Pro-IP Act is signed into Law

[The Lyre]

What's the issue?

I don't think this has been raised yet;

How long is it before any computer is monitored under the guise of piracy? Where anyone can be accused of piracy in order to view their files? It's already happening with terrorism, in which fair trial is thrown out the window by accusing someone of being a terrorist.

Any private internet traffic could be completely monitored, by simply claiming piracy is afoot.

 

[AceDiamond]

What's the issue?

I don't think this has been raised yet;

How long is it before any computer is monitored under the guise of piracy? Where anyone can be accused of piracy in order to view their files? It's already happening with terrorism, in which fair trial is thrown out the window by accusing someone of being a terrorist.

Any private internet traffic could be completely monitored, by simply claiming piracy is afoot.

Exactly. Plus that whole "We will absolutely ruin your life and leave you destitute" thing. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[JMeganSnow]

If so much money is at stake, why is it so difficult for them to hire a couple of kids to run searches and compile lists of people to prosecute?

They basically do that already. They just suck at it.

Big Content hires companies like MediaSentry, which are little better than script kiddies. They're also not licensed private investigators, which has caused some legal problems when cases actually do to court.

-- Alex

So, pay them to get a license. I can't imagine the government is going to be any better at catching these people.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

it wont ruin your life, Man up

pfff, who needs a house?

no, its like banning factories that break well established laws to produce their product, and claiming that they aren't hurting anyone

The laws only exist because the carpenters decided to get them made specifically to be on higher legal footing. There was nor is anything wrong with the factory procedure. It's simply the future being stymied.

you own a copy of the cd, not the cd itself. the music on there belongs to the artist and the record company. they have the right to decide what's done with it

What's the difference between a CD and a constant?

 

[Amnestic]

This is a great way to stop piracy.

(snip pic)

I suggest you start with the guy at the top left and work your way down.

I'll take the first five hundred thousand on the left, you can start on the right?

 

[Alex_P]

you own a copy of the cd, not the cd itself. the music on there belongs to the artist and the record company. they have the right to decide what's done with it

You most definitely do own something. When a company sells you a copy of a copyrighted work, you acquire your own set of rights. See "fair use" and "first-sale doctrine," for example. Now, these rights most certainly do not include making a million copies and distributing them digitally to strangers. However, the big IP hoarders of today are constantly trying to take away real rights that have been part of the American and European copyright laws for more than a hundred years.

They're also constantly trying to turn copyright infringement -- which is, yes, an illegal act -- into a crime worse than theft. How the hell does that make any sense?

-- Alex

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

*sigh*

The bickering on the web, reality, and the corporations should all get together sometime. 80% of the United States' exports are intellectual property. Billions upon billions are made on it and that figure is only growing. They are going to do whatever it takes to protect that income. Defending the corporations desire to make money or the inevitability of people pirating their stuff anyways is ultimately irrelevant.

Why would the dog or his owner be happy when I take from his food bowl? This isn't any different.

 

[werepossum]

Actually it's rich people taking from not-so-rich thieves.

Because ruining peoples lives is totally what the law should do

You still have choices - deal with the DRM, steal the work product and hope you don't get caught, or do without it.

Or the third choice. Companies stop bitching about changing technology and adapt.
It's like banning factories because they took your carpentry job.

To those defending stealing as long as you have no intention of selling the stolen property, would it be okay if I steal your car and take it for a joy ride as long as I bring it back?

False analogy.
I bought that car fair and square. You said "I want 300 for this car" and I said "Here's 300" and you said "Here's your car". Then I let my friends joyride in my car, and you sue my friends because you didn't give express permission for me to let people ride in my car.

It's really amazing how that propaganda campaign they utilized totally fucked up people's understanding of IP. Even when they laugh at it, it got them thinking as was intended.

The "since it sucked I don't feal guilty for stealing it" defence. Wonder how well that would work at McDonald's.

...wonder how well it would work....

...just go sit in the corner.

First, ruining the lives of people breaking the law is EXACTLY what the law should be doing. That's way we have laws, to protect ourselves from thieves and other criminals.

Second, there is NO business model that allows a company to continue operations if its customers don't pay for its products.

Third, there is no prohibition against letting your friends "joyride in your car" by listening to or otherwise using your copy of the IP. The analogous prohibition is against letting your friends steal cars using the key to the one you bought, turning one purchased car into many stolen cars, all of which can be used separately whenever desired and thus allowing your friends to enjoy all the benefits of car ownership without buying cars.

I have no qualms against allow you to covert music, movies, or games to an alternate medium where possible; I think that should be legal. Laws like this are not designed to go after that kind of situation; they are designed to go after the person who simply steals the IP.

Saying you only steal IP because it might suck or because you wouldn't spend your money on it if you couldn't steal it is tantamount to saying it's okay to steal a car and drive it for a year to make sure it's not a lemon, or stealing a Cadillac because if you had to pay for it you'd only have bought a Toyota so Cadillac isn't actually deprived of a sale.

EDIT: And to Alex, copyright infringement is probably hurting IP holders worse than people stealing the IP and re-selling it. If I own a business and I lose $100,000 every year to shop lifters and only $10,000 once every four years to armed robbers, you better believe I'd be agitating and lobbying for harsher punishment for shop-lifting as opposed to armed robbery.

