The Pirate Bay Found Guilty

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

These guys have facilitated millions and millions of dollars of stolen content.

It isn't good enough to simply assume this, there needs to be evidence to back it up.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

First, patents have much more grey area than copyrights. It's not always cut and dry when someone infringes on someone's patent. Many cases the infringer has no idea that they have done it or simply don't agree that they have.

Even if you know you are infringing on a patent, do you get jail time? I don't think the criminal charge even exists, at least in the USA. They simply get to sue for lost profits and/or lost royalties.

When it comes to copyrights, the infringer almost always knows what they are doing and knows it's malicious. If I walk into a music store and steal a CD from the shelf, I know what I'm doing. Just as these people knew what they were doing when they facilitated the site.

Again, we are not talking about theft of physical property. We are merely talking about the presumption of lost revenues due to an end run around the established distribution model. I don't see how anybody should have to do jail time for this. You simply sue them for lost revenue and get a judgment against them for that amount (or however it may get adjusted by judge/jury).

It is interesting to note that there is talk of tightening the definition of "willful" patent infringement, including limits on the jurisdictions for such claims. At the same time, the tide is moving in the opposite direction for copyright infringement. When you get down to it, they seem very similar to me. Willful infringement is the same, whether it be for patents or copyrights, but one NEVER results in jail time or even a criminal charge, while they may drag you away in cuffs for the other.

[Tekneek]

It is important to look at the history of copyright law to see how it has gone awry, which makes the positions taken by these big businesses less virtuous than it may seem.

Until 1976, copyright lasted a maximum of 56 years in the United States. You got 28 years, and if the author was still alive at the end of that term you could register for another 28 year term (prior to that, a maximum of 28 from 2 14-year terms was good enough for the first 119 years or so of this nation). In 1976, suddenly it went to 75 years, or the life of the author plus 50 years. By 1998, 75 years just wasn't long enough. It became life of the author plus 70 years, or for corporations it was the earlier of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. That year, copyright violation became criminal as well. By 2005, they decided to extend the definitions of criminal copyright violation...

If you look into guys like Thomas Edison, and even Alexander Graham Bell, there is evidence that they were patent infringers. They are sold to us as Great American Inventors, though, with a whitewash over what was really going on. Researchers have found patents filed by both of those men that were virtually identical to patents filed by others earlier, down to the notes in the margins. They didn't even try to hide it! At the end of the day, this is all about what is better for big business and worse for the public and individuals. Sure, theft is wrong, but the lobbying efforts behind the changes in copyright law over the past few decades is a challenging ethical position for me as well.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Even if you know you are infringing on a patent, do you get jail time? I don't think the criminal charge even exists, at least in the USA. They simply get to sue for lost profits and/or lost royalties.

Again, we are not talking about theft of physical property. We are merely talking about the presumption of lost revenues due to an end run around the established distribution model. I don't see how anybody should have to do jail time for this. You simply sue them for lost revenue and get a judgment against them for that amount (or however it may get adjusted by judge/jury).

It is interesting to note that there is talk of tightening the definition of "willful" patent infringement, including limits on the jurisdictions for such claims. At the same time, the tide is moving in the opposite direction for copyright infringement. When you get down to it, they seem very similar to me. Willful infringement is the same, whether it be for patents or copyrights, but one NEVER results in jail time or even a criminal charge, while they may drag you away in cuffs for the other.

The US isn't exactly locking up people left and right for downloading music.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

The US isn't exactly locking up people left and right for downloading music.

It is not about whether they ARE doing it, it is about whether they can or not. Also, the "fines" for copyright violation are not restricted to damages (lost revenues, profits, royalties, etc).

[SportsDino]

I've debated copyright since I was a kid, eventually the other side always comes down to "wanhhh, but I want, want, want it!".

Do I think criminal charges are an appropriate measure? Perhaps. I can easily see someone causing massive damage to intellectual property (i.e. distributing it over say a pirate bay) but not making enough money off of the act to deliver any value for suing them. If its necessary to stop penniless Joe Geekhacker from doing what could potentially be indirect grand theft, then I say it is fine to go to jail time as an option. Do I think it should be used all the time, no, and yes once the precedent is set it will probably be used too much... but I personally think you create punishments (or other remedies) that will stop the crime or repair the damage.

To me its the same as white collar criminals stealing millions or billions of dollars being treated with baby gloves and country club prisons. Stick them in maximum security garbage prisons with the murderers and rapists, as far as I'm concerned they've done as much damage if not more. The idea that some crimes should be inherintly treated as 'no big deal' annoys me.

