Jail Time for Movie Swappers 953
ArmenTanzarian writes "The MPAA is at it again, reports CNET in a story from yesterday. Apparently, suing the pants off of teenagers RIAA-style isn't good enough, they want to go ahead and throw you in jail. To that end, their senators will introduce the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act today; which carries with it a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Here's the best part: you don't have to infringe on copyright to be found guilty!"
They won't throw most teenagers in jail (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They won't throw most teenagers in jail (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They won't throw most teenagers in jail (Score:3, Funny)
(Think "A Clockwork Orange" with the Disney DVD advertisments and "It's a Small World" looping)
Call Up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dick Durban (D) - 312/353-4952
Peter Fitzgerald (R) - 312/886-3506
And what's up with Orrin Hatch? Why is this jackass always involved with things like this? First he wants to destroy computers. Now he wants everyone who might be involved in copying songs to go to jail.
Re:And why is his son helping SCO abuse Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Call Up. (Score:3, Informative)
This ought place him square on your enemies' list. He's also been in support of the SCO as his son whores, excuse me, works for them.
He also has been in support of the RIAA, the MPAA, and pretty much everyone else we'd call evil around here.
Orrin Hatch (R UTAH) is a very bad man. Plus, he's a jackass.
at least (Score:5, Funny)
Re:at least (Score:5, Funny)
- Stephen Johnson
Re:at least (Score:5, Funny)
Never Fear (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Never Fear (Score:5, Funny)
"Piracy for too long has been high-reward and low-risk," Taylor said. "Legislation such as that being introduced tomorrow will go a long way toward changing that equation."
What exactly is this "high-reward" we get for sharing movies? Am I missing out on all the fame and fortune by not having broadband and sharing screeners? Or do they actually believe that being able to watch a screener 1 week before the movie is in theaters counts as some sort of "reward?" Are they that arrogant to think that there is such great value is being able to watch their latest multi-million dollar dreg on a 17" monitor a few days early?
Such is the glamourous life these pirates live! I bet they cruise the strip in their caddies, picking up babes left and right by waving their Matrix Revolutions screener out the window and flashing their platinum teeth. Bling, bling!
Re:Never Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
In college (I finished in 2001) I knew many many kids who would spend hours of every day trying to find new releases. It was an obsession. To be the first one to get ahold of the next big movie was the goal. All for the satisfaction of being able to say 'I already saw that.. it sucked' days before the movie opened. They craved being 'in the know' above everyone else.
That made these movies incredibly valuable to this gr
Re:Never Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. They really are. I live in Hollywood, and you can't even cross the street around here without slipping in a giant puddle of 'tude dripped by the latest wannabe producer. Conversations with people in the entertainment industry about filesharing are disappointing; a lot of them really do seem to think that pure gold issues forth from their movi
Re:Never Fear (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Never Fear (Score:3, Interesting)
Also note they chose not to call it "Fine Art".
Super duper.. (Score:3, Funny)
/me mutters something about "the best legal system money can buy.."
Well, I Guess I'm Guilty (Score:4, Funny)
Come arrest me!
Idiots.
Copyright Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the best part: you don't have to infringe on copyright to be found guilty!
From the first paragraph of the CNet article:
A forthcoming copyright bill backed by key U.S. senators would place file swappers in prison for up to three years if they have a copy of even one prerelease movie in their shared folders.
How is this not violating copyright again? Last I heard, copying movies fell into that category.
Re:Copyright Infringement (Score:3, Informative)
Being in possession of a pre-release movie: legal. Distributing a movie without consent of copyright holder: illegal.
Having a movie on your hard-drive, even shared, can be legal, falling under some fair use provision. Under certain circumstances, it is the copying that is illegal.
This has been, at times, a poin
Re:Copyright Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
If some senators made possession of a Saturday night special illegal citing how many gun crimes are committed using these guns , they ignore many law biding citizens who use these guns for purposes other than crime: Personal protection, private security forces, etc.
....required someone MAKE a copy. (Score:3, Informative)
Having a copy of a video on your hard drive is (arguably) fair use. If your next door [nasa.gov] neighbor [toonopedia.com] makes a copy of it, then that was and will still be copyright infringement. Under the new law, however, merely having the file up on an open FTP server or Samba share will count as copyright infringement EVEN IF IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR MADE A COPY-- or for that matter, even if he DIDN'T make a copy. Because it's possible, you're guilty of copyright infringement
Huzzah for the senator from the MPAA
Re:Copyright Infringement (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, this is covered by existing laws. C'mon.
