*chomps pbcookies, thwaps TheGame just cause*
I was hoping we wouldnt end up getting into this here, but i suppose it was ineveitable. Now i can only hope y'all keep it within reasonable limits :tongue:
Just to clarify, aside from "proposed" legislation, the 1998 DMCA IS law, the recent appeals were by a provider trying to not have to comply with handing over the info. That appeal was overturned, so the RIAA can and is getting subpoenas (to large and small providers and universities) requesting the info and as it stands now, the providers have to hand it over. Some of those subpoenas involve ppl with as few as 5 "representative recordings". US copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song. The RIAA has said however, that they would "be open to settlement proposals from defendants". As for proposed legislation, one would hope the elected officials have some sense and dont give any one industry power they wouldnt give the guy running a mom & pop corner store or who lives next door. If you think proposed legislation is unreasonable, complaining about it here wont change anything, write or call your elected officials and tell them so.
Playing devil's advocate, if the penalties arent severe, where's the incentive to not do it (other than cause stealing is wrong, which obviously carries little wieght) ? Joe User says thffpppt, so they will slap me on the wrist, big deal. I'm sorry, but if we say its ok to do illegal filsharing, whats next? To say ignore stealing if its on the internet sets a bad precedent. Say to kids, "well, its ok to steal music and movies cause its on the net, but dont steal from someone you can see. Oh wait, so is identity stealing...well, hrm, we didnt mean THAT was ok. Lets see, well some kinds of stealing are ok, others arent." No, i doubt parents will be at all happy when they are nailed for huge fines for what their offspring have been up to, nor will Joe User who didnt want to shell out money for a cd he felt he just couldnt live without and now has to figure out how to pay the fines. Walking into Walmart and stealing a cd/movie/game isnt any different from stealing it online. Steal 20, you pay a higher price. Steal 200 from the truck delivering them and you pay a higher price. Walmart has the right to expect to be able to prosecute, so should anyone who is stolen from by any means. Bottom line, you do the crime, you have to expect to pay a penalty. You dont want to pay the penalty, then dont do it. I was raised that if you couldnt afford it, you did without it until you could. Can all the illegal filesharers live without having a puter full of movies/music/games? um, yeah, i think their lives would still be worth living. The industries shrugged it off when it was an occasional file sent between friends, thinking it was a pretty good way to get ppl to go out and buy a cd. Joe sends Susie a tune done by someone new, Susie likes it and goes out to get the cd. Then greed reared its ugly head and it has gotten so extreme its hard to blame them for saying enuf is enuf.
I've read various things about RIAA and movie industry spitting out worms, from destroying puters to basically sending out a file that ends up containing not the song/movie, but a neeeener and warning. Obviously destroying a puter is WAY over the line. I cant condone anything that extreme. We all know ppl who have gotten infected due to filesharing and clicking on urls to find what they want, so they know the risk is there, but i'd hate to see any industry joining that little party.
While i can sympathize with the music, movie, software industries and understand they are in business, employing a lot of ppl, and dont want their products stolen, i'd not like to see extreme reactions/laws to it. Any penalty has to be severe enuf to be effective and has to suit the crime.
I know there are ppl who have stopped filesharing due to all the publicity and knowing the risk of getting caught now, so i'd say its had some effect. Wasnt that the point, after all?
