Dotcom raid illegal

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Our legal system is not designed to cope with massive violations of the rules (we declare martial law when it hits the fan), and that is the biggest problem at this time.

The problem that's hitting, is that copyright was designed for industrial business applications, and it's being extended to individual uses and is falling apart.

Rather like tax law isn't designed to go after everyone who says "let's get pizza; everyone pitch in five dollars" and the end result is the host pocketing $3.74 after the pizza's bought. We don't expect people to declare that "income"--nor do we expect them to get a restaurant or food resale license to have the pizza party.

The issue is not individual damage done by one person downloading ebook, song or movie, the issue is cumulative effect.

In the case of, oh, smog pollution, you can't identify how much damage one particular car causes, but you *can* show measurable damage from many of them. The entertainment industry is failing to show *that* kind of statistics, in addition to not showing individual damages.

They are happy to show individual filesharing numbers--X files are shared Y times; those files are commercially available for Z dollars. But then they usually say, therefore the damage is Z times X times Y, rather than indication that that those *would have been purchased* if they weren't shared.

From that standpoint, takedown of Megaupload has its own logic, it is attacking the infrastructure that makes it easy to abuse copyright.

Not saying it doesn't make sense, just that I'm intrigued by the fact that it's apparently the *only* takedown being planned. The FBI hasn't said they intend to go after individual users who were using Megaupload.

For individual persecution of violators to work as a defence of the system, the "noise" level has to come down first.

Which is easier said than done.

Indeed. I can't see that megaupload's removal has had *any* effect on the state of copyright infringement and/or filesharing on the net--although it has damaged several legitimate groups that were using MegaVideo to host their files.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I don't think anyone should go to jail for downloading copyrighted material. Under most circumstances it's a civil offence, not a criminal one.

What should the penalty be? It should be in line with other such "non-payment" offences, I think. I was on the subway recently, and noticed a sign saying that you'd be fined 50x the price of a ticket if you were found not to have one. That's probably the right order of magnitude for such an offence. Fine a few dozen times the commercial value of the downloaded material. That would be my personal preference.

What's the commercial value of downloaded material that isn't commercially available?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Despite your protestations to the contrary, I believe that most people do know the difference between right and wrong, and think that taking things without paying is wrong.

That seems like a circular argument.

The questions was if people were againts piracy. Empirically we see that people do not behave as if they are against it. Also the reason to be against it is not so simple minded like "wrong have and use a copy" (since libraries are counter example). And boying second hand is getting something without paying to the author.

So people will know that you cannot use inituitions from property reasoning here.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The problem that's hitting, is that copyright was designed for industrial business applications, and it's being extended to individual uses and is falling apart.

...

And the reason is due to technological change. Copyright came into existence because of technology (the printing press), and it's failing due to technology.

There was no need for copyright in the era of scribes rewriting manuscripts...

The scriptoria were shattered by the printing press...

[MikeOxlittle]

Originally Posted by Ankh

One way of seeing the phenomenon of piracy is that it is, in essence, an abuse of technology for illegal activity. Since this hunt started, all file sharing sites were shut down, and what was once a legal use of RapidShare (put encrypted content for other person to pick it up, therefore bypassing the e-mail limits) is now not possible.

If anything, more sites have popped up in its place to get a piece of the pie now that the most well known site is down.

The reasons MegaUpload was targeted is easy to see:

1. Popular.

2. Dotcom has past legal problems and he'd be an easier target to go after than the hundreds of other ' premium file hosting ' sites.

3. Most importantly (and probably overlooked) is Dotcom was looking to start a new service which would work with music artists directly, thereby taking profits away from the recording industry. The RIAA and the U.S government are golfing buddies so ...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't either; I think that most people are against piracy because they think it's wrong to take stuff without paying for it. (In cases where the owner requires payment, to forestall the nit-pickers.)

