

^^ My point, exactly!

Another thing that never change is that people seems to be unable to read or think properly. Just because kidnapping is mot murder does not mean that people think that kidnapping is OK. How this point are missed by so many people is very strange.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by tompe

The thing that never change is people wrongly calling copyright infringement for theft or thievery.

When it's obviously more like mind-rape because they are taking pleasure from someone's thoughts without their permission. But locking up downloaders is still silly. There's too many of them for it to make financial sense. In England and America downloaders account for 10% of the population.

I don't know anything about Japan's society, but if we had that in England it would cost tax payers £40,000 per year for each prison place. Then they would need to be paid benefits for the rest of their lives because they would be unemployable. With all those extra taxes to pay nobody would have any money left to spend on luxury items like books, music or films.

Then there's the question of what do you do with the children who download stuff. Youth offender units cost even more to run than prisons, and the lifetime on benefits would be a lot longer.

It would make more sense to go after the uploaders, or if they're out of jurisdiction block access to the material at the ISP level.

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by tompe

Another thing that never change is that people seems to be unable to read or think properly. Just because kidnapping is mot murder does not mean that people think that kidnapping is OK. How this point are missed by so many people is very strange.

Just because you define "theft" using an antiquated paradigm doesn't mean everyone does.

[Hellmark]

I don't think anyone is really saying that copyright infringement is ok. I personally believe it to be different than theft, because a copy is being made (if you were to copy the file, and delete the original, that would be theft since the owner is deprived of it, and I have seen instances of where people have done that), however, I don't think it is ok. I think the biggest thing is scale. In the kidnapping verses murder example, the victim could theoretically heal from any physical or emotional damage and live a normal life afterwards, where as that isn't possible for a murder victim. Both are very bad, but murder is worse. 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.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

Just because you define "theft" using an antiquated paradigm doesn't mean everyone does.

The above is an assertion that, looks to me, as if you are trying to be insulting. It is not a not avalid argument to put forward in a discussion as that "antiquated paradigm" is still the basis of much current law.

It would be equally valid to say that that you define theft according to a personal ideosycratic paradigm

[Bittybye]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19767970

All laws are weird but It seems a bit harsh to throw someone in jail for reading a book.

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)

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? But prison time? No.

[heySkippy]

I do think prison is overkill for relatively petty theft.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

I do think prison is overkill for relatively petty theft.

It seems that posters on all 3 sides of the basic issue - pro-copyright, anti-copyright, or undecided - are at least agreed on this.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Sneaking into a movie theatre is more like breaking and entering. It is a completely different thing, and it's wrong on many levels.

This is something children commonly do, and the victims are almost wholly big businesses. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but breaking and entering? Really?

Did you see the movie Hugo? It's got a sneaking-in scene that puts your breaking and entering claim in perspective.

The main reason that people sneak into movies is that they can't afford the cinema. Doing that isn't the highest moral choice, but it's close to the most trivial kind of law-breaking I can imagine. I wouldn't compare it to someone downloading a book, written by a living author, because Overdrive has a wait, or they don't like the paper form factor offered by their public library, or just do not want to pay $15 for a book despite being able to pay hundreds for a tablet.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I don't think anyone is really saying that copyright infringement is ok. I personally believe it to be different than theft, because a copy is being made (if you were to copy the file, and delete the original, that would be theft since the owner is deprived of it, and I have seen instances of where people have done that), however, I don't think it is ok.

You can take my copies from my cold dead hands.

Seriously though, why are we not allowed to copy things? Is not our genetic code copied millions of times a day? are we not merely copies??