drhowarddrfine said:
Hence the problem. In the USA, artists are paid for their work. If you download without paying for it, the artist never gets paid.
The effect against this is that more people buy the work because they first check out if they want it - that effect can overcompensate. There are studys out there on this. So simply stating that artists will not get paid is not enough.
Most money from what I would spend on, say, a CD will end up in the distribution. Distributors want to make the most money for themselves, and I have doubt you ever read one of those contracts they hand out to the artist. And the means for them to make the maximum buck, not the fair and appropriate one, borders on conning the customer. Big surprise customers do not want it. Sony, for example, should not be surprised to be treated by me like any other individual who tries to sneak some rootkit on my computer.
drhowarddrfine said:
The problem is prevalent in countries foreign to the US so, at least with SOPA/PIPA, the idea is to block sites that allow illegal downloading.
Yes, it is prevalent outside the US. We are all commies. *sight* Thanks for sharing that thought.
You are aware of the fact that the world is more than just the USA and that there are some places around where laws on copyright infrigement are even worse than in the US?
You are aware of the pharma companies, some of which are based in the USA, which search the world for household remedies which they then turn into a patent and by means of the WTO then force the people in the country where they "researched" this to pay them?
This is also something that ACTA is about. And when you see this shit is thrown at you with no way to stop it by democratic means, you expect people to love it?
drhowarddrfine said:
Just recently, I was reading a post from David Flanagan, O'Reilly book author,
who said he may not write any more books cause his income has decreased due to pirating.
So we should let pirating be legal and run free? I'm shocked at how many people state they are anti-piracy but don't want any controls put in.
Please define the "control" you want to see put in place.
I do not advocate piracy. I live on software, too. But once you state what you want, I may be able to explain to you what shocks you.
The problem is, most of the methods which are cooked up to "stop piracy" are something which Heinrich Himmler or Erich Mielke would get wet dreams about. That is why there is some strong resentment against any laws in that direction. But this is now not related to MU but more to SOPA/ACTA and co.
drhowarddrfine said:
My other son, who has a degree in criminal justice, just walked by and told me one of the things to think about is "criminal intent" or the intention to commit a crime. Examples of ferry companies or airlines, as mentioned, are not of criminal intent and therefore not considered under current law.
Again, this only goes for the USA. Here, not knowing the law does not protect you from it. And as criminal intent would imply to knowingly break a law, you could not attach that label to someone who does not know the laws - right?
And it also cuts both ways with MU. Did they state anywhere that their business modell was to support piracy? And even if they did, was it illegal where they did it?
And if you think that they should be prosecuted for this which may be legal in NZ but not in the USA, then you might want to pack a bag and go to Ryad where you will be prosecuted for drinking alcohol. That you did so in the USA does not matter, does it?
PS: For the records : I do not promote piracy, I do not like Kim or MU but I also do not like hypocrits and strongarm politics. I still participate in this discussion because I like to argue with people who do not bring a toothpick to a fencing session, so to speak.
.