More importantly, though, is the pre-released clause:
The threat of a three-year prison term kicks in when anyone makes an illicit copy of a movie "available on a computer network accessible to members of the public," when the film "was intended for commercial distribution but had not been so distributed at the time." Once the film is commercially distributed, the felony penalties appear to no longer apply.
Um, WHERE do pre-r
Re:Copyright Infringement (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the same as the difference between selling somone a kilo of cocaine and planning to buy a kilo of cocaine that you are willing to sell.
Next we're going to see people charged with "intent to violate copyright".
LK
Re:Copyright Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright Infringement (Score:3, Informative)
1) Anything that results in jail time IS criminal -- by definition. There is no "maybe" about it.
2) If anyone has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding, it is the government, NOT the MPAA. MPAA representatives can be witnesses, but they are NOT a party to the case.
3) There is no requirement to actually cause damages to be guilty of a crime. Committing the criminal act is enough.
Check this out MPAA (Score:2, Funny)
Please... don't you download any, that's just for saying "I DON'T GIVE A SHIT" to those fuckers!
Re:Check this out MPAA (Score:5, Funny)
His DivX collection is slashdotted...Anyone have a mirror?
Noooooooo! (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for giving Linux a bad name (Score:3, Insightful)
Feinstein was paid off...they always are... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Feinstein was paid off...they always are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress should post a page on front of the bill, citing the financial interests of the person who introduced it.
The ART Prevention Act, sponsored by those who are in the greatest financial conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.
Re:Feinstein was paid off...they always are... (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. Actually this ART Prevention act is very much like farm subsidies and steel tarrifs, and will prove to be very bad for the economy. Unfortunately, most people will only realize this in hindsight, after the bill is passed and nearly impossible to repeal.
Re:Feinstein was paid off...they always are... (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly I'm in the wrong line of work.
Re:Feinstein was paid off...they always are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Day after 9/11, you get a referendum: "Deport all Muslims from the country?" I'd be rather worried that it would go through.
I'll take my republic, thanks.
-Erwos
Jail Only If Pre-Released?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Political Action! (Score:5, Funny)
So what are we going to do about this? Now is the time to contact your representative, NOT the day before the bill is passed! Send a typed SNAIL MAIL letter to your representative's office calmly detailing your take on the issue, making a clear and concise argument, avoiding unnecessary detail and personal attacks.
Here is a sample letter which I base my other letters on, for reference:
Re:Political Action! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Political Action! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Political Action! (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
At least their bandwidth costs will go up
No, I don't condone theft, but I think the draconian laws are worse than the offence they try to prevent....
Simon
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Funny)
You'd better make sure you don't output /dev/random to BeingJohnMalkovich.mpg... you're pretty likely to come up with the actual movie.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Copyright law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright law (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copyright law (Score:4, Informative)
Priorities? (Score:5, Interesting)
Only for Unreleased Movies (Score:5, Informative)
This is only for movies that haven't yet been released. Your copy of Matrix won't land in the slammer, but your prerelease screener for RotK will.
Unreleased or Unavailable? (Score:5, Interesting)
So do my files become jailbait again when the studio decides it's no longer profitable to press more copies and blockbuster ditches it to clear shelf space?
Felony? (Score:3, Insightful)
My only concern is whether the punishment fits the crime. Is sharing one movie really grounds to lose your right to vote for the rest of your life?
This is an attack on Indie films (Score:5, Insightful)
What if it is MY prerelease for MY movie that I'm trying to get into the hands of critics so that it sees the light of day despite my not being part and parcel of the MPAA?
This is as much an attack on Indie film makers trying to break into the market as it is copyright violators
Legislation attempts like this, and the intellectually bankrupt philosophies that engender it, lead me to believe that we will soon be little more than an economy of monopolies and trusts, with all of the worst traits of capitalism combined with all of the worst traits of a planned, noncompetative economy. Welcome to Our Brave New Future: more of the same on a much tighter budget, without the distractions of human rights or human respect.
Re:Felony? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that this practice should be illegal and punishable. However, it seems as though it already is (but IANAL, of course). This CERTAINLY does not warrant a criminal offense punishable by 3 years in prison, IMHO.
