3 ms·

Were they the legal owners of the copyright? Yes. Did they post the material themselves, yes. Have other companies posted their own works in slightly corrupt

by jmpman 7y ago

Were they the legal owners of the copyright? Yes. Did they post the material themselves, yes. Have other companies posted their own works in slightly corrupt form to thwart pirates? I expect yes. Do other companies sue pirates for downloading their material? Yes. Do those companies typically sue for an amount less than a value which would cause the pirate to go to trial? Yes. The only difference I see is that Prenda uploaded “good” copies and sued. Had they uploaded corrupt copies, with a link to their website where you could download the files for $1, and a third party then uploaded the non-corrupt file to BitTorrent, it seems very close to what the large corporations are doing.

jmpman 7y ago
Taking it to the next level, someone should patent the business model of doing this, and then just sue Prenda 2.0 for violating their patent.
save_ferris 7y ago
Again, I'm not saying that large corporations don't do stuff like this, I entirely believe that they do. What I don't understand is how that's a valid argument for why these guys got too harsh of a punishment. Just because big, powerful people get away with this stuff doesn't mean that it shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Should laypeople not be prosecuted for the same crimes that big corporations also commit but fail to be held accountable for? Just because someone does it and gets away with it doesn't make it right. And if we excuse everyone who does what big corporations do, then what's the point of having a legal system? Sure, big corps absolutely need to be reigned in. But arguing that these guys were punished too harshly for committing crimes simply because other, more powerful people commit crimes too is illogical. If every layperson were let off on something that a rich, powerful person got away with, then there'd be no one to punish, because all behavior would be acceptable.
- jmpman 7y ago
  I agree they broke the law. I’m just trying to understand what small change needed to happen so they wouldn’t have broken the law. Paying their taxes - after Al Capone, you’d think any one skirting the law would at least cover that base. What else would they need to change?

by jmpman 7y ago

jmpman 7y ago

Taking it to the next level, someone should patent the business model of doing this, and then just sue Prenda 2.0 for violating their patent.

save_ferris 7y ago

Again, I'm not saying that large corporations don't do stuff like this, I entirely believe that they do. What I don't understand is how that's a valid argument for why these guys got too harsh of a punishment. Just because big, powerful people get away with this stuff doesn't mean that it shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Should laypeople not be prosecuted for the same crimes that big corporations also commit but fail to be held accountable for? Just because someone does it and gets away with it doesn't make it right. And if we excuse everyone who does what big corporations do, then what's the point of having a legal system? Sure, big corps absolutely need to be reigned in. But arguing that these guys were punished too harshly for committing crimes simply because other, more powerful people commit crimes too is illogical. If every layperson were let off on something that a rich, powerful person got away with, then there'd be no one to punish, because all behavior would be acceptable.

jmpman 7y ago
I agree they broke the law. I’m just trying to understand what small change needed to happen so they wouldn’t have broken the law. Paying their taxes - after Al Capone, you’d think any one skirting the law would at least cover that base. What else would they need to change?