Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirtai
I was just reading a thread where people were arguing in favour of making copyright infringement a criminal offence. I wonder if they had this in mind.
|
I was one of those discussing that in the other thread, the point I was tryig to make was.
It'll take making infringment into a criminal offense in order to allow the police to play a part in the subsequent investigations. Invovling the police is realistically the only way an IP address should be used as evidence, since it'd be sufficient grounds for the police to conduct a more detailed investigation.
I may have said something like "maybe it should be a criminal offense", but if so (I'd have to re-read my posts to check I didn't give the wrong impression) it was only with the view of backing up that the police need to be involved if an IP address is used as a partial basis for a court case.
I don't think infringment causes a personal harm, not in the same way muggings, buglary or theft/fraud do. Which is a reason for it not becoming a crime but remaining a civil issue. Unfortunatly, I also think that the current process of enfocing those laws benefits large business' with deep pockets for lawyers (who can also abuse that position) but does not really aid small companies or individuals in protecting their copyright. They can't afford to take people to court unless it's causing large scale harm to them, such as another company ripping off their software and even then the costs would need to be weighed.
As for the skipping commercials. If that ever went as far as removing the ability to skip commercials from programs you've recorded to a DVR and no hacks were forthcoming (like the hacks for DVD players to skip the unskippable trailers and warnings you're sick of seeing for the 1000th time), that's probably the day I stop paying for a TV subscription.
I'd say I can't see it happening, but it already has with DVDs and PUO, I can see them attempting to enforce the same on recorders too
As far as the broadcaster of the TV programs modifying the ads, well, that's between them and the contract they signed with the TV show provider. If they agreed to buy the show with ads already in place and later modify them, I'd expect nothing less than a court case and probably them losing. Which is what the original article appears to be talking about. It's not quite at the home user stage, although I think that's coming in time.