Yes, I'm assuming I'll get the counter argument that I'm trying to form a lynch mob for every teen who steals a crappy album... which I'm not, I think everything should be pursued rationally and proportionate to the crime.. but oh well, I'm bored of this debate, and for whatever reason the pro-piracy side thinks they have won because the crime has run rampant... majority rules over ethics and common sense I guess (same reason we are so fucked in politics and economics in my opinion). Commence with tearing me apart if you wish while I chuckle in amusement.

[Tekneek]

I am definitely not arguing on a pro-piracy side, but I cannot speak for others in this thread. I am arguing from a copyright reform position.

There are plenty of examples in this country of people, who have nothing, causing harm to others and there being little that can be done about it. The victims just don't have the same kind of lobbying power that big business has to shape the laws in their best interest.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Are you fucking seriously comparing Somali hijacking of a physical ship to copyright infringement? Give me a fucking break. Do you work for the BSA or something?

BSA hijacks Somali pirate hype • Channel Register

Originally Posted by Mota

I think it is quite obvious that not all pirates are the same, matey.

You can't really compare the guy who downloaded the new Pearl Jam re-issue because he already has purchased the CD once before to some dude who is killing people. If you kill a few spiders in your basement it doesn't make you a mass murderer like Dahmer.

Just seeing where you guys draw the line. There is no material difference between downloading a pirated movie and shop lifting something from a department store. They're both theft.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It is important to look at the history of copyright law to see how it has gone awry, which makes the positions taken by these big businesses less virtuous than it may seem.

Until 1976, copyright lasted a maximum of 56 years in the United States. You got 28 years, and if the author was still alive at the end of that term you could register for another 28 year term (prior to that, a maximum of 28 from 2 14-year terms was good enough for the first 119 years or so of this nation). In 1976, suddenly it went to 75 years, or the life of the author plus 50 years. By 1998, 75 years just wasn't long enough. It became life of the author plus 70 years, or for corporations it was the earlier of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. That year, copyright violation became criminal as well. By 2005, they decided to extend the definitions of criminal copyright violation...

If you look into guys like Thomas Edison, and even Alexander Graham Bell, there is evidence that they were patent infringers. They are sold to us as Great American Inventors, though, with a whitewash over what was really going on. Researchers have found patents filed by both of those men that were virtually identical to patents filed by others earlier, down to the notes in the margins. They didn't even try to hide it! At the end of the day, this is all about what is better for big business and worse for the public and individuals. Sure, theft is wrong, but the lobbying efforts behind the changes in copyright law over the past few decades is a challenging ethical position for me as well.

People forget that the original intent of patents was at least as much for public disclosure of methods as for protection of the inventor. The original intent had nothing to do with making inventors super rich.

As far as this case, I wouldn't argue the morality, as I'd agree it's theft, but I do wish the RIAA would come to grips with the inevitable. Their business model is dying and they likely won't ever make as much money as they did a few decades ago.

[SportsDino]

I should mention, as a wannabe writer/gamemaker who has only created digital content... and as a person who is actively working on patents, I am obviously more biased than ever to ownership rights. Business models, length of the copyright, and procedures for enforcement are all their own issues, and in my opinion not to be entangled into a discussion of whether a creator has the right to protect their work.

If I make a song, and decide I want all copies of it to be made as records, and that each will sell for $100, it is my right to make that decision. It is not up to the mob on the internet to dictate what I must do through criminal activity. Choice of a more practical distribution model is not yours to make, it is mine!

If you can successfully make a coherent argument that does not involve these intanglements, then you are better than 99% of people who argue copyright policy on the internet!

For what its worth, I don't think we need copyrights that last for centuries, and I do think that selling music internet style is a gold mine (just from old fashioned model of lower costs, higher volume, quicker impulse buying forces). But those are outside of whether the RIAA has the right at all to protect its property, just because they are a big giant heartless corporation doesn't excuse unethical behavior. You should punish them with market forces (don't buy and don't steal), pay their price, or become a thief (and pay consequences when caught).

None of the side discussions really matters when you have people stealing content that is only a week old at best, and the fact that their are increasingly convenient alternatives makes the old 'I'm gonna buy it, seriously' argument get weaker and weaker every day. If we want to consider the five finger discount to be legitimate please tell me where you live so I can steal anything that is too inconvenient to pay for at the store.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Just seeing where you guys draw the line. There is no material difference between downloading a pirated movie and shop lifting something from a department store. They're both theft.