 

[jim_doki]

SNIP

Always nice to have you on my side possum

 

[Handofpwn]

Ahhh... The wedge issue for the next election...

 

[Shivari]

it wont ruin your life, Man up

pfff, who needs a house?

So when forced to pick between your house and your music you'd pick the music?

Sounds like a great way to live.

 

[DC_Josh]

You know what? I'm just going to buy a cd.

And then copy it onto my hd and burn it to disk. Can't stop that.

 

[KSarty]

The problem is that the fines are outrageous. You would get fined less for stealing a Ferrari than you would for pirating a movie.

 

[jim_doki]

The problem is that the fines are outrageous. You would get fined less for stealing a Ferrari than you would for pirating a movie.

yes, but consider the cost of making a ferarri compared to the cost of making a film

which one do you think is more expensive. I'll give you a clue:
"how many fararris have Brad Pitt or Nicole Kidman in them?"

 

[Alex_P]

The problem is that the fines are outrageous. You would get fined less for stealing a Ferrari than you would for pirating a movie.

yes, but consider the cost of making a ferarri compared to the cost of making a film

which one do you think is more expensive. I'll give you a clue:
"how many fararris have Brad Pitt or Nicole Kidman in them?"

A single case of infringement doesn't magically drain all of a studio's profits, though. Hell, even a whole truckload of cases of infringement and subsequent mass distribution don't do that.

That's like saying the guy who steals the hood ornament off a Mercedes Benz should be liable for replacing the whole car.

-- Alex

 

[jim_doki]

A single case of infringement doesn't magically drain all of a studio's profits, though. Hell, even a whole truckload of cases of infringement and subsequent mass distribution don't do that.

That's like saying the guy who steals the hood ornament off a Mercedes Benz should be liable for replacing the whole car.

-- Alex

one infringement maybe not, but in the world today there isn't just one infringement, theres thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people using the ol' "Just one couldn't hurt" Logic.

If i had a mercedes and people kept stealing bits of it (thus lowering it's value, but thats another issue) I would love to see them all, regardless of whether they stole an engine or a door handle, procecuted to the extent of the law. if the law decides that i get a new mercedes, fair enough

 

[KSarty]

The problem is that the fines are outrageous. You would get fined less for stealing a Ferrari than you would for pirating a movie.

yes, but consider the cost of making a ferarri compared to the cost of making a film

which one do you think is more expensive. I'll give you a clue:
"how many fararris have Brad Pitt or Nicole Kidman in them?"

But we're talking sales price. A movie only costs $20, so I would effectively be stealing $20. A Ferrari can cost half a million dollars, yet the fines are still more severe for pirates.

A single case of infringement doesn't magically drain all of a studio's profits, though. Hell, even a whole truckload of cases of infringement and subsequent mass distribution don't do that.

That's like saying the guy who steals the hood ornament off a Mercedes Benz should be liable for replacing the whole car.

-- Alex

one infringement maybe not, but in the world today there isn't just one infringement, theres thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people using the ol' "Just one couldn't hurt" Logic.

If i had a mercedes and people kept stealing bits of it (thus lowering it's value, but thats another issue) I would love to see them all, regardless of whether they stole an engine or a door handle, procecuted to the extent of the law. if the law decides that i get a new mercedes, fair enough

You're implying that any individual caught pirating should have to pay the losses incurred by every count of piracy for that product, which is ridiculous.

 

[Alex_P]

one infringement maybe not, but in the world today there isn't just one infringement, theres thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people using the ol' "Just one couldn't hurt" Logic.

If i had a mercedes and people kept stealing bits of it (thus lowering it's value, but thats another issue) I would love to see them all, regardless of whether they stole an engine or a door handle, procecuted to the extent of the law. if the law decides that i get a new mercedes, fair enough

And if the law says that you can sue each of them and end up with a hundred brand new Mercedes, that law is an unreasonable law. The damages don't reflect the scale of the crime.

-- Alex

 

[jim_doki]

But we're talking sales price. A movie only costs $20, so I would effectively be stealing $20. A Ferrari can cost half a million dollars, yet the fines are still more severe for pirates.

*snip*

You're implying that any individual caught pirating should have to pay the losses incurred by every count of piracy for that product, which is ridiculous.

If i dont have a ticket on the train, i have to pay a fine of 200 dollars. Train tickets only cost $50 in the most extreme of circumstances. why should this be any different?

And if the law says that you can sue each of them and end up with a hundred brand new Mercedes, that law is an unreasonable law. The damages don't reflect the scale of the crime.

-- Alex

not really, i dont think so
they dont waqnt to do the time, don't do the crime

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

But we're talking sales price. A movie only costs $20, so I would effectively be stealing $20. A Ferrari can cost half a million dollars, yet the fines are still more severe for pirates.

*snip*

You're implying that any individual caught pirating should have to pay the losses incurred by every count of piracy for that product, which is ridiculous.

If i dont have a ticket on the train, i have to pay a fine of 200 dollars. Train tickets only cost $50 in the most extreme of circumstances. why should this be any different?

And if the law says that you can sue each of them and end up with a hundred brand new Mercedes, that law is an unreasonable law. The damages don't reflect the scale of the crime.

-- Alex

not really, i dont think so
they dont waqnt to do the time, don't do the crime

Jim... I think we have our first topic for the radio