What happens if you release a scanned or text copy of a n
Of course you're guilty! (Score:5, Funny)
Be glad that it's not "supporting terrorism" to have a downloaded movie.
huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the high reward for giving away an $8 movie to anonymous strangers?
reversed position... (Score:5, Interesting)
Good thing these guys aren't involved in the security of the retail sector. If I owned a store, these guys might put ME in jail because I have merchandise sitting out, available for someone to steal!!
So does that mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spin (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Spin (Score:5, Funny)
..."It relieves the copyright owner..." (Score:5, Interesting)
What a wonderful breakthrough in law enforcement: assuming that an actual crime has been committed and acting accordingly. In a day and age when people can be automagically declared enemy combatants and permanently removed from the legal system, I guess this was the next step.
Since we're all theoretically capable of criminal actions, I think we should all pre-emptively surrender to the proper authorities.
Re:..."It relieves the copyright owner..." (Score:4, Interesting)
Welcome to the brave new world of pre-crime. I suggest you download a copy of Minority Report and watch it...after you've answered that rather insistent knock at your door.
Re:..."It relieves the copyright owner..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Why can't they solve the problem themselves? (Score:3, Insightful)
Witnessing the birth of a new form of government. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that I think that copyright infringement is OK. It is just that the punishments for breaking the law seem extremely harsh, given the nature of the crime. It also seems backwards that corporations can dictate what legistlation gets passed rather than the people, whom the legistlature supposedly represents.
Re:Witnessing the birth of a new form of governmen (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an important point about what we're on the brink of here, but dude. Fascism *is* corporatocracy. Just ask Mussolini(or if that doesn't cut it, a book or website about him). Or Berlusconi, the current media mogul prime minister, head of the EU, with strong ties to the neo-fascist party. One of the key goals of the fascist agenda(although one which was never fully realized) was the merging of government of economy into the Corporate State. As I recall, anyway.
er? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're already violating the law, how will a new law help catch them?
But where do they come from? (Score:5, Insightful)
Effectively they're avoiding dealing with the fact that they have a serious leak problem within the suite of companies with which they deal, like duplicators, advertising agencys, studio employees, etc.
Note that the only guy that gets nailed is the one who puts it in the shared folder - nobody involved in the actual leak is affected - because it's them.
Definition of audiovisual (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder whether one person making an audio recording, and another just recording video, would each qualify for prosecution. Is making a copy of a movie really worse than making a copy of a concert performance, with no video?
Re:Definition of audiovisual (Score:3, Insightful)
My belief is that if something isn't available for you to buy, it's ok to get it some other way, since the owner isn't losing money. So the fact that most bands don't sell recordings of their live shows means (for me, at least) that it's ok to collect bootlegs of them.
The fact that this legislation only applies to movies which aren't available for purchase seems counterintuitative. You'd think that people trading DVD rips when the DVD is commercially avai
Re:audiovisual -- does the brain count? (Score:3, Funny)
"sorry, sir, but after we search your backpack, please step into the operations theater for a quick lobotomy. Yes, sir, this is required. No brains allowed in the movie theater. Ha ha, sir, yes, no brains in the the industry either."
Where is the US heading? (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, we don't know if John Titor was a real time traveler from 2036 or not....his postings/messages make a lot of interesting reading though. He "predicted" the development of CERN's blackholes, China's space mission, and more importantly, the American Civil War, which is supposed to start in the next two years (2004-2005) or so.
The primary reason he mentioned was the ever increasing highhandedness of the US government (this was in 1999-early 2000), before Sept 11 happenings/Patriot Act etc.
Anyway, what he said was, that people got tired of the US government monitoring them all the time, passing more and more unjust laws favoring corporate America, and curbing basic freedoms of the people.
True or not, every time another such YRO story comes up on /., it makes me wonder where America is headed.
Not mentioned in the slashdot posting (Score:5, Interesting)
The Cornyn-Feinstein bill also creates another federal felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, for using "an audiovisual recording device" in a movie theater to make a copy of a film and boosts civil penalties available to MPAA member companies when suing over prerelease movies placed on the Internet.
This is truly astonishing, and to my knowledge, unprecedented. Note that all cases of prohibition of cameras, tape recorders, MD recorders, etc from concerts, variety shows, etc, have ALWAYS been civil matters; rules set and enforced by the persons or companies doing the entertaining.
This is the first instance I can think of where this type of activity has crossd over from civil to criminal jurisdiction. The only possible good that can come out of this is that a conviction will require unanimous guilty verdict from a jury, whereas civil cases are decided by judicial fiat or a majority of the jury.