Not excusing the piracy at all, but if you shoplift from a department store, the department store is losing the ability to return that item to the supplier along with all the other unsold inventory, which leaves them with a loss. Not the same with piracy. There are differences.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Except you still have your TV and can do whatever you want with it.

I love that analogy, it's gotta be the stupidest one that can be used in that argument. :/ (Nothing against ya Rain, just honestly, that argument is dumb)

How is stealing a DVD from Best Buy different from downloading a movie off the Pirate Bay? I don't get why these are so different in your mind.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Logan

Not excusing the piracy at all, but if you shoplift from a department store, the department store is losing the ability to return that item to the supplier along with all the other unsold inventory, which leaves them with a loss. Not the same with piracy. There are differences.

So shoplifters who are caught with the physical items the sold should not be arrested by the police since the store can return the item back to the supplier?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

It is not up to the mob on the internet to dictate what I must do through criminal activity.

That's just the problem. Until relatively recently, copyright violation was NOT criminal. You write that line as if it has always been a criminal act. It's similar to people who act like income taxes have always been here (in the USA), or that we have always had to deal with payroll withholdings (and estimated taxes that you pay ahead if self-employed).

The government should not really be in the business of enforcing copyrights and patents (they have it right on patents, but are woefully wrong on copyrights), beyond adjudicating the legal disputes that result from this activity. This doesn't mean that I think copyright violators should get a free ride. It means that I do not think the enforcement arm of the government needs to be playing the copyright police on the side, funded by the general fund. If you want to hire the FBI to be your copyright protection force, then perhaps we can agree on a per hour fee for each agent. You can fund the prosecutors as well, when you want them working your copyright case for you.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So shoplifters who are caught with the physical items the sold should not be arrested by the police since the store can return the item back to the supplier?

He said "there are no material differences." To which I responded "there are differences" and gave an example. Would you like to debate my example and how it is not a difference or would you like to put words in my mouth?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Two things boggle my mind:

1. When it comes to piracy, so many people are willing (and often eager) to admit that they do it. As far as admitting to engaging in illegal activities goes, piracy and marijuana possession/usage are right up there at the top. I'm not really speaking out against either here, but I don't really see too many people happily talking about how they do other illegal things. If I were breaking a law on a regular basis, I'm not sure I'd really be talking about it in front of anybody, much less total strangers.

2. I have yet to see a real justification for piracy. Perhaps I just haven't been looking in the right places or listening to the right people, but I have not found someone who can explain to me how it's OK. I used to pirate software when I was a kid. I distributed pirated software, and I helped people crack copy protection on games. So I've been there, but I don't know what I could've said if someone caught me and asked me why I did it. I did it because I was a kid who couldn't afford the software, but I just thought I really really wanted it. Looking back on it, that doesn't really seem like much of a justification to me, and if I'd ever had to answer that question back then, I'd be kind of embarrassed about that answer now.

Anyway, with those things said, I personally don't care if other people are doing any of this stuff. I don't think they need (or want) me telling them that their actions or right or wrong, so I don't think my opinion matters at all. I'm just amazed that people admit to doing something illegal, and in the case of piracy, can't even really explain why.

[Raiders Army]

So Pumpy, you are amazed that people admit to doing something illegal and you just admitted that you did something illegal?

I agree with everything you said though.

[jeff061]

A lot of people actually justify it by saying they are helping the artist/company/whatever distribute their work and creating a positive buzz. That will of course in the long run lead to more sales than it would have otherwise.

I'm comfortable in my choice to just not like most people.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Two things boggle my mind:

1. When it comes to piracy, so many people are willing (and often eager) to admit that they do it. As far as admitting to engaging in illegal activities goes, piracy and marijuana possession/usage are right up there at the top. I'm not really speaking out against either here, but I don't really see too many people happily talking about how they do other illegal things. If I were breaking a law on a regular basis, I'm not sure I'd really be talking about it in front of anybody, much less total strangers.

2. I have yet to see a real justification for piracy. Perhaps I just haven't been looking in the right places or listening to the right people, but I have not found someone who can explain to me how it's OK. I used to pirate software when I was a kid. I distributed pirated software, and I helped people crack copy protection on games. So I've been there, but I don't know what I could've said if someone caught me and asked me why I did it. I did it because I was a kid who couldn't afford the software, but I just thought I really really wanted it. Looking back on it, that doesn't really seem like much of a justification to me, and if I'd ever had to answer that question back then, I'd be kind of embarrassed about that answer now.

