@ wizdum & wandersonyou do realize that you are arguing different things, right?wizdum (and I and others) are saying: there is a problem, and ultimately the creative industry will need to come up with better ways of dealing with it than it is now.(ok, yes, extremely simplified)wanderson (and retrolefty and others) are saying:nothing justifies pirating.(ok, yes, extremely simplified)its only a minority here and not even a very prolific one which claims that there is *nothing* wrong with pirating. (ok, we can - and have - argued about that as well.)I guess my point is that I see these two standpoints being exchanged and neither is really a good reaction to the other. Nor do they actually contradict each other.Another thing which is constantly being mixed up is "what is right" with "what is legal"... wizdum was not saying, that the 60.000.000$ sum that guy has been fined (or whatever it was) is illegal. He is saying it is not right (ok. whats the standard. no idea.)I am sure wanderson would respond to AlexDroidDev: "well, it may be legal, but that does not make it right. (again. whats the standard)" *Just my thoughts when skimming over the last couple of posts...
Quote from: wanderson on Sep 06, 2012, 02:45 pmNo one has been, and no one will be charged with violations of those laws for 'fair use' because all parties understand they would loose, so despite the stupid law they are not criminalsyou hope. we have no guarantee of that.
No one has been, and no one will be charged with violations of those laws for 'fair use' because all parties understand they would loose, so despite the stupid law they are not criminals
Quote from: wanderson on Sep 06, 2012, 02:45 pmThose fines are fair by definition. After all we don't let murderers, rapists, etc.. define what would be their fair punishment.This I find questionable. I mean any fine is arbitrarily established. In Texas, I believe you have the death penalty. In most of Europe this is considered barbaric. I am not implying judgement here - I just mean to point out that even the way murderers and rapists are treated is open for debate. Saying a fine is fair by definition assumes that there is some higher moral authority who has the right to decide on what a fine is. I believe that is wrong. Concerning fines for data-sharing, you can imagine that there are very strong political lobbies putting pressure on politicians. I do not believe that lobbyists who are trying to have stricter convictions for rapists have even a fraction of the power that lobbyists going after file sharers have. (before you ask... I dont know that as a fact. This is simply my assumption, as there is no group with an economic interest in prosecuting rapists.)[/list]
Those fines are fair by definition. After all we don't let murderers, rapists, etc.. define what would be their fair punishment.
And there is no need in the US to rely on a higher mystical authority to decide if something is right/just/fair, our society that creates its rules define such concepts. And our society has decided that such penalties are right/just/fair. In the US these decisions are made, ultimately not by corrupt politicians, nor the corporations that line the politicians pockets, but a jury of one's peers. We have jury trials for a reason, jury's have an obligation to not only determine guilt, but also evaluate the 'fairness' of a law.
While i agree that trials by jury do give the possibility of a greater degree of fairness i would say that taking the position of letting the state decide your own definition of whats right/just/fair to be dangerous. It is true that for the most part a lot of laws are in line with what most people feel to be right but to say you don't need to think about it because someone else is for you is nothing short of insane. It is the responsibly of each individual to to decide these things. Government don't always get things right. It brings to mind war crimes and the defense that you were only doing what you were told. Having said that that excuse does probably wash sadly in most of the western world.You right people don't need to rely on anything mystical just there own brain.
yes, but the jury is set a "range" within which the fine is lega, no? As in, a jury cannot declare death penalty on speeding? or am I wrong?
about "something being wrong with the system:"let me try to show you an example of what I meanlets start with your statement that "piracy will not stop". I agree. Everything which follows is a result of that thought. I think on a small scale, you will also agree to the consequences I personally draw from that:I (as a recording artist) assume that people will copy my work anyway. I still want to distribute my music. I have two optionsa) I try to go to court with the people who illegally took my work. This incriminates my customers, so I think its not a smart thing to do. After all, I want them to stay my customers for a long time.b) I try to leverage the fact that my music has been copied so many times. I think this is the better choice, as it will not alienate me from my customers. I organize a party where my music is played or where I perform (with a door charge of course), I offer that anyone can bring a copy of my CD and for 2.50€ I sign it for them (I actually think this would work :-D). As a small recording artist, I believe option b) to be 100% preferable. It is also preferable over having nobody stealing my music on the internet, as my music would never have become popular enough to do the event I described without file sharing. I see it as a win-win situation.(this is actually almost a real life example. I recently figured out, that an old band of mine has become quite popular in poland, for reasons beyond my comprehension (enabled by illegal file sharing). Right now I am contemplating what to do about it.)*I think on the small scale my reasoning is obvious and there is little to dispute on that. On a large scale, I believe that we would all be better off if the creative industry also would find creative solutions to the problem of piracy.I am not saying piracy is the creative industries fault.Does that clear my standpoint up a bit, when I talk about "there is something wrong with the system" ?
I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.
QuoteI think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.Yes its a very the analogy is very succinct. Had to look it up, think i'll go back and read the rest of the wiki page. Don't really know anything about this era of American history beyond what i've gleaned from films.
Ultimately, the people who live under a government are responsible for the actions of that government without regard to the form of government (democracy, republic, dictatorship, etc...)This is the key to why I am so passionate about this issue.
you are still going to require the materials to put into your printer.
This is where the money will be made
QuoteI think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.Perhaps that is only in your mind or in theory? Enduring successful examples in reality have been rather disappointing. I suspect human evolution will have to progress for many many eons into the future before that might even be a reasonable possibility. Without personal property rights human nature seems to fall all too easily into the 'they pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work' attitude. Only when human civilization has evolved where is requires no human non-voluntary work to function, will such a theory be possible in my opinion.Lefty
Perhaps that is only in your mind or in theory?