If You Think The Cost Of 'Piracy' Is High, What About The Cost Of Enforcement?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Illegal downloading is a civil, not a criminal offence. It does not carry a jail term.

In a lot of ways it would be better if it was a criminal offence, then the sentences and the burden of proof would be a lot more realistic. Riots asside, nobody would get more than a small fine or a caution for pinching something of very low value.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by plib

So you support jail time for the record company executives who stole artist royalties, for the fraudsters at Goldman Sachs et.al and, of course, for the BPH CEO's when they are found guilty of conspiracy? All major white collar criminal operations.

Yup. One and all, IF they are indeed guilty. IMO, the DoJ should be going after the banksters big time.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Interesting. I've no idea how the government comes up with that figure, but I very much doubt that it's correct. I can see it being lower than here, since I'm fairly sure Britain's got a lower proportion of computer owners/users, but 10% seems entirely too low to me.

They were probably fed to them by the entertainment industry lobbyists who paid for the new law, and therefore completely made up, but they are the only official figures we have. Access to internet last time I looked it up was about 60%.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by John F

How about collusion on ebook pricing?

If the DOJ can prove its case, and if the Supreme Court agrees that there is no business justification, then they should get the full penalty of the law, NO exceptions. I don't discriminate based on whether the particular offense is " popular with" and acceptable to the digerati.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Keep your inflated sense of outrage pants on. I'm talking about jail time for flagrant offenders- just like jail time for running a counterfeiting operation, moneylaundering scheme, or any major white collar criminal operation. Running a major pirate site is similar to that.
I have some sympathy for the casual downloader. Heck, he's been taught by folks like you that violating some poor artist's IP rights is virtually an entitlement, like breathing. But I have no sympathy whatsover for the likes of Mr. Kim dotcom and the folks who run TPB. The hammer can't come down fast or hard enough. They've f**ked over far too many hardworking artists . Let justice be done, though the pirate enablers wail.

So just jail time for commercial copyright infringement? I'd still be interested to hear what sort of sentence you would think was appropriate.

BTW, Dotcom hasn't been found guilty of any copyright-related crime.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Yup. One and all, IF they are indeed guilty. IMO, the DoJ should be going after the banksters big time.

If being the key word there. So how do you square that with all the new laws popping up around the world that remove the need for copyright owners to provide any proof of wrongdoing before downloaders are punished?

[John F]

Originally Posted by stonetools

If the DOJ can prove its case, and if the Supreme Court agrees that there is no business justification, then they should get the full penalty of the law, NO exceptions. I don't discriminate based on whether the particular offense is " popular with" and acceptable to the digerati.

Funny how you don't mention any kind of DOJ/Supreme Court/due process for the quote below. Kinda makes the "I don't discriminate..." part a little hollow.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Keep your inflated sense of outrage pants on. I'm talking about jail time for flagrant offenders- just like jail time for running a counterfeiting operation, moneylaundering scheme, or any major white collar criminal operation. Running a major pirate site is similar to that.
I have some sympathy for the casual downloader. Heck, he's been taught by folks like you that violating some poor artist's IP rights is virtually an entitlement, like breathing. But I have no sympathy whatsover for the likes of Mr. Kim dotcom and the folks who run TPB. The hammer can't come down fast or hard enough. They've f**ked over far too many hardworking artists . Let justice be done, though the pirate enablers wail.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stonetools

... entitlement, like breathing. But I have no sympathy whatsover for the likes of Mr. Kim dotcom and the folks who run TPB. The hammer can't come down fast or hard enough. They've f**ked over far too many hardworking artists . Let justice be done, ....

Not nearly as f**ked over as the traditional publishing houses have done to them with tiny percentages and locked in contracts that are all one-sided.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If being the key word there. So how do you square that with all the new laws popping up around the world that remove the need for copyright owners to provide any proof of wrongdoing before downloaders are punished?

I am unaware of any such laws actually passed. Perhaps you can link to such a law.
Also too, operators opf pirate sites aren't the warm fuzzy defenders of Internet freedom that the piracy enablers oprtray them to be. They frequently are engaged in all sorts of unsavory and criminal behavior, in addition to engaging in massive IP violations. If they do crime, they should do time.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not nearly as f**ked over as the traditional publishing houses have done to them with tiny percentages and locked in contracts that are all one-sided.

Traditional publishing houses and record companies sometimes ripped off artists by giving them less than they deserved.

Pirates ALWAYS screw artists by giving them NOTHING.
How is that an improvement?

"Because the INTERNET!!!" somehow makes it right?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I am unaware of any such laws actually passed. Perhaps you can link to such a law.

Hadopi and the Digital Economy Act are two examples.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Traditional publishing houses and record companies sometimes ripped off artists by giving them less than they deserved.

Pirates ALWAYS screw artists by giving them NOTHING.
How is that an improvement?

"Because the INTERNET!!!" somehow makes it right?

Megaupload had plans to pay creators for each download of their creation, they announced it a few weeks before they were closed down. Spottify would be another example.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Megaupload had plans to pay creators for each download of their creation, they announced it a few weeks before they were closed down. Spottify would be another example.

Spotify is not a pirate site. Its a legit company with an untried business model that it is currently executing.
Even so, Spotify isn't a money maker for artists.

The average payout so far has been a sliver over 0.1 cents. Thus the minimum wage benchmark we assumed in Paradise ($1,160/month for a solo artist) is met when we get 1,077,216 plays a month. It actually looks better than Last.fm did, before they discontinued the service, but it’s still the kind of numbers only superstars can hope to achieve.

LINK

Megaupload didn't pay any artist a dime, and I doubt they ever would have paid a dime.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Megaupload didn't pay any artist a dime, and I doubt they ever would have paid a dime.

Busta Rhymes begs to differ...

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by cjr72

Busta Rhymes begs to differ...

Nowhere in the linked article does it say Megaupload paid any artist anything. A couple of artists hoped that it MIGHT pay them something.
Techdirt, usual, tries to put the best face on piracy it can.