Anyway, with those things said, I personally don't care if other people are doing any of this stuff. I don't think they need (or want) me telling them that their actions or right or wrong, so I don't think my opinion matters at all. I'm just amazed that people admit to doing something illegal, and in the case of piracy, can't even really explain why.

I think people often admit to doing things illegal, but usually they are crimes that are minor infractions that most people don't think lesser of each other for. (An obvious example to me is how many people commonly comment that they drive faster than the speed limit for instance.)

As for a good reason for piracy, there isn't really one. Usually what people provide are rationalizations that they personally use to try to make themselves feel better (or morally correct) about doing something that is wrong. Things such as "The entire industry are crooks" or "My stealing their product actually helps increase their sales if by some chance I like it" are often examples of how people try to justify to themselves or others that doing something wrong isn't necessarily wrong.

I think the entire topic of piracy is a little off the mark from the Pirate Bay case however as there definitely is a grey area comparing piracy to what these guys did (basically empower or accomplice piracy without doing any stealing themselves), so the discussion of how serious what they did is an interesting one to read along with I guess.

[Philliesfan980]

I think it's pretty simple. When given the option of paying for something, or not paying for something, and having little to no risk of getting caught, most humans are going to choose the second option.

Does anyone think that the day of an "end user" getting busted for downloading pirated material is right around the corner? To my knowledge, the only people being targeted, now and historically, have been the distributors. I think if there was any chance of getting in trouble for downloading pirated material, some segment of the downloaders would stop.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Logan

Not excusing the piracy at all, but if you shoplift from a department store, the department store is losing the ability to return that item to the supplier along with all the other unsold inventory, which leaves them with a loss. Not the same with piracy. There are differences.

The problem with game piracy is that the pirates contact tech support for help, which is loads of fun when they have a pirated pre-release or the pirating has introduced an issue. Then they increase wait times for legitimate customers, plus steal money from the company that released the game.

Pirates that contact tech support (and there are a surprising number of them) DO cost the company money directly.

[jeff061]

Also this:
Slashdot | How Piracy Affected the Launch of Demigod

Demigod is an RTS/RPG hybrid developed by Gas Powered Games and published by Stardock, a company notable for their progressive and lenient stance on DRM. The game was set to be released on April 14th, and shipped without any form of copy protection. Unfortunately, retailer Gamestop broke the street date and released it earlier in the week. A day after pointing this out, Gas Powered Games posted some numbers about the players hitting their servers. Roughly 18,000 connections were made from legitimately purchased copies; over 100,000 were made from pirated copies. Meanwhile, the servers, which were not yet ready for that level of traffic, buckled under the strain, resulting in poor experiences for people trying to participate in multiplayer. While some reviews were positive, others criticized the game for the connectivity issues. After another day, they were able to stabilize the servers to the point they'd planned on for the original launch.

[gstelmack]

Yup jeff. I've seen pirates flood a message board with complaints about bugs that were fixed during the GM candidate cycle and did not exist in the release build, and I've seen review scores docked because "we didn't have any trouble, but the reports on the message board indicates there are stability issues" from it. Pirates do a heck of a lot more damage than their "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I'm not costing them money, and I'm creating positive spin" attitude would indicate.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

I think it's pretty simple. When given the option of paying for something, or not paying for something, and having little to no risk of getting caught, most humans are going to choose the second option.

Does anyone think that the day of an "end user" getting busted for downloading pirated material is right around the corner? To my knowledge, the only people being targeted, now and historically, have been the distributors. I think if there was any chance of getting in trouble for downloading pirated material, some segment of the downloaders would stop.

This won't happen because it is a PR nightmare. They have already tried going after individuals unsuccessfully in many cases. The RIAA in particular have put that "on hold" for now.

People pirate things because they can't afford them and it's easy to do. People want everything. Every game, cd, book, etc that they may like. They can't afford it. So they steal it. Stealing at a store could cause someone to get arrested. Downloading things on the internet involves very little risk.

People today believe they have a right to everything. That is what happens when they grow up hearing from their parents that they can "do anything", "be anything", "be the best", "are the best", etc. It's the same reason that kids expect things to be done for them, have little work ethic, or feel they should be rewarded for mediocre performance.

