For one, I didnt download it.

Secondly, you agree with a £500+ fine on a product that costs under £10? Id agree if they charged, say double the RRP, but in the hundreds of pounds? :laugh:

I don't agree with fining someone 500$ for something that costs 10$, they should just make you pay the original price and if you don't, then they fine you. But that wouldn't make sense.. But then again, charging 500$ for something that's 10$ doesn't either.

kyle2020For one, I didnt download it.

Secondly, you agree with a £500+ fine on a product that costs under £10? Id agree if they charged, say double the RRP, but in the hundreds of pounds? :laugh:

Don't do the crime if you cant do the time. But you didn't do anything so f$%k em. I wouldn't pay shit.

The thing that really bugs me about copyright and such is the absurd time that stuff stays copyrighted, what is it, 70 years? I know it was 50 and then the big companies wanted to make even more cash from Elvis and such and pushed the politicians to pass a law to extend it even further. That if anything is just greed.

No, it was a letter that was sent around a few thousand Virgin subscribers, that had some kind of legal loop hole in it.

TheMailMan78How is it ripping off? Maybe Ill like the songs you don't. Just because you dont like something does not give you the right to steal what you want.

Hence I should be able to download the album and decide whether it's worth buying, or not.

Putting up one or two good songs on MTV, and making that song sell the rest of the album people have little or no clue of (other than 'reading' someone else's subjective take on them), is ripping off. I shouldn't be forced to make my buying decisions on what someone else feels about a bunch of songs. Following subjective reviews are always hit-or-miss.

kyle2020For one, I didnt download it.

Secondly, you agree with a £500+ fine on a product that costs under £10? Id agree if they charged, say double the RRP, but in the hundreds of pounds? :laugh:

Well, if you shoplift something from a store you are liable to end up with all kinds of court fees if prosecuted, do community service, or something of that nature even if what's stolen is just a $2 pen or something. So in that respect it's really par for the course (with things the way they are now).What makes this different is if it happens in a civil court, and thus the payout goes to the other party rather than the state.

btarunrPutting up one or two good songs on MTV.

Songs on MTV? Good songs on MTV? My head is reeling......

TheMailMan78Terrifying I know! You bastards better hope artists never form a real union. You think things are expensive now? :laugh:

Hey, watch out -- if you start slipping, soon we'll have you agreeing that people should be allowed to go to the doctor if they're sick and (Gasp!) not have to worry about going bankrupt because of it! :D

TheMailMan78Don't do the crime if you cant do the time. But you didn't do anything so f$%k em. I wouldn't pay shit.

It's called the 8th amendment to the US Bill of Rights. Read it. (There's a comparable law in the UK).

Some people would call a $500 fine for a $10 theft cruel and unusual.

mdm-adphSome people would call a $500 fine for a $10 theft cruel and unusual.

Have you ever played Call of Juarez? They should have paid kyle2020 to download it. The game itself is cruel and unusual.

farlex85Songs on MTV? Good songs on MTV? My head is reeling......

Read: the one or two singles that end up selling the rest of the album. Anyway, I'm adding too much fat into my arguments. I made my point.

FordGT90ConceptIf they win a lawsuit against you, the court forces you to pay. No, you're not "buying" anything. Just getting smacked with buying a private jet for BMG, Sony, EA, Universal, or what have you.

The exorbitant fines are a sign of the archaic copyright laws in place.

Thank you sir. I think everyone is misunderstanding our arguments. Im not talking about stealing from people. Im talking about companies that have forgotten how to compete properly.

Again I sure would believe their doomsday stories about piracy if it wasnt for the fact there are successful companies in all this. EA is a primary example. They were the main ones talking about doomsday of piracy. Now that they are into steam they are having the time of their lives.

Same goes for iTunes and such. People love them and its successful because it properly moves into the new times and internet infrastructure. No one wants to go out and spent extra cash and cash for a giant box(I CANT FIND ROOM FOR THESE DAMN THINGS) and hours of playing with the slightly warn off key, then having to install this strange extra software that keeps bugging you and always runs.

I have bought a fat list of games on steam. If a game i like is available on steam, il get it. I will hesitate if its not on steam, wondering if i should go through the trouble because again not enough room for giant box thing/ disk procedures. Sometimes because I have two drives it wont even work right because my DVD drive isnt D. I love and support buying games by account.

Now moving on I also believe what the record alliances are doing is wrong and hurts their legit customers. They believe if we arnt buying their crappy CDs and big box softwares off of the store shelves, we must be pirating it. Their sales are down, they cant keep track of the digital sales well enough so it leads them to believe all their customers are bad. They are losing money so they make it back by suing potential customers for minor things.

Also if we are talking about IP, i believe that lays with the developers and artists as well. They arnt the ones though fighting, its the publishers. They defend it like its theirs when its not. I no longer recognize them because of their actions and refusal to adapt.

btarunrRead: the one or two singles that end up selling the rest of the album. Anyway, I'm adding too much fat into my arguments. I made my point.

