SOPA

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

So who exactly is against this; the spread of media for free.
Is it the people who would profit the most off of it (The 'corporations'), or is it the people who are making the music/art/movie?

That depends on what type of "media" you're referring to because it has so many different meanings. It is hard to draw a line.

For example: (This is 100% opinion)
1) Jane jailbreaks her iphone and downloads hundreds of dollars of music for free that was intended to be sold. - Should Jane go to jail? No. Should Jane be fined? Yes, and the fine should be no more then the amount an average american makes in a month. And for first time offenders, if they can provide details on how they obtained their pirated materials then the fine should be waved.

2) Jane purchases a music track legally, but then she turns around and makes a music video with the sound playing for youtube. Should she go to Jail? I'd still say no. Should she be fined? No, that would be youtube's legal issue to deal with because they provided the forum to post the video. Unless they can prove that Jane profited from posting such a video it's on the site.

3) Jane purchases a music track legally. The track is 6 minutes long, but she uses a 2 minute exert of the track as background music for something she puts on MegaUpload. Should she go to Jail? Nope. Should she be fined? Nope. Once again, it depends on if she profited from placing that video up. If she used the music to sell a product or promote a website that she gets a paycheck from, then fine her.

----

I guess to sum it up. I have a problem with individuals being harshly punished for obtaining or using copywrited material. I have the samethoughts on the war on drugs, even though listening to stolen music is less harmful then being hyped up on meth and being on the streets.

Yes individuals should be held accountable IF they're directly stealing content or using it in the pursuit of profit. But stopping the people who enable it is a lot more important.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

That depends on what type of "media" you're referring to because it has so many different meanings. It is hard to draw a line.

For example: (This is 100% opinion)
1) Jane jailbreaks her iphone and downloads hundreds of dollars of music for free that was intended to be sold. - Should Jane go to jail? No. Should Jane be fined? Yes, and the fine should be no more then the amount an average american makes in a month. And for first time offenders, if they can provide details on how they obtained their pirated materials then the fine should be waved.

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

In laymen terms there is no difference, but in legal terms there is.

Downloading a copy of a file is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Theft means that the other person was deprived of their item.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

In laymen terms there is no difference, but in legal terms there is.

Downloading a copy of a file is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Theft means that the other person was deprived of their item.

You are referring to larceny, a form of theft (non-violent), and that is indeed associated with jail time, either state or county.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1105

larceny

n. the crime of taking the goods of another person without permission (usually secretly), with the intent of keeping them. It is one form of theft. Some states differentiate between grand larceny and petty larceny based on the value of the stolen goods. Grand larceny is a felony with a state prison sentence as a punishment and petty larceny is usually limited to county jail time.

[Professor S]

Overall, I think we need to be VERY CAREFUL that the argument against SOPA and PIPA does not degrade into defending the theft of intellectual property. There are already laws against stealing intellectual property, and they should be enforced, but if the argument is allowed to be redefined as "I want my free shit" rather than "I want my rights protected" then those that would push internet ownership will win because they will claim moral high ground.

Stealing intellectual property is an immoral side-effect of having a free and open internet, and should not bee the poster child of a free and open internet.

[KillerGremlin]

Look, we've had this argument a thousand times and everyone here is just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think we can all agree though that if Jane walks out of Best Buy with a CD she isn't going get fined 1.25 million dollars. If she downloads 15 songs she might.

There is also a fundamental difference from a technology, legal, and moral standpoint between copyright infringement vs. taking a physical product from someone.

There are gray area issues at stake...like how long should a copyright be good for? What should the fine for copyright infringement be? What are the real damage when someone is the victim of copyright infringement.

These are all good questions that require serious thought and maturity. SOPA and PIPA give too much power to a single group (government) and make it very easy to shut down websites on the basis of copyright. The last person you want with this power is the RIAA/MPAA.

[Vampyr]

I saw an image the other day that basically said:

Penalty for downloading Michael Jackson's music: 5 years in prison

Penalty for killing Michael Jackson: 4 years in prison

Which is what the doctor who's actions supposedly killed MJ got.

edit: And if you read my post before last you can tell I'm obviously not trying to defend copyright infringement. The people who create digital media deserve to sell it for money - no questions asked. Anyone who thinks that these things should be free is absurd...if they were free, very few people other than hobbyist would even be creating them. There would be no movies or games to pirate.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

(This isn't directed at you, I was just quoting you.)

So then, legally, anyone who has ever taken a picture of a picture/painting/sculpture is stealing art. Anyone who edits a short version of Star Trek to make some type of comical Jean-Luc Picard video is stealing intellectual property and should be fined/put in jail because that video belongs to (whoever the fuck owns Star Trek).