BTW, I think the argument that downloading music is the same as stealing a cd from a store is bullshit. Unless your saying that a physical cd has no additional worth than downloadable music. And if that's the case, why do cd's bought in the store cost 50% more than if you download them on Itunes?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

So Pumpy, you are amazed that people admit to doing something illegal and you just admitted that you did something illegal?

I agree with everything you said though.

Well, I admitted that I did something illegal. That was about 15 years ago. I don't have any of that pirated software I talked about anymore, nor do I have a computer capable of running it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Also, the "fines" for copyright violation are not restricted to damages (lost revenues, profits, royalties, etc).

That's true of any kind of theft. If you steal a tube of toothpaste, you're going to have to pay back way more than the toothpaste. Otherwise, there's little incentive not to steal it. Not to mention that thieves should help pay back society for the financial losses they cause.

But even assuming copyright infringment is a "lighter" form of theft (or even as some people think, not theft at all), they still get off WAY easy. Even using your civil restitution solution.

Every American with an internet connection has probably stolen at least tens of thousands of dollars of intellectual propertly. Only a very, very, very tiny number has ever had to give anything back.

I remember one of the original justifications for piracy - "It only costs them 10 cents to make the CD!!!!" As if people are entitled to pay cost only. That same argument though, shows you that even when you're stealing a physical CD/DVD, you're stealing mostly intellectual property.

I wonder if the pro-pirate people would have a problem with sneaking into a movie or concert or baseball game they didn't pay for.

[Noop]

I am half and half on this issue. I have had music stolen from me but I have also downloaded albums. If I like the album I usually buy it and delete if I don't like it. I have had a few of my beats stolen on soundclick and couldn't even get mad because I knew the risk. Karma I guess.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

But even assuming copyright infringment is a "lighter" form of theft (or even as some people think, not theft at all), they still get off WAY easy. Even using your civil restitution solution.

Explain how they get off "way easy" when they make the other entity whole again.

How about when somebody is at fault for an accident, and your car is totaled... They don't buy you a new car. They don't even offer you more than what their research indicates is "fair market value" for the car. You don't get what you want for the car. You don't get what would actually replace the car for you. Depending on the limits of their insurance, you may never get fully compensated back for any of your medical bills related to injuries you may have sustained. They get off WAY EASY. What is your solution for this, if your philosophy is going to be expanded across the board for society? The perpetrators of serious crime, the type that could cause someone problems for the rest of their lives, get off pretty easy since there is virtually no attempt to force them to make you whole (lost income, lost earning potential, etc - depending on the injuries sustained). How does this fit into your philosophy?

Every American with an internet connection has probably stolen at least tens of thousands of dollars of intellectual propertly. Only a very, very, very tiny number has ever had to give anything back.

What support do you have for this claim? Is it based on any research, or just a guess?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Explain how they get off "way easy" when they make the other entity whole again.

Please tell how the individual who leaked the Wolverine movie will be able to make Fox whole again. Lets say he makes a $60,000 a year. How will he be able to repay Fox for the millions of dollars in lost revenue?

The problem with piracy and civil cases are the ones stealing are the ones can't possibly compensate the copyright owners.

[Fidatelo]

I don't pirate movies or games, but I do download tv shows and music. I justify the TV shows because I pay for them already via my cable company and the gazillions of ads I watch on there when I do watch things live.

The music is less justifiable. I try to buy anything I really like, but I don't delete the stuff I didn't end up liking enough to buy. I don't pretend that its right though, nor do I feel I 'deserve' it, and as I get older I find I'm less inclined to continue the practice.

That said, until recently the music industry didn't exactly make it easy for me to buy the songs legally. And I do believe that I buy more music on iTunes now than I ever spent on CD's, even back at the height of my music listening days in high-school/college. It's just so easy to find stuff I like and avoid stuff I don't. I can't tell you how many CD's I bought back in the 90's only to discover none of the songs sounded anything like the hit single. And I honestly don't think we'd be where we were in terms of legal purchasing of digital music if it wasn't for Napster et al forcing the music industry's hand.

[RainMaker]

I don't really see the point in downloading music illegally these days. Maybe in the past when songs weren't being sold digitally or individually. But nowadays a song is $0.99. We aren't talking a $15 CD like the old days when you maybe wanted 1 or 2 songs from the artist.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Please tell how the individual who leaked the Wolverine movie will be able to make Fox whole again. Lets say he makes a $60,000 a year. How will he be able to repay Fox for the millions of dollars in lost revenue?

