Are you going to Jail?

vbimport

#1

https://www.youtube/fPhhPwCQaRY


#2

The narrator is wrong…it’s not only Obama’s jurisdiction that has to be blamed… every senator who ever supported such stupid laws has to blamed,be it a Republican or a Democrat…
Bribing money has no political preference…:disagree:


#3

What is legal is determined as much by the masses as it is by the lawmakers. If a law is passed and ignored by half the population then it is a dead law. If the government decided to bring suit against 25% of Internet users they would have a revolt on their hands. The file sharing ship has sailed and it is never returning to port. Especially when so much of the world population has access to the Internet. If any government resorts to bringing legal action against mass groups of people then they have already lost. The backlash would be swift and severe. The only thing they can do is to try and scare people into compliance which is not working. IMO, the person in this video is just trying to scare people over something that has almost zero chance of happening. Does anyone think that ISPs are willing to lose 25% of their revenue stream by cutting off file sharers? I don’t think so. They want to make examples out of a few people like this women mentioned in the video to keep the scare tactics alive. In reality they haven’t made a dent in file sharing and it is growing every year.

At some point they will realize it is far more profitable to bring a massive amount of content to Internet users easily, and cheaply, than to force a few to pay high prices for less content.


#4

[QUOTE=UTR;2722364]At some point they will realize it is far more profitable to bring a massive amount of content to Internet users easily, and cheaply, than to force a few to pay high prices for less content.[/QUOTE]

Yeah…when hell freezes over…:bigsmile:
Those guys with their 10 mansions all over the world and 20 luxuary cars won’t loosen their grip until they’re dead…
Maybe the next generation of multimedia execs,or the generation after them will finally embrace new ways of distributing and /or backup media,as they did download or backupped themselves when they were young…


#5

That, or maybe they’ll secretly hire ninjas to take care of the problem. As Richard Stallman would say, when you surrender freedoms in one aspect of life, loss of freedom in other aspects becomes natural. That’s why we have to fight for our freedom.


#6

[QUOTE=roadworker;2722366]Yeah…when hell freezes over…:bigsmile:
Those guys with their 10 mansions all over the world and 20 luxuary cars won’t loosen their grip until they’re dead…
Maybe the next generation of multimedia execs,or the generation after them will finally embrace new ways of distributing and /or backup media,as they did download or backupped themselves when they were young…[/QUOTE]

IMO, the mass distribution model has been gaining ground for several years. Services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc. see the future and are moving quickly to mass market content for a low monthly fee. It will reach a breaking point soon where there will be no choice for these moguls but to join them. Otherwise they will see their revenue stream dry up to a trickle. On demand content is going to be the wave of the future. It is well on the way to happening as younger people forgo cable TV service etc. Anyone that doesn’t jump on board will be left behind.


#7

Did you all listen to the podcast? There is a poor woman that downloaded 14 songs and she is being persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Jail time and 150,000 fine for each song. Doesn’t this bother any of you?:sad:


#8

Sure it does. They are trying to scare people by prosecuting (persecuting?) her. They can’t do to 25% of Internet users what they are doing to her. If they did there would be a revolt against all involved. The tactic of the people trying to keep control of content and prevent illegal downloads is to scare people into compliance. It is not working. The more they push measures that affect larger numbers of people the closer they come to being made impotent by the masses. The masses are embracing on-demand access to large amounts of content at reasonable prices. This ship has sailed and they will eventually capitulate to providing what the masses want. If not, they will go the way of the dodo bird and whoever picks up the pieces they leave behind WILL give the masses what they want.


#9

[QUOTE=alan1476;2722400]Did you all listen to the podcast? There is a poor woman that downloaded 14 songs and she is being persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Jail time and 150,000 fine for each song. Doesn’t this bother any of you?:sad:[/QUOTE]

It DOES bother me!Because the punishment isn’t equal to the committed “crime”…it’s WAAAYYYY out of proportion.:frowning:
But let’s face it,she downloaded the songs knowing that it was illegal.When you burn your *ss,you have to sit on the blisters…:frowning:
The lawmakers have to sit around the table again to rethink those draconian punishments and set the industry back with their feet on the ground…


#10

[QUOTE=roadworker;2722477]It DOES bother me!Because the punishment isn’t equal to the committed “crime”…it’s WAAAYYYY out of proportion.:frowning:
But let’s face it,she downloaded the songs knowing that it was illegal.When you burn your *ss,you have to sit on the blisters…:frowning:
[B]The lawmakers have to sit around the table again to rethink those draconian punishments and set the industry back with their feet on the ground…[/B][/QUOTE]

The problem with the governments of most countries around the world is they are in collusion with large corporations for each other’s benefit at the expense of the consumer. If government would get out of the private sector’s business and enact policies/law to promote competition through free market principles then the consumer would be the beneficiary. Now we have government and big business conspiring to control the masses through some twisted form of fascism.

The only time real change happens is when enough people are personally, and negatively, impacted to the point they are angry. Until then they typically live like lemmings walking to the edge of the cliff. In general, the electorate is ignorant of what it going on around them by their own choice. Governments want them this way so they can operate without scrutiny in a greedy and corrupt manner. This is why the threats that 25% of Internet users are going to be prosecuted like this woman will never be fullfilled. If they get to this point then it would be the government trying a last ditch effort to keep control over the masses and trying to stave off a complete loss of control.


#11

I find that this law setting a mandatory $150000 US is excessive .
It violates the Eighth Amendment :
Excessive bail shall not be required, [B]nor excessive fines imposed[/B], nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In the case of the woman downloading 14 songs .
At most it should be treated as petty theft & even the lowest degree of petty theft.
It didn’t involve any direct contact with the owner of the property so there was no threat of any danger to the owner. That usually lowers the penalty for any theft.
I checked & found the amount paid to a copyright owner is set by the government at 9.1 cents . Rounded up for easy math this woman’s petty theft was $1.40 US.
That’s if she was aware it was theft. If she wasn’t then there was no intent & many times that is ruled as “no crime” but the property is returned.
In Texas if it was petty theft this is the penalty:
Texas Theft Criminal Penalties
Charge: Theft of property valued at less than $50
Classification: Class C misdemeanor
Penalty: Fines up to $500
So a possible fine of $500 US max. Probably not that for a $1.40 .

The same should apply to a downloaded movie. The value should be what the copyright owner should receive for one DVD . I didn’t check for that but I’m sure it is under the $50 US .

Again intent needs to be taken into account by the courts.
Did the person even know the content was copyrighted ?
Where is the responsibility of the government,ISP, & even MS or other browsers that should prevent this content for being able to be downloaded ? Why aren’t those accessories to any crime because they allow it or facilitate it ?
I know there are exemptions for most of those . My question is why ?
If this is such a serious crime.

In the end in most cases it should be at most petty theft & treated accordingly.
If the copyright owner gets restitution of the amount he would have made then maybe no criminal penalty at all.
Why should copyright owners get more for theft than anyone else ?
14th ammendment(partial):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [B]nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [/B]

So why does Walmart get petty theft charged to a shoplifter & a fine of $500 US max ?
But a copyright owner gets $150000 US for petty theft done to them.
Where is the equal protection ?
I consider it to also be [B] cruel and unusual punishments inflicted[/B] in what this excessive penalty does to an individual & their family.