The reason I find it so hard to stick to one side is that the line is soooo fine. On one hand, I think "Fuck you, you put it on the internet. The internet should be free domain. If you don't want people stealing your shit, don't put them online. I don't leave the keys in my car, or my door wide-open."

I try to defend the other side by thinking "Well I'd probably be a dick about not getting my money, too", but then I just come back to my own "well, I put it on the internet. The internet should be free domain etc etc".

See, if someone is taking physical copies of my CD (or movie), putting those tracks/film onto a computer to give to other people for free - I could see an issue being taken up with that. But if you're putting your own product online, I think you almost immediately waive all right to bitch. if I put my own file online, I shouldn't be allowed to say "hey wait, stop!".

To go back to my "I wouldn't leave my door open" thing. Even though if someone walks into my open house and steals my things - that's definitely their fault. But I was the dumbass who left my door unlocked, and didn't check to see who was walking out with what.

I also think there's a fine line in the term "stealing". I don't download music, but I don't consider it "stealing". Nothing is being lost. technically.

Digitial files do not exist. They are not real things. You put a digital song (easiest example) on a server for paid download. 5 people pay, 3 people dont. Sure, you lost out on the money from those 3 people - but you still have your song. You didn't press any records and pay to put them into a store, and then have those stolen. You technically haven't lost anything.

It's like if you have a printer in your store, and copies are 50 cents. If someone walks in with their own paper and ink, prints something then walks out without paying, what did you really lose.

Edit: To be fair I'll probably be on the other side by next week.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Look Piracy is here to stay.

IT WILL NEVER STOP.

The moment the CD was invented and the ability to rip the files off said CD was there, we have been doing it. The Moment someone realized they could send these files to others was the moment the music industry should have tried to go with the fucking flow instead of jacking up the price of CDs and blaming piracy.

No, i'm not saying piracy is ok. However it has been around for centuries and it will always be here. There is absolutely nothing that can stop it. Before the internet was big people would rip and burn CDs from friends, before that they would record on cassette tapes. VCRs, DVDRs etc. For fuck's sake people used to hand copy books.

Also whoever brought up larceny into this... WTF? Larceny refers to tangible objects. I've never been able to physically touch an MP3 or any other type of computer file.

That's why there are copyright laws that came into place after some motherfuckers with a VCR realized they could make a copy of a tv show on a tape that cost 5 bucks. Before Satellite and Cable TV used to always be free. Broadcast Television was all there was and it's what everyone watched. Before the invention of devices that could play music, people didn't buy it, they listened to it on the radio. A Radio DJ decided what you listened to and who got big.

$$$$$

That's what all this about. Always.

Someday I hope people wake the fuck up and realize that society is ripping them the fuck off.

Thankfully there are protests and reasons to fucking care, and that's the only part of the American Dream that's worth something.

[TheGame]

Blah so many replies. lol idk if I'm going to read everything tonight. But I want to respond to this.

Originally Posted by Professor S

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

I wouldn't consider it the same because there's no enabler in the case of the store. Jane did all of the dirty work herself if she broke in and stole CDs.

A better example is, if John broke into and stole from the store and was handing out copies of the music he stole from the store for free to anyone who asks for them. And Jane, in the pursuit of not paying for what she wants, happens to take CDs of the hands of this guy.. no she shouldn't go to jail. But yes she should be fined for taking stolen goods and being aware of what she was doing. And if she contributes to shutting down John's scheme then she should get a break. John should go to jail.

This is how I view it, you used the jailbreak example I gave... The first and highest level of responsibility for this should be with the company who made the phone that enables this theft of digital content. Yes, I'm saying it's Apple's fault first and foremost. If they're not doing everything in their power to safeguard and counter against these 'jailbreaks' they should be just as prone to being sued by the companies that provide them with the content and fined by the government.

And the second highest responsibility would rest with the people who created and/or distributed the content that allows the phone to be jailbroken. These people should go to jail, and should be in part responsible for all of the damages and lost funds Apple had. But only up to a certain period of time, once it's discovered that they're hacking into the system and distributing this information, the company should get a small grace period to get it under control (2-3 months?) and any further activity after that is on Apple.

The absolute lowest priority of blame should be left with the users. Yes, it should be against the law. But don't bankrupt people and send them to prison over it.

To sum it up the problem with this law is they're going to rest too much of the issue on the users and individuals and not the companies or distributors.

Why do I think that is bad? Because when we start paying tax dollars to put people in jail for something it becomes our problem, and Apple would have less incentive to waste extra money to guard against this activity, instead they can just focus on finding who's doing it and let the tax payers pay the rest.

That's just my take on it.