Get a judgment. Get liens on property. Get approval to garnish wages. That's what I would have to do if I sued somebody in court. I may never get all my money, but that's the system we have. What good does it do Fox if the guy goes to jail? They could stand to get a lot more from somebody out there earning an income than they will get from somebody behind bars.

The problem with piracy and civil cases are the ones stealing are the ones can't possibly compensate the copyright owners.

So they go to jail? So, what if somebody with the minimum car insurance coverage required in their state is at fault for the destruction of a brand new luxury vehicle. What if they have no assets? What if they are actually unemployed? Do they go to jail because the victim has no way to extract the value of their lost asset?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cody8200

BTW, I think the argument that downloading music is the same as stealing a cd from a store is bullshit. Unless your saying that a physical cd has no additional worth than downloadable music. And if that's the case, why do cd's bought in the store cost 50% more than if you download them on Itunes?

One would think the physical media and distribution (getting said media to store) would cost *some* money. Not necessarily the extra 50% but some of that cost as well as some profit for the record company.

Basically, if it costs, let's say $10 on iTunes and $15 in stores, wouldn't it be broken down something like this:

$9 for music
$1 to distribute on iTunes
$6 to distribute in store

(roughly)

So, basically, either way, if you're downloading or stealing from a store, aren't you basically stealing the most costly part of the music? That is, the music itself?

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Get a judgment. Get liens on property. Get approval to garnish wages. That's what I would have to do if I sued somebody in court. I may never get all my money, but that's the system we have. What good does it do Fox if the guy goes to jail? They could stand to get a lot more from somebody out there earning an income than they will get from somebody behind bars.

So they go to jail? So, what if somebody with the minimum car insurance coverage required in their state is at fault for the destruction of a brand new luxury vehicle. What if they have no assets? What if they are actually unemployed? Do they go to jail because the victim has no way to extract the value of their lost asset?

The guy who hit the car is not doing it maliciously. Theft is not an accident. If the guy driving the car hit the luxury vehicle on purpose, then yes he should go to jail.

Sending people to jail cuts down on crimes. If stealing DVDs from Best Buy was handled in civil court, everyone would fucking shoplift.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Well, I admitted that I did something illegal. That was about 15 years ago. I don't have any of that pirated software I talked about anymore, nor do I have a computer capable of running it.

Wanted: Pumpy Tudors
Reward: $50 in 1985 dollars adjusted for inflation + additional damages
Crime: Pirating Oregon Trail for Apple 2E
Last Spotted: Losing an oxen while trying to ford the Kansas River to escape authorities
Warning: Has rifle and boxes of 20 bullets; Has been seen hunting and is a mediocre shot, missing a buffalo on multiple attempts, but still consider armed and extremely dangerous

SI

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The guy who hit the car is not doing it maliciously. Theft is not an accident. If the guy driving the car hit the luxury vehicle on purpose, then yes he should go to jail.

That is the criteria that takes something from a civil situation to a criminal situation? No malice = civil issue, malice = criminal?

Sending people to jail cuts down on crimes. If stealing DVDs from Best Buy was handled in civil court, everyone would fucking shoplift.

You think so? With the hassle of having to pay BB's court fees and having judgments against them on their credit reports? Everyone would be doing it? Are you really serious? You think people would actually prefer to have the hassles related to civil litigation instead of generally paying for the items they want? You are just trolling with statements like that.

The only real reason to make copyright infringement criminal is to shift the costs of investigation and enforcement to the public sector.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

You think so? With the hassle of having to pay BB's court fees and having judgments against them on their credit reports? Everyone would be doing it? Are you really serious?

You think Best Buy is going to pay a paralegal, serve me with papers, and then take me to court over a $20 DVD? Especially considering court fees are rarely reimbursed. They'll be out of business in a week.

Also, how do these fine folks at Best Buy get my information? Detaining me is illegal and rummaging through my pockets is illegal too (not to mention I can just leave my ID at home).

[Tekneek]

So, the only thing keeping everyone from stealing everything is the fear of going to jail? If all they had to fear was destroyed credit ratings, inability to get good jobs, and inability to rent from anyone that actually has standards, they would steal constantly?

Also, how do these fine folks at Best Buy get my information? Detaining me is illegal and rummaging through my pockets is illegal too (not to mention I can just leave my ID at home).