He was pulling your chain bta. :laugh:

btarunrRead: the one or two singles that end up selling the rest of the album. Anyway, I'm adding too much fat into my arguments. I made my point.

I was joking, I suppose it may be different in India, but here in the US MTV no longer has any association with music, and the little music they do play at 3am is generally of the terrible variety (and I like almost all music). It's just reality tv, or Mainstream TV as opposed to the long forgotten Music TV.

Woops i think i missed several pages while at work. I guess all resolved aye?

TheMailMan78Terrifying I know! You bastards better hope artists never form a real union. You think things are expensive now? :laugh:

I hope that's not your backup plan :D

I've already stopped buying music and movies (nor do I download them). They could raise the penalty of piracy to "death", yet that didn't help them get my dollar, now did it? :)

ShogoXTWoops i think i missed several pages while at work. I guess all resolved aye?

This will never be resolved as long as I'm a member of this forum. I'm way to radical.....almost tubular but not quite narly.

ShadowFoldI don't agree with fining someone 500$ for something that costs 10$, they should just make you pay the original price and if you don't, then they fine you. But that wouldn't make sense.. But then again, charging 500$ for something that's 10$ doesn't either.

The reason why the inflate the fine is from times before computers. If someone, for instance, was going to copy a painting, most likely they were going to sell it in effect committing plagarism. The large fines accounted not only for the crime, but also profits the criminal most likely gained from breaking copyright law.

Now, because copying any digital takes a matter of seconds and very, very few of those copies are sold for profit, a separate set of laws need to be established for digital content. Effectively, it could be summed up by two clauses:

1) Knowingly distributing digital, copyrighted content on a public network without a license incures an fine of $5,000 and requires filing for a license.

2) Selling digital, copyrighted content without a license incures a fine of two times the retail value of the content. Possible incarceration for up to five years.


#1 protects those that had their computer sucked into a drone network, consumers right to backup data, and the various transactions that are ongoing in a computer. It also protects the publisher by forbidding people from distrobuting content at their own whim thereby defeating the purpose of a publisher.

#2 makes it strictly prohibited to sell someone else's content without a license.

Such a law would need a "consumer bill of digital rights" appended to it.

farlex85I was joking, I suppose it may be different in India, but here in the US MTV no longer has any association with music, and the little music they do play at 3am is generally of the terrible variety (and I like almost all music). It's just reality tv, or Mainstream TV as opposed to the long forgotten Music TV.

MTV India still has music, and we get VH1 for international music, though the trend of shitty reality TV is catching up. They're bad at even pseudo-reality, so you can imagine.

FordGT90ConceptThe reason why the inflate the fine is from times before computers. If someone, for instance, was going to copy a painting, most likely they were going to sell it in effect committing plagarism. The large fines accounted not only for the crime, but also profits the criminal most likely gained from breaking copyright law.

Now, because copying any digital takes a matter of seconds and very, very few of those copies are sold for profit, a separate set of laws need to be established for digital content. Effectively, it could be summed up by two clauses:

1) Knowingly distributing digital, copyrighted content on a public network without a license incures an fine of $5,000 and requires filing for a license.

2) Selling digital, copyrighted content without a license incures a fine of two times the retail value of the content. Possible incarceration for up to five years.


#1 protects those that had their computer sucked into a drone network, consumers right to backup data, and the various transactions that are ongoing in a computer. It also protects the publisher by forbidding people from distrobuting content at their own whim thereby defeating the purpose of a publisher.

#2 makes it strictly prohibited to sell someone else's content without a license.

Such a law would need a "consumer bill of digital rights" appended to it.

And your law protects those who only receive the content from any harm whatsoever. I like it.

Don't know about incarceration, though -- I'd still say "distributing without a license" should be just a civil matter if it isn't already. Just make the fine bigger.

The reason why selling would warrant incarceration while distrobuting wouldn't is because selling most likely means a crime ring/organized crime.

But yes, that would have to be expanded to include specifics in regards to selling, for instance, reselling/trading an audio CD you don't like. That shouldn't be viewed as a crime because you are forfeiting your access to the content once it transfers to someone else. That is, digital copyright law is violated when you are making a copy and selling it for profit; it is not violated when you are selling the original to recoup a loss. If you sell a single digital copyrighted article more than once, it is a violation of the law (implies a copy was made and one or more of the copies was sold illegally).

dude.. all i have to say to Piracy
is :toast:

I dont post often so please bear with me :o
First off id like to say thanks this has been an "eye-opening" debate,one of the more serious ones ive seen on good old TPU :rockout:
IMO both side raise some very vaild points and both mailman and farlex have articulated there points very very well! :toast:
I believe this argument is very important to our society/culture at the moment and the fact that TPP have been elected will mean this argument will be brought to the fore politicaly and socialy, which i think is very important for both consumes and artist alike.So cheers to progress :toast: ( Ithink thats my longest post ever :eek: )

and.. i get free software
everyone wins.

is that software called free-ware? if not then the person that made it doesn't win. That's a pretty huge hole in your logic.

oh by everybody
i meant me
sorry :p