Everything is being made a felony these days because convicted felons are stripped of property ownership and voting rights.
It's the new poll tax!!
Everything is being made a felony these days because convicted felons are stripped of property ownership and voting rights.
It's the new poll tax!!
"Everything is being made a felony these days"
but it's only felonies against Human-Americans that are prosecuted and rigously enforced.
Felonies by Corporate-Americans aren't prosecuted, or if prosecuted, "settled" with a handslap fine with no admission of guilt.
The federa/state police forces are basically working for the corporations and wealth, as is all of govt.
neh. I still see it as stealing.
I'm apparently not the only one.
Neh, civil lawsuits demanding outrageous sums of money don't surprise me at all any more.Doubtful?
You wouldn't think that the RIAA would sue websites for $1,600,000,000,000 or 12-year-old girls, would you? Pretty doubtful too, right?
so the govt shut down his website, he decided he wasn't doing anything wrong, set up another website and finally got arrested for it.
He made $90k in ad space according to the link.
Explain why I should have a problem with his arrest.
Also please explain why you want Disney to enforce copyright laws instead of the government.
It's a distinctly different crime than stealing. In copying something, the original is still there. Are you denying them money? Yes. But it's not the same crime.
Even though the owner did not physically produce the copy, you are making and taking the copy without permission.
I'm not arguing on how it should be looked at in regards to punishment for the crime. I'm saying it's still stealing.
First of all, the guy made no copies of anything. He simply linked to streams. He's no more guilty of doing that than, say, Google or Bing.
Making money off online advertising is not a crime, AFAIK (for now, anyways)
The government is not the copyright holder. If Disney feels that their copyrights are being stepped on, they're free to sue and then the justice system gets involved and determines if the claim has merit, etc.
That's how it always has worked.
Why do we need to foot the bill for the investigation, or give up our privacy rights for something we have nothing to do with. It's not like we're assigned part of the copyright.
I still don't see what we, taxpayers, get out of this for spending a load of money and giving up our rights...
The protected class gets the benefit of a law addressing one of their major complaints and presumably will give their votes to their political benefactors. Also, may stimulate more interest in securing copyrights, since the state will apprently bear the cost of certain infractions.
But it's not stealing. It's copying. There's an obvious difference. Why you keep insisting that there isn't is curious.
You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.
The legal environment created by the ACTA treaty may tend to encourage this view.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-19-2011 at 05:30 PM. Reason: ACTA, not DMCA; fever of 103F
but he wouldn't have made money from the online ads had he not redistributed the content (without permission) which he did not produce himself.
I'm not sure how you can compare that to Google.
From your view of it not being theft, that's a fair assessment.The government is not the copyright holder. If Disney feels that their copyrights are being stepped on, they're free to sue and then the justice system gets involved and determines if the claim has merit, etc.
That's how it always has worked.
Why do we need to foot the bill for the investigation, or give up our privacy rights for something we have nothing to do with. It's not like we're assigned part of the copyright.
Imo, it's still theft, and therefore have no problem with government enforcement.
If you take a book and copy the contents without paying for it, you are stealing the intellectual property.
Pretty much the same thing with music or videos.
If I understand what you are referring to, then yes I would think so.You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.
Dude I tried this a couple times and inferred that he was a ing idiot. Good luck.
Instead of finding another way to monetize, it's time to lawyer up.
Soon enough, if not already, the general legal nostrum of presumed innocence will become presumed guilt, with leniency allowed for all good citizens. The incessant American desire to criminalize non-violent 'crimes,' as well as to protect individual rights to the point of absurdity and standardize each individual has played no small role in this outcome.
Except he didn't redistribute anything. He didn't host nor copy any videos.
Linking is exactly what Google does, and monetizes it through online ads, which is no different than what this guy did.
It's not debatable. You still have to show why it's called copyright infringement instead of simply fitting into theft.
You're obviously wrong. The question you dodged and still won't answer is what's in it for the taxpayer?
Last edited by ElNono; 03-19-2011 at 06:06 PM.
No, you're copying purportedly without authorization. Stealing means 'property' exchanging hands.
Under some cir stances copying without authorization is actually legal.
You need to read up more on the differences of theft and copyright infringement, then come back once you can tell the difference.
And BTW, the FBI already has a department for dealing with cybercrime, which includes investigating online fraud, iden y theft and any other crime such as copyright infringement.
Again, what warrants the expense of a separate overlapping department that conducts investigations on behalf of these media behemoths, and specifically what's in it for the taxpayers to be supporting this expense?
Wouldn't hosting and viewing illegal streams be kinda like "stealing" cable TV service? Seems like they should be punishable in a similar way although its hard to be a fan of giving more power to the man.
Not sure about the viewing part, but the person streaming is certainly at fault. I have no problem with the authorities going after the person streaming, as I have no problem with the copyright owners having their day in court.
I just don't think it justifies it's own office, task force, and the requested penalty necessarily matches the crime. A student found photocopying a text book for school is automatically a felon?
That's covered by fair use.
But it's theft!
The charge claims that he intercepted and then streamed live sporting events without authorization.
Does Google do this?
Legally? Ok, I looked it up.It's not debatable. You still have to show why it's called copyright infringement instead of simply fitting into theft.
Turns out it hasnt always been civil cases in regards to copyright infringement. There is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement, which is what he was arrested on a charge of.
It also turns out there has been was an amendment that was put in back in 1982 which had provisions for felony charges for first time offenders.
Enforcement agencies and prosecutors also apparently regularly refer to it as theft.
Looking back, I barely recognize it was a direct question you were asking.You're obviously wrong. The question you dodged and still won't answer is what's in it for the taxpayer?
Disney et al are tax payers.
They get justice.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)