How does anybody get sued in civil court then? Somebody must be able to figure it out at some point, you think?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The guy who hit the car is not doing it maliciously. Theft is not an accident. If the guy driving the car hit the luxury vehicle on purpose, then yes he should go to jail.

Well, to be fair a number of these folks are drunk, or talking on a cell phone, or driving like maniacs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

How does anybody get sued in civil court then? Somebody must be able to figure it out at some point, you think?

It's a serious question. I go in and steal 2 DVD's at Best Buy. What do they do? Every possible civil situation costs them more money long term and is just not viable for them to stay in business.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, to be fair a number of these folks are drunk, or talking on a cell phone, or driving like maniacs.

Which makes it a crime.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

Every American with an internet connection has probably stolen at least tens of thousands of dollars of intellectual propertly. Only a very, very, very tiny number has ever had to give anything back.

I would really like to see some justification for this. Is there any data out there that actually supports this?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Which makes it a crime.

But does not mean they owe you more money or that they necessarily go to jail. When a drunk driver killed a friend of mine, with his 16th DUI, he did 6 months. When a man ran a red light, while talking on his cellphone, and did permanent brain damage to my stepdad (who had to close up his business and go on disability), the guy only had the insurance to cover a week of his stay in ICU. This man has not served a minute of jail time. How does this jive with your view of the world?

Those are strawmen, you could say, but I'm just looking for your interpretation.

Of course, the arguments about Best Buy are just a red herring meant to distract from the real discussion. My points were always about the criminality of copyright infringement, not about stealing physical objects.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

But does not mean they owe you more money or that they necessarily go to jail. When a drunk driver killed a friend of mine, with his 16th DUI, he did 6 months. When a man ran a red light, while talking on his cellphone, and did permanent brain damage to my stepdad (who had to close up his business and go on disability), the guy only had the insurance to cover a week of his stay in ICU. This man has not served a minute of jail time. How does this jive with your view of the world?

Those are strawmen, you could say, but I'm just looking for your interpretation.

Of course, the arguments about Best Buy are just a red herring meant to distract from the real discussion. My points were always about the criminality of copyright infringement, not about stealing physical objects.

It seems your issue is with the length of punishment. They should be longer I'm assuming, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a crime. Just that you don't feel the penalties are severe enough.

So a movie that is placed on a DVD is different than a movie placed in a digital format? Are you saying that unless the item is a physical object, it should not be treated criminally?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So a movie that is placed on a DVD is different than a movie placed in a digital format? Are you saying that unless the item is a physical object, it should not be treated criminally?

They aren't going after these people for theft. They are going after them for copyright violation. If they were the same thing, why would they be called entirely different things?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

They aren't going after these people for theft. They are going after them for copyright violation. If they were the same thing, why would they be called entirely different things?

One is used to describe the theft of physical property while the other is used to describe the theft of intellectual property. Copyright Infringement is considered theft by our government.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Copyright Infringement is considered theft by our government.

But they are not the same. Which pretty clearly explains why it is not exactly the same as stealing a DVD from Best Buy, despite your attempts to portray it that way. If it were exactly the same, the criminal charge would be the same, wouldn't it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

But they are not the same. Which pretty clearly explains why it is not exactly the same as stealing a DVD from Best Buy, despite your attempts to portray it that way. If it were exactly the same, the criminal charge would be the same, wouldn't it?

They are not the same but both considered theft. Just as petty theft and grand theft are different versions of theft.

You are trying to say that whether something is in physical format or not should determine whether something is a civil or criminal issue. A movie is a movie.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are trying to say that whether something is in physical format or not should determine whether something is a civil or criminal issue. A movie is a movie.

I am saying that your attempts to make it exactly the same as taking a movie from Best Buy are wrong right from the start, because they are not even treated the same under the law. If I steal a movie from Best Buy, they will NOT charge me with copyright infringement. It is the making and distributing of unauthorized copies that is copyright infringement, which is DIFFERENT than walking out of a store with a DVD.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I am saying that your attempts to make it exactly the same as taking a movie from Best Buy are wrong right from the start, because they are not even treated the same under the law. If I steal a movie from Best Buy, they will NOT charge me with copyright infringement. It is the making and distributing of unauthorized copies that is copyright infringement, which is DIFFERENT than walking out of a store with a DVD.

Both are considered theft and a criminal activity. They have different names and different punishments. You are the one trying to say that if something isn't in physical format, it shouldn't be a criminal case.