I hear a lot of debate about piracy especially how disproportionate the current punishments are, but I don't hear a lot about what people actually think a just and reasonable punishment is.

This isn't about whether or not piracy is ever justified or how evil drm and the MPAA/RIAA are. This isn't even concerning how their is a lot more on the distributer's end they can do to compete with the pirates. This is topic is intended to evaluate piracy from a purely legal perspective.

Who is more at fault, the downloaders or the ones making them available?

Is it really all that more damaging for people to download a copy of the program versus stealing it at a store? On one hand stealing from the store is depraving the store owner of their physical property and in-turn profits, piracy on the other hand is a can flood the market with the same software/music/videos whatever. On the other hand a download does not necessarily mean a lost sale if the pirate does decide to buy the product.

Minor downloading versus adult: Is it fair to apply the same punishment to a minor downloading it versus an adult downloading it? On one hand the punishment can go to the parent, but on the other hand their are a lot of parents out their who are not the most tech savvy. OTOH, it may not even be the family who may be downloading it but someone breaking into their wireless network.

What is a fair way to track down pirates? Should the pirates even be held responsible and instead should the blame fall to the web master? What about fair use considerations. There is only so much a webmaster can do to detect truly pirated content.

But lets just pretend a pirate is caught with proof beyond all reasonable doubt, what is a fair punishment? Should the pirate be simply let go?

Discuss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrwRjYtGzzk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck&NR=1&feature=fvwp

:)

_____ well this one at least is bs. You see it justified all the time "Its not like I took anything the owner still has his copy even if I have one now too i didn't take it i generated it out of nothing" downloading copies is the same as stealing even if it doesn't take any physical from the owner. And you see that excuse alot but how many do you really think download a copy for free and then buy a 2nd one for no reason just to pay for it any more than that shoplifter is going back with money when he gets some?

So at least that bit should be treated the same imo

How about a speeding ticket level fine with an option to skip the fine by attending a "don't pirate" class every couple of years?

Or alternately, it's a moot point so long as copyright is so lopsided.

Wouldn't it make sense to just charge the cost of whatever they were pirating and then maybe a little extra as a punishment?

The ultimate consequence of piracy are earthquakes and tsunamis.

Also, if the end of the world happens 12/21 , you may blame piracy for that too.

As you can see, the only suitable punishment for such actions should be sending straight to hell.

you read the chart wrong. climate change is combated by pirates not caused

"The same" in what way? That's a category boundary right there. Define the shit out of it.

That's basically what he's saying with the 'speeding ticket level fine'. I agree with OG completely. A fine commensurate with the value of what you DLed. But really, copyright law needs a serious overhaul. That would be a great starting point.

in the completely obvious way of borrowing something without permission(at least from anybody who can legally give it) and no intention of giving it back?

That's what I meant about a traffic level fine. But let's assume someone gets caught with a pile of copied stuff, or a full hard drive, it has to stay sane, so it can't simply be "retail value of goods".

Finally, copyright is far from fair, copying a video game that came out this week is a far cry from including an 80s song in your Youtube video about your uncle falling off the boat while you were fishing.

The latter example shouldn't even be a bone of contention, that it is does actually make our system fairly unjust, it's culture and at some point it has to be shared on a more equitable level than it currently is (since it currently is in effect, "never" right now).

My compiler threw an error on those two.

can't be equal has to be more. Otherwise if you only get billed for what you get caught with you may as well steal everything cause consequences wise it'd work out the same as buying only more convenient and you only have to pay for it sometimes. Just like other theft you don't simply have to pay for what you took. But like real theft it should scale so you don't get treated like a carthief for stealing a cd. Just look up in the law table how it'd be treated any other time and apply that to the download. Everything is already in place why reinvent the wheel
steal a cd and get treated like you stole a cd no matter if it was from a store or wesite. steall 1000 cds and its worse ect.


was being silly tried to quote pirates movie but butchered it too badly to be recognized. I meant "just taking stuff without paying for it because you wanted to" Its like demanding I explain the word "is" if you want to nitpick wording of the definition of thief just google it.

pocket a game off the shelf or download a crack its all the same. You took it, you did not and have no intention of paying and the maker gets nothing for the use of their property.

Amazingly the same sorts of people who don't consider software piracy theft get all in a huff about plagiarism or copying a drawing.

Yeah, that makes sense. And yeah, the copyright system is... wacky.

The people that actually crack (if need be) and upload the software are more at fault as they are making the copy available for others to download. Taking from the store is worse because that is a physical product the store has paid for to place on the shelf to sell. If you take that, there is no arguing that you are depriving the store of a sale as the product is no longer there to be sold. If someone downloads a copy, there is a chance they wouldn't have bought it in the first place. They also didn't actively remove it from the store and prevent anyone else from buying it. I look at that like a parent giving a kid permission to drive their vehicle and the kid causes an accident. It is the kid's fault, but the parent's insurance gets hit. If people can prove their network was hacked or they didn't have a password on it, they should be educated how to secure it. If it happens repeatedly then they should face some kind of minor action against them for refusing to secure the thing. There is no fair way of monitoring the internet for the sake of protecting companies at the expense of everyone's privacy. A webmaster should be like the telecommunications companies in that they are considered common carriers. If someone calls their friend and plans a robbery over the phone, AT&T doesn't get charged with burglary. The only way to be sure would be if the software calls home and goes "Hey, I'm using the same serial key as everyone else, I'm not legit". Which even then, there may be a reason for that. They should be forced to pay for the software along with a reasonable fine back to the company. Reasonable being a few times what the product sells for at most. If they can produce a receipt where they paid for the product and prove only X number of copies were in use, they shouldn't face any penalty.

Morally for me personally I consider piracy on the same level as theft, but both practically and legally it can never be the same since a pirate do not deprive the other part of whatever-it-is, the pirate take a copy - not the item in question. It is therefore something completely different. If you want this discussion you can not equate piracy with theft.

(And I consider it theft only because of loss of income to the artists, and even this is very debatable and this is only my personal feeling)