Just a thought? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the worm had a high propogation, surely this would make life very difficult for the MPAA & RIAA.
Come to think of it, if such a worm got into a computer system through a weakness in the operarting system, could the creators of the operating system be held responsible?
I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Insightful)
"this legislation will go a long way toward targeting one of the most serious contributors to piracy right now, which is the practice of camcording motion pictures. It's the first time the U.S. Senate has had legislation that specifically addresses the threat of camcording."
How does this address the "threat" of comcording, since this is normally done post-release.
Another nitpick about this is the complaint that no copyright violation is needed...the movie just has to be in a shared folder. Well, if no one downloads the movie, how the hell can the verify what is in that shared file???
Aww come on! (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like Kazaa is still ok then... (Score:5, Funny)
Only shared folders (SMB?), Websites (HTTP), and FTP are covered? Looks like Kazaa is out of this bills reach. They can't even draft stupid laws correctly.
Punishments that fit the crimes (Score:5, Funny)
Quick tip (Score:3, Interesting)
If it is not available for release to the general public, and if you don't have permission of the copyright holder to have it, then gee...you're violating copyright.
So here is a quick tip on how to avoid getting busted under this act if it does become law:
Don't have prerelease copyrighted material on your system if you don't have permission of the copyright holder.
Low quality copies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, another part for this bill appears to be to stop people recording movies using camcorders -- clearly the original quality of such a copy is going to be low.
What this is really about is that the primary sources of illicit pre-release versions of movies are within the movie industry itself. What this act will allow is prosecution of those who receive copies while not prosecuting the original copyright violator who is most likely a movie industry insider.
Punishment to fit the crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
For comparison, the sentencing range in my state for first degree manslaughter (when a person recklessly causes the death of another person) is 31 to 41 months for a person with no previous criminal record.
Argue and Complain all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm involved in the Dean campaign, and it has cleared up a great deal of the mystification surrounding government and how it works. It's not really that hard. In fact, it's so straightforward and easy that you smack your forehead at how difficult you thought it once was.
When there is deep, latent consensus on an issue like this, movements to counter it pretty much organize themselves, given a catalyst. Think of it as seeding clouds to make it rain. Or ice-9, if you prefer.
We can point out the injustice of current copyright law, declare over and over again that fair use protects file sharing, scheme up new file sharing software that escapes monitoring, and on and on ad infinitum, but that's really only treating the symptoms of the disease. The cause of the disease is the government in Washington D.C. and its members who only listen to the wishes of monied special interests. Root that out, and all our lives will be much, much easier in tech.
I know that most techies loathe politics because they associate it with student government and the popular kids in it who spat on us in our formative years, but they have clearly made it their business to come after us and make our lives difficult. So we had better go after them, or we will get what we deserve: nothing.
Worlds Wildest Police Videos 15 (Score:3, Funny)
What happens when drunken teenagers get behind the wheel.
And the car theif that just couldnt say no to a 3 month relaxed probation deal.
But first:
Orange County Florida, and police are about to raid a known file sharer, but suddenly little Jonny Doe tries to outsmart law enforcement officers by dropping his files in the recycle bin.
Law enforcers act quickly to secure the machine "DROP THE MOUSE DROP THE MOUSE" the outlaw fails to comply. Shots are fired and the teenager is down.
"I had entered the room and i saw him in the corner with a mouse in his hand, we are trained to just shoot if we see a mouse because we cant afford to take risks, if there was a hostage in the room we couldnt take the risk that they may view copyrighted material."
Thats one kid that will learn, that when you play with computers, with no regard for the law, you can expect the cold end, of an officers gun!
What really bothers me.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is taking a camera into a movie theater something that is on par with accidently killing someone?
Is taking a camera into a movie thater enough of an offense that it is worth spending $150,000+ to incarcerate someone for 5 years, not to mention the costs to actually convict them?
This is the kind of criminal act that would be very unevenly applied. And the penalties seem very extreme compared to the seriousness of the offense.
Remember that these penalties often stack. If you film a movie, put it on the internet, and burn a copy for your friends they will probably get you on at least three offenses right there. That's the kind of thing that leads to outrageous prison term (that and stupid drug laws!)
What's the problem? (Score:3, Troll)
But I simply don't get what the problem is here. If one "shares" material in a manner which violates to copyright conditions, or receives something shared that way, it's a copyright violation.