To go back to the analogy.. If the store is blind sided and robbed by John and he's giving the CDs away, 100% on John. But if the store knows inventory is missing for months, and knows it's ending up in the hands of random people on the street... and they haven't found a way to stop it.. then it's the store's fault.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

This is how I view it, you used the jailbreak example I gave... The first and highest level of responsibility for this should be with the company who made the phone that enables this theft of digital content. Yes, I'm saying it's Apple's fault first and foremost. If they're not doing everything in their power to safeguard and counter against these 'jailbreaks' they should be just as prone to being sued by the companies that provide them with the content and fined by the government.

By this logic a company that makes cutlery is responsible for every assault and murder made with their knives. A auto company is responsible if someone intentionally hits someone with their car. A company that makes bricks is responsible if someone throws one through a window.

In my opinion this is a microcosm of one of the major problems in the world today: A lack of personal responsibility. If Apple is the most responsible party when people hack their phones and use them to perform illegal acts, the no individual is responsible for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault.

I agree that the theft of intellectual property is different from physical property in some ways, but it's not that different. In the end, stealing is stealing, and it's not the store's fault just because they didn't put enough locks on the door, regardless of whether the property is physical or digital.

[Vampyr]

I think it's significantly enough different to warrant different punishment, though.

When you physically take something, you are denying a sale to whoever you stole it from. Corporations like to say they lost X amount of dollars from piracy, where they make an estimate on how many times something has been pirated and then multiply it by how much the product cost.

They are saying that each instance of piracy is a lost sale. It's not. It's a lost potential sale - there's a huge different. It's actually less than that, since plenty of people buy something and pirate it anyway. The only Wii games that I've pirated are the ones that I actually own.

If you take something physical, that person can no longer sell it. They lose the true value of that object. When you copy something, someone loses less than a potential sale. The person pirating it -might- have paid for it. Maybe.

Is it still wrong? Yes. But it's not the same as theft and shouldn't be punished the same way and the punishment certainly shouldn't be more harsh.

[Professor S]

While I disagree with you, you have a point, but I also think that your argument is one that will lend itself to regulations like PIPA and SOPA. The more you give your opposition the ability to take moral high-ground the more vulnerable the Internet becomes. All they need is a window of righteousness and they'll fix the system to benefit themselves.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

By this logic a company that makes cutlery is responsible for every assault and murder made with their knives. A auto company is responsible if someone intentionally hits someone with their car. A company that makes bricks is responsible if someone throws one through a window.

No that's completely different. Apple and the companies who make apps would still be actively being robbed in the case of a jail break on a phone. If someone buys a product and uses it as-is to commit an act of violence that's the fault of the user and the user alone. (Edit: In most cases)

We're not talking about the hardware. Like people buying iphones to bash people's skulls in. We're talking about a unprotected digital app store that Apple isn't taking the appropriate measures to safeguard. Completely different things.

The phone in essence, is still a store.. not just a product.

In my opinion this is a microcosm of one of the major problems in the world today: A lack of personal responsibility. If Apple is the most responsible party when people hack their phones and use them to perform illegal acts, the no individual is responsible for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault.

I agree that the theft of intellectual property is different from physical property in some ways, but it's not that different. In the end, stealing is stealing, and it's not the store's fault just because they didn't put enough locks on the door, regardless of whether the property is physical or digital.

I agree that people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, but I disagree if you say that the company who sells a product and gets robbed repeatedly should not be held responsible for safeguarding their product. If a store doesn't lock up and they get robbed, that's partially on them. If they don't lock up again 20 more times, and get robbed 20 more times... each time it becomes more and more the store's fault.

To be clear, I said that the person who steals should still go to jail, and the people who use the stolen products should still be fined. But the ones who aren't securing their product should also be held accountable. In other words, everyone up and down the chain should be held responsible.

[Professor S]

Typhoid - Your comparison of taking pictures of photos is not relevant because photos only create the image of a painting, they don't create an exact duplicate down to the paint, canvass, strokes, and even molecules. When you steal digital property, you are stealing a 1 and 0, atom by atom, clone of the product. A better analogy would be to compare it to counterfeiting.

But to my main point: Putting aside the moral arguments, I ask that people who disagree with me answer the question of perception of morality. Think of how morally complex you are making this. The greyer the area, the more opportunity the government and industry have of enacting legislation to control your activity on the internet.

Think long term and with a wide lens. In trying to create moral judgements making intellectual theft less egregious than physical theft, you are opening up a perceived moral argument against a free and open internet, which has really little to do with the small niche market of exchanging copyrighted material. In the end, to most people this sounds like people trying to protect their ability to steal shit.

If those that operate on the Internet refuse to regulate themselves when danger arises, then the government will do it for them and it will have a far larger impact on all of our lives than removing or regulating file-sharing websites. Don't give them the excuse.

That's all I have to say on that.