Libraries are wrong?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Our legal system is not designed to cope with massive violations of the rules (we declare martial law when it hits the fan), and that is the biggest problem at this time. The issue is not individual damage done by one person downloading ebook, song or movie, the issue is cumulative effect.

From that standpoint, takedown of Megaupload has its own logic, it is attacking the infrastructure that makes it easy to abuse copyright. For individual persecution of violators to work as a defence of the system, the "noise" level has to come down first.

Taking that a bit further, however, we shouldn't have freeways because they facilitate people's violation of the speed limit. There aren't any lights, and the cops are only able to catch the most extremely flagrant offenders. Which would be fine by me, because I'm tired of people road raging and screaming obvious falsehoods like "Its not a speed limit, its a recomended speed!" and "The left lane is for speeders only, maggot!" in my face.

Although I notice that's gone way down since the Stand Your Ground trial began...

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Despite your protestations to the contrary, I believe that most people do know the difference between right and wrong, and think that taking things without paying is wrong.

I can say pretty much everyone I know wouldn't dream of taking any physical item from a shop or someone else's home. I'd be lying if I said the same for digital items. Right and wrong is quite easy for things like shoplifting, there's a clear loss involved, with digital it's much harder for people to see the loss/harm.

It's why those anti-piracy adverts are so laughable. They're trying to equate piracy to stealing and because people won't steal, you won't pirate right? Well, that's fine except a good chunk of people just don't see piracy in the same way as stealing and neither does the law because it isn't the same.

For example "you wouldn't steal a car" is often met by "no I wouldn't, but if I could download the specs of the pirate bay and 3d print it, hell yes" (paraphrased of course

There's still a loss of income to the IP owner as some of those who pirate would have bought it, but as far as many are concerned that pirate, they're not directly depriving the owner of their property, they're just making more. Which is true, still wrong, but true. It's why i think the anti-piracy ads are laughable, annoying, ineffective and potentially doing more harm than good, they're not educating they're annoying legitimate customers and been mocked by pirates.

PS that's how I see other peoples views in general on the matter. Don't take the above to mean I'm pro piracy, I'm not. I just see why many think it's ok.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Libraries are wrong?

Someone still gets paid when libraries are used, unless you take the book without checking it out, then it's just plain stealing

At least it is since the theft laws were updated, there's a reasonably famous case of an art "thief" who "stole" a painting worth millions because he was annoying the TV license money had gone towards buying it. Since he later returned it and said he was only borrowing it, he couldn't be charged with theft. After that, the law was amended

[plib]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't either; I think that most people are against piracy because they think it's wrong to take stuff without paying for it.

That wouldn't include Paulo Coelho apparently.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by JoeD

Someone still gets paid when libraries are used, unless you take the book without checking it out, then it's just plain stealing

I'm not sure how your library works, but I don't get charged anything to check out a book at mine.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm not sure how your library works, but I don't get charged anything to check out a book at mine.

But the tax payer does and the library tracks your check outs in order to make payments (depending on the terms agreed with the rights holders)

But I'm sure you already know that, which made the library post odd.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm not sure how your library works, but I don't get charged anything to check out a book at mine.

Besides taxes, voluntary contributions, and fines, many of us, including myself, pay a fee to use a better library than the ones we are entitled to borrow from for free.

There are authors who live in my suburb and have been known to give away a copy to the library. That the creator's choice, not yours.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Besides taxes, voluntary contributions, and fines, many of us, including myself, pay a fee to use a better library than the ones we are entitled to borrow from for free.

There are authors who live in my suburb and have been known to give away a copy to the library. That the creator's choice, not yours.

Well yes, and the library can lend the book out an innumerable number of times to multiple readers. Why can't we do the same with ebooks??

Libraries are pirates, plain and simple.

[Belfaborac]

That's a seriously stupid argument. Libraries, however they're run, operate within a framework which allows them to do what they do legally, with the knowledge and support (grudging or otherwise) of those to whom the book rights belong. Pirates do not.