And if you don't like the copyright conditions, than you are perfectly free not to obtain a copy. If you don't like the price, don't buy it, but don't steal it either. I don't like buying things from greedy, exploitative, monopolistic entities any more than others do. So, I only rarely consume their products.
As for "sharing" being a violation even if there is no evidence that someone took it, that seems fair enough. If people blatently commit a crime and run around shouting, "you can't catch me; you can't catch me," then of course there will be changes in the types and standards of evidence used for prosecution.
I think that it is realistic to say that the current level of threat of prosecution and penalties has not prevent widespread copyright violtion. So it is not evil or insane to look at raising penalties and enforcement. (Even if it is a very stupid tactic). Each instance of copyright violation is a very small crime. But if it is widespread it can be very destructive. I guess it is like spam in that respect.
Just because the [RM]IAA are evil, doesn't mean that we should feel justified in violating the copyright. As I've said before [slashdot.org], it's not civil disobience if you try to evade prosecution.
Sorry for the rant. And I certainly don't intend this to be a troll (and I hope it won't have the effect of one). Anyone who feels a real need to rake me over the coals for this, should feel free to email me. (A small amount of digging will find my address).
corruption vs. noncorruption (Score:3, Interesting)
Widget Industry: We will donate a ton of money to your campaign if you promise to pass legislation to help our industry.
Politician: In that case, I will enact the legislation if elected.
----NOT Corruption----
Politician: If elected, I will enact legislation which will help the widget industry, because I believe it is the right thing to do.
Widget Industry: In that case, we'll donate shitloads of money to your campaign, so that you are more likely to get elected.
So it's a fine line, and not very different, functionally. One thing is for sure, though. If 2 people are running for the same office, and a company donates money to BOTH of them, that is a sign that, at least, the company thinks they are corrupt. Otherwise, the company would only donate money to the politician that would be most favorable to them regardless of whether they donate money or not.
How to prove? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's completely unnecessary - the laws are strong enough as they are. This law, like the DMCA, at best serves only to lower the burden of proof, and make it more economical to sue. My guess is that there is something more sinister hidden in the wording.
Poster is misrepresenting article. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ha ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ha ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the jail term seems to be slightly disproportionate to the crime (in 99% of cases).
Re:ha ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me know if there's parts you still don't understand.
Re:ha ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
How about this then: (Score:4, Informative)
how's that for legal?
Supreme Court decision [netjus.org]
Re:ha ha! (edumacate yourself) (Score:5, Informative)
Holy crap, another completely useless term created for no good reason.
You deprive someone of something without paying for it. You're stealing the money you owe them.
No. You have deprived them of nothing, they still have it. You have infringed copyright, and it is arguable that you owe them money, but you certainly did not steal money from them. The law is very clear, why can't YOU understand it? If copyright infringement was the same as stealing, there would be no reason to have the term "copyright infringement" and an entire section of laws pertaining to it.
This is so insanely simple. Not that it matters. I don't know why Slashbots feel the need to point out that it's not "theft" constantly. It doesn't make it any less illegal or immoral.
You are right, it is simple, but you don't get it. You are also right that it doesn't make it less illegal. (no reason to talk about morals here, they are subjective) It makes it a different *KIND* of illegal. That is a huge difference. Civil vs Criminal illegal, to be exact. By calling it theft, you are changing it from a civil offense to a criminal offense. There *IS* a difference between them. The law makes a distinction between them, why can't you?
Re:ha ha! (Score:3, Informative)
Have you actually taken a moment to read the copyright laws? Or did you ask for someone to explain it to you?
Stealing or theft of property is an actual removal of property that doesn't belong to you (yes.. I simplified it for him). Copyright infringement is the distribution of material you have no legal right to distribute. And in most cases carries a heavier penalt
Re:its worse than that (Score:5, Interesting)
... to the 50's; yes. But it's the 1850's, not the 1950's.
Solution 1 - encrypt the file. Then it's a DMCA violation for them to unencrypt it.
Solution 2 - name a garbage file w. the same name as an unreleased movie and share it, then counter-sue when they have you arrested.
Solution 3 - Move the file to a non-US site
Solution 4 - Send a (short) clip as an email atachment to each senator and congressman, with a note saying that they are now, without having done anything except check their mail, violated the proposed legislation and are liable to 3 yers in jail.
