NationStates

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I know I'll be villified for supporting the rule of law, but think for a moment people: if I rob a bank, should my total punishment be nothing more than returning the cash I took?

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Iron Chariots wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I know I'll be villified for supporting the rule of law, but think for a moment people: if I rob a bank, should my total punishment be nothing more than returning the cash I took?

Of course not. But neither should it be tends of thousands times the amount you took. I mean, imagine if somebody was fined $60,000 for stealing a candy bar from a gas station.

Um. Shocking though it may be, but you can go to JAIL for stealing a candy bar. A fine is a lesser punishment.

Poliwanacraca wrote:

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.

Yes, the fine is excessive. Which is why the RIAA, the people so many of you are whining about, offered her a much more reasonable fine. Somehow, I doubt that will silence the whining, though.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Poliwanacraca wrote:Yes, the fine is excessive. Which is why the RIAA, the people so many of you are whining about, offered her a much more reasonable fine. Somehow, I doubt that will silence the whining, though.

The jury doesn't just invent damages out of its ass. Both prosecution and defense argue as to the extent of the damages and the jury makes their decision based on those arguments. Somewhere along the way, the RIAA convinced the jury that they were damaged to the tune of $80,000 per song.

Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

Kamsaki wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I know I'll be villified for supporting the rule of law, but think for a moment people: if I rob a bank, should my total punishment be nothing more than returning the cash I took?

She's not being punished for robbing the bank (downloading). She's being punished for laundering the cash (uploading). Important difference.

JuNii wrote:

Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

could've been much higher.

The_pantless_hero wrote:So they proved that 79,999 people downloaded each song from her?

Vicious Storms wrote:So what happens if you download songs on limewire? You get like fined like she did? Or what did she do thats different?

And the artists probably couldnt give a crap as much as they wouldnt care if a squirrel farted. Wow.

Vicious Storms wrote:

Vicious Storms wrote:So what happens if you download songs on limewire? You get like fined like she did? Or what did she do thats different?

And the artists probably couldnt give a crap as much as they wouldnt care if a squirrel farted. Wow.

I'd greatly appreciate it if my question about the limewire thing is answered. Thanks.

The_pantless_hero wrote:

JuNii wrote:

Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

could've been much higher.

That totally makes it less retarded.

Vicious Storms wrote:I'd greatly appreciate it if my question about the limewire thing is answered. Thanks.

Kamsaki wrote:Ironically, paying money to a company committing massive copyright theft probably results in you being considered less of a criminal than downloading from a simple P2P user who's giving you single unlicensed copies of albums he's bought himself.

The_pantless_hero wrote:I hate you.

Vicious Storms wrote:Ok. Let's make this easy for a 13 year old. Limewire downloading songs = fine or no-no?

Vicious Storms wrote:Ok. Let's make this easy for a 13 year old. Limewire downloading songs = fine or no-no?

Valipac wrote:

Vicious Storms wrote:Ok. Let's make this easy for a 13 year old. Limewire downloading songs = fine or no-no?

ffs don't use limewire. You will kill your computer. The sooner you learn to torrent the better.

The_pantless_hero wrote:I bet you $1.9mil that the RIAA would disagree.

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Sorry about that, Heinleinites. I see now that your post was relevant to the topic. Kindly pretend that I meant "My attempt at a hijack ends here."

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:I grant that making a copy of some other person's work (which they have made public on a condition of payment) is not necessarily neutral. It may be a "crime" in the ethical sense but it is NOT directly equivalent to theft.

"Theft" of the content (music) is not equivalent to theft of any physical thing. To use the same word for both is inaccurate, because it is NOT ALWAYS TRUE that copying the content deprives someone of anything, including money.

The argument that "if you make a copy without paying, you will not buy a right to listen to the copy" is incomplete. It may be true in some instances, but the fact that the person who does make a copy still has a choice to buy, or not to buy, the rights to a copy AFTER taking it for no money, shows that the ownership of a physical thing is not precisely the same 'ownership' as "rights to use a copy."

Copying data does not in any degree diminish what is copied, nor deprive anyone of what is copied. Physical things are in limited supply. Copies are not.

If you can find any definition (and particularly a legal definition) of theft, which does not rely on the idea of "taking" and/or "depriving some other of the use of" then I will reconsider this.

Copying anything is not directly equivalent to theft of a physical thing.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Stealing not only is the taking of something that doesn't belong to you, but the deprivation of that same something to the rightful owner. Copyright Infringement in the case of illegally downloading music is the making of an unauthorized copy for personal use. It's more like counterfeiting money than actually stealing it.

Heinleinites wrote:

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Sorry about that, Heinleinites. I see now that your post was relevant to the topic. Kindly pretend that I meant "My attempt at a hijack ends here."

No harm, no foul.

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:I grant that making a copy of some other person's work (which they have made public on a condition of payment) is not necessarily neutral. It may be a "crime" in the ethical sense but it is NOT directly equivalent to theft.

"Theft" of the content (music) is not equivalent to theft of any physical thing. To use the same word for both is inaccurate, because it is NOT ALWAYS TRUE that copying the content deprives someone of anything, including money.

The argument that "if you make a copy without paying, you will not buy a right to listen to the copy" is incomplete. It may be true in some instances, but the fact that the person who does make a copy still has a choice to buy, or not to buy, the rights to a copy AFTER taking it for no money, shows that the ownership of a physical thing is not precisely the same 'ownership' as "rights to use a copy."

Copying data does not in any degree diminish what is copied, nor deprive anyone of what is copied. Physical things are in limited supply. Copies are not.

If you can find any definition (and particularly a legal definition) of theft, which does not rely on the idea of "taking" and/or "depriving some other of the use of" then I will reconsider this.

Copying anything is not directly equivalent to theft of a physical thing.

I was thinking about this, and I ran across something that LG contributed to the thread, which I think is relevant to your point:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Stealing not only is the taking of something that doesn't belong to you, but the deprivation of that same something to the rightful owner. Copyright Infringement in the case of illegally downloading music is the making of an unauthorized copy for personal use. It's more like counterfeiting money than actually stealing it.

To my mind, illegally downloading a CD or a movie is the equivalent of going to a store and stealing the same from the shelf. In both cases, you're acquiring the material illegally. Just because you don't tuck the actual studio-produced CD or DVD under your coat and then leave the store, does not mean you are not stealing.