3 ms·

Scale of OK-ness: 1) Downloading a KISS album from BitTorrent: A little bit not-OK 2) Prosecuting some kid who downloads a KISS album from BitTorrent, costin

Scale of OK-ness: 1) Downloading a KISS album from BitTorrent: A little bit not-OK 2) Prosecuting some kid who downloads a KISS album from BitTorrent, costing him or his family tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars: Extremely not-OK

hugh3 16y ago
That's silly. If you agree that something is both illegal and immoral, then how is prosecution not an appropriate response?
- lukifer 16y ago
  It's the proportionality of the prosecution. If it was a hundred dollar fine and 10 hours of community service, that would be a different story. Let's put it this way: why should "stealing" a 99c song be any different than shoplifting a 99c candy bar?
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    You can't own a song, but you can own a candy bar. As much as the ads say "own the cd now" or "own the blu ray now" you own nothing. You are just paying for a license and some otherwise useless physical media. Having said that, I still don't get why paying 99 cents for a song is so egregious if you've got a job.
    - lukifer 16y ago
      Yeah, the analogy to physical goods obviously doesn't hold; I just think it's funny that the same people who compare copyright violation to theft also tend to advocate suing for incredibly large amounts, when stealing the same physical item has a drastically smaller punishment. Interestingly enough, I suspect that if Big Media hadn't sought such absurdly punitive damages in the early days, (destroying what little credibility and moral high ground they had), most average people would have sided with them and aided in social enforcement. Something like, say, the cost of the infringing material plus a $100 fine would go a lot further to aid their cause than $100k lawsuits.
- twymer 16y ago
  I think he's arguing that the scale of the punishment is not just. People get charged up to several hundred thousand dollar fines for downloading a tiny amount of music.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I'd agree that's unjust. Got links to any cases where people have had to pay several hundred thousand dollar fines for downloading (rather than uploading) songs?
    - mquander 16y ago
      I'm not sure what the current state of law is. Morally speaking, I don't believe that people should be paying those kinds of fines for either downloading or uploading in "casual" use ("casual" meaning that they're not original distributors of the material.) The judgments that I immediately recall are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_v._Tenenbaum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_v._Tenenbaum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMG_Music_v._Gonzalez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMG_Music_v._Gonzalez

hugh3 16y ago

That's silly. If you agree that something is both illegal and immoral, then how is prosecution not an appropriate response?

lukifer 16y ago
It's the proportionality of the prosecution. If it was a hundred dollar fine and 10 hours of community service, that would be a different story. Let's put it this way: why should "stealing" a 99c song be any different than shoplifting a 99c candy bar?
- slantyyz 16y ago
  You can't own a song, but you can own a candy bar. As much as the ads say "own the cd now" or "own the blu ray now" you own nothing. You are just paying for a license and some otherwise useless physical media. Having said that, I still don't get why paying 99 cents for a song is so egregious if you've got a job.
  - lukifer 16y ago
    Yeah, the analogy to physical goods obviously doesn't hold; I just think it's funny that the same people who compare copyright violation to theft also tend to advocate suing for incredibly large amounts, when stealing the same physical item has a drastically smaller punishment. Interestingly enough, I suspect that if Big Media hadn't sought such absurdly punitive damages in the early days, (destroying what little credibility and moral high ground they had), most average people would have sided with them and aided in social enforcement. Something like, say, the cost of the infringing material plus a $100 fine would go a lot further to aid their cause than $100k lawsuits.
twymer 16y ago
I think he's arguing that the scale of the punishment is not just. People get charged up to several hundred thousand dollar fines for downloading a tiny amount of music.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I'd agree that's unjust. Got links to any cases where people have had to pay several hundred thousand dollar fines for downloading (rather than uploading) songs?
  - mquander 16y ago
    I'm not sure what the current state of law is. Morally speaking, I don't believe that people should be paying those kinds of fines for either downloading or uploading in "casual" use ("casual" meaning that they're not original distributors of the material.) The judgments that I immediately recall are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_v._Tenenbaum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_v._Tenenbaum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMG_Music_v._Gonzalez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMG_Music_v._Gonzalez