There really is no solution for the **AAs except to build more value into what they're offering. Doing world-simultaneous openings of stinkers like Matrix Revolutions in the hope of ripping of consumers doesn't cut it any more than re-releasing the same song in yet another different format/compilaton/variant.
Injecting some fact into the discussion (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, you apparently have not read the article [com.com]. There are two new classes of felony defined by the proposed legislation. The first felony kicks in if you make a digital copy of a movie (that isn't commercially available yet) available in digital form on a computer network. That carries a maximum 3 year prison sentence. In order for the law to apply, you must (a) share the file on any computer network, and (b) the movie in question can't already be available on DVD or VHS for purchase. Once a movie becomes available for purchase in stores, the law appears to no longer apply, and the article seems to confirm this supposition. Furthermore, mere possession of a file isn't sufficient; the file has to be shared, so that you're actively contributing to infringement. However, the law doesn't specify that you have to actually be infringing the movie studio's copyright, nor does it specify that anyone had to actually download the file from you.
Of course, bills can and do get changed before they are passed into law. So this loophole might be closed up soon.
The other class of felony, which nobody seems to be talking about, carries up to a 5 year prison term, and comes into play if you bring a camcorder (or other "audiovisual recording device") into a movie theater. So if a theater owner or usher catches you with a camcorder in a movie theater, and you're recording the movie you're watching, you would be in violation of this law. This is a form of piracy that has been around for a long time, but with the advent of digital camcorders and software that makes it easy to make DVDs or DiVX files out of digital video, it's a lot easier to distribute movies pirated this way.
I have mixed feelings about this second provision. First, a 5 year prison sentence seems a bit harsh for someone who's taping a movie. In fact, it seems very excessive. Not everyone who tapes a movie intends to distribute the copy widely (or at all). On the other hand, making video copies of movies before they're available for purchase or rental, indeed while they're still in the theater, robs the studios and the makers of the film of potential revenues. Of course, there's no loss of real money, so it's hard to call it theft in the strict sense, but someone who might be inclined to go see a movie several times on the big screen might instead see it once on the big screen (or not at all), and then watch a bootleg thereafter.
(By way of contrast, it's highly unlikely that someone who pirates a song or an album would actually pay for that song or that album if the illegal copy weren't an option. Music is much more commoditized, and social attitudes toward pirating music are much more permissive than toward pirating movies. Besides which, most people seem to agree that music is overpriced. Therefore, it's much easier to dismiss RIAA claims of "lost revenue" because the reality is that you can't lose what you never had to begin with. At least with movies, there are still plenty of ordinarily honest people who would be tempted to watch a bootleg movie instead of pay for a ticket to the theater. And the bootleg is almost always inferior to the big screen experience.)
Re:This is just what's wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically, she should be described as ... (Score:3, Informative)
Someone needs to correct it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about proportionality. In most states, first degree murder is a life offense. We consider murder a serious crime. On the other hand, driving over the speed limit will generally get you only a ticket.
In Michigan, carrying a concealed weapon without a license is a two year crime. Do you really think that having one movie on your hard drive is greater harm to society than someone illegally concealing a handgun?!
Get real (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. May we assume you have a source for that "insightful" fact? Instead of simply spouting off what you overheard at the last frat party, how about some actual numbers.
US Prison population, Dec 31 2002 - 2,033,331 [usdoj.gov]
Most of the increase in recent years has been due to violent offenses. [usdoj.gov]
Stalin's era - Approx 4 million [wsws.org] prisoners in the camps for political repression.
I'm not disagreeing that 2 million is a lot of people. But are they all there for "file swapping, pot smoking and wearing trenchcoats"? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Only on
Re:Get real (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and not all of them for the more benign drugs.
Anyway, my post was not to defend the US judicial system, but merely to refute the OP's badly mistaken assertation that the US currently imprisons more people than the USSR under Stalin.
"Lose their freedom". Break the law, and yes, you may lose your freedom. Don't like the law? Let's change it!
Let's attack the reasons for the drug trade.
Let's attack the reasons for the drug desire.
Let's attack the victim
Re:wake up already! (Score:3, Interesting)
Treaties, of course. But a nation as powerful a force as *China* only follows treaties to the extent that benefits China. If China decides to go hostile, what does the rest of the world think it's going to do about it?
All the military and political force in the world isn't going to force China to do anything China does not choose to do. Treaties are toilet paper without either cooperation or force. Right now, there is substantial