Internet piracy laws provide for stiff penalties for both uploading and downloading copyrighted files. These penalties, according to RIIA, contain a minimum $750 fine per item downloaded. For example you download ten songs, the minimum penalty is $7500, but the maximum per item is $30,000. For one song. And you can face criminal penalties, up to five years in prison. This is ridiculous. Advocates of such laws say that downloading is the same as stealing off store shelves. For starters, teens don't face quarter to half million dollar fines for shoplifting a cd. But more to the point, this is not akin to stealing from shelves. Yes, uploading files is akin to reproducing cds for sale, a copyright infringement, but by extension downloading is akin to buying such a product. These penalties are certainly excessive. It's not an easy case, but you could argue they're cruel and unusual. What you could never argue is that the punishment here fits the crime.
I agree. The fines are excessive simply to scare the population into compliance. It doesn't work and actually has made the RIAA and their lawsuits a joke. Suing a 12 year old into the ground? Who the hell things that is a good idea. What really needs to happen is that the industries need to adapt, and they have to an extent. Plenty of people use Netflix, plenty of people buy songs for a buck off of various music services. It's the old standbys like Comcast that are having issues, which is why Comcast is trying to control the internet. They're doing a good job of it too, but that's what happens when you buy your regulators.
No. They don't make any sense at all. Intellectual property laws in this country have gone insane. Should intellectual property give someone a lifelong, or longer, monopoly on what they have created or should intellectual property exist to give creators a head start? I believe intellectual property should only give creators a head start. With the mass production systems for products and mass delivery systems for artistic creations that exist today it does not take long for a creator to generate millions, if not billions, of dollars for their work. Why do they need a lifelong monopoly? How much reward should be enough for them? But the laws are the way they are. So if we want to keep things the way they are then we should still be opposed to this type of legislation. These people are always telling us that if we don't like what they put on TV then we can always change the channel or turn it off. They are always telling us that if we don't like what's on the radio then we can change the channel or turn it off. They are also telling us the same thing about the Internet. Well ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they don't like what's going on on the Internet then they can always cease putting their music on the Internet. Of course, it won't work that way. They want free reign over what they can do while severely limiting everyone else on what we can do. Just look at what happened to NAPSTER. Oh well. Let them pretend to be masters of the Earth. There are too many good local bands. I don't have to suffer through the horrible and vanilla music that is produced by the monopolists.
the thing that is worrisome is that say you buy all your digital content from Amazon and later Amazon goes BK, do you then have to rebuy all your digital content, what if the digital format changes, do you again have to rebuy? I think it's easier just to listen to the radio... it's free . - - - Updated - - - the media companies did try to get it into the patriot act.... the DMCA makes is illegal to open\bypass a digital lock, as in a printer cartridge to refill it, or if your car maker put one on your hood, then it would be illegal for you to open the hood and self service your own car... .
My problem isn't so much that the copyright privileges are granted for too long, it's how excessive the penalties are. If you walk into a music store and steal a music CD, are you going to get a quarter million dollar fine? So why the hell does it make sense to fine someone a quarter million dollars for downloading an album? That's the issue that I have. The fines are unjustifiably outrageous. The punishment does not fit the crime. The best music isn't on the radio. [video=youtube;_k8Rm3awE2U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k8Rm3awE2U[/video]
To the best of my knowledge, they only go after P2P users where they are uploading and downloading at the same time. Personally, I would be okay with doing away with patents and only allowing copyrights to last a max of 5 years.
remember in the 80's when they had a campaign about "hitting record is the same as stealing".... referring to recording the radio music onto a cassette. Adapt, or go extinct. tour more if you want to make your money. I can understand preventing companies from using your songs in commercials and other advertising or DJ's using it for parties they make money with.... but for personal use? P2P online is no different than borrowing the CD from your friend and copying it for your own personal use. Suing a minor for 40k, then settling for 3k is stupid
No, they'll hit people hard for downloading. From what I've read over the past few days, both are considered copyright infringement.
It is infringement, but I haven't read anything new about it. Often this stuff blows back into their face. There was a gay porn company that seeded per to peer, tracked IP addresses and then filed a mass tort John Doe IP claim against them. Somebody fought the subpoenas and the Courts ordered they could not get a warrant based on every address, but had to do it one at a time. They then declared they were taking no prisoners and allegedly hired a marketing company to track down these IP's. Some gay site did a piece about how this could out some teenager who then could kill himself over it, which quickly morphed from could to will to did in the world of zealots while the company offered a confess--pay a penalty--and subscribe for a year and we won't prosecute deal. They eventually were being so hated on, that they recanted and said they would only go after heavy downloaders/uploaders. I think they got some domain names out of their efforts as some sites were lost to them, but way too much bad publicity for whatever they gained.
that bad publicity was because they were extorting the gays.... you aren't allowed to do that in America. Extorting teens downloading Metallica.... fine... but gays are untouchable...
