4 ms·

Try to think about yourself as a movie creator, for example. Or even an investor. You are sweating your blood, doing everything to get your movie made, believi

by runn1ng 15y ago

Try to think about yourself as a movie creator, for example. Or even an investor. You are sweating your blood, doing everything to get your movie made, believing it will make you money in the future. Taking huge risks, if you are an invetor, or spending huge amounts of time, if you are a moviemaker. And then some asshole, who pays cheap buck for hosting, will make money on YOUR creation, without you seeing any of the money he makes. You have to balance the rights of the copyright holders and consumers' rights.

tzs 15y ago
(Note: up voting you to counter the idiotic down vote you received) That asshole who puts the movie up on cheap hosting and tries to make some money off it will be swamped by all the people putting it up on cheap hosting for free or on P2P networks for free. That's my point--legalizing non-commercial file sharing but not legalizing commercial file sharing has pretty much exactly the same outcome as legalizing all file sharing without distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial. All that distinguishing them accomplishes is make the law more complicated because there will need to be some kind of definition of "commercial" and that can get tricky. I suspect they are making the distinction to try to make people think that legalized non-commercial file sharing would not have much impact. They want people to think of it as the kind of sharing you do when you loan your neighbor a DVD, or borrow a CD and rip it...perhaps technically illegal but because it is on such a personal level it isn't going to have a hugh impact.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Filesharers may offer files on P2P networks for free, but they don't print books or burn millions of DVDs for free. That would still be a privilege of the copyright owner (and its licensees). All that distinguishing them accomplishes is make the law more complicated because there will need to be some kind of definition of "commercial" and that can get tricky. That already exists. For example, in the US copyright infringement is a civil case, unless it's done for "commercial advantage or private financial gain", then it becomes an actual crime¹. The EU law has also a bunch of exceptions/fair use clauses that only apply to "non-commercial" use. I suspect they are making the distinction to try to make people think that legalized non-commercial file sharing would not have much impact. They want people to think of it as the kind of sharing you do when you loan your neighbor a DVD, or borrow a CD and rip it...perhaps technically illegal but because it is on such a personal level it isn't going to have a hugh impact. I doubt it; anyone who even considers voting for them knows that's not really true. It's just to differentiate the intention, which is already extremely important in most laws. ¹ http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
  - kragen 15y ago
    > in the US copyright infringement is a civil case, unless it's done for "commercial advantage or private financial gain" Unfortunately, the NET Act, passed in the wake of David LaMacchia leaving a writable FTP directory on his server that was also world-readable and failing to be convicted of anything, has redefined "private financial gain" to include the expectation of receiving copies of data in return. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

by runn1ng 15y ago

tzs 15y ago

(Note: up voting you to counter the idiotic down vote you received) That asshole who puts the movie up on cheap hosting and tries to make some money off it will be swamped by all the people putting it up on cheap hosting for free or on P2P networks for free. That's my point--legalizing non-commercial file sharing but not legalizing commercial file sharing has pretty much exactly the same outcome as legalizing all file sharing without distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial. All that distinguishing them accomplishes is make the law more complicated because there will need to be some kind of definition of "commercial" and that can get tricky. I suspect they are making the distinction to try to make people think that legalized non-commercial file sharing would not have much impact. They want people to think of it as the kind of sharing you do when you loan your neighbor a DVD, or borrow a CD and rip it...perhaps technically illegal but because it is on such a personal level it isn't going to have a hugh impact.

icebraining 15y ago
Filesharers may offer files on P2P networks for free, but they don't print books or burn millions of DVDs for free. That would still be a privilege of the copyright owner (and its licensees). All that distinguishing them accomplishes is make the law more complicated because there will need to be some kind of definition of "commercial" and that can get tricky. That already exists. For example, in the US copyright infringement is a civil case, unless it's done for "commercial advantage or private financial gain", then it becomes an actual crime¹. The EU law has also a bunch of exceptions/fair use clauses that only apply to "non-commercial" use. I suspect they are making the distinction to try to make people think that legalized non-commercial file sharing would not have much impact. They want people to think of it as the kind of sharing you do when you loan your neighbor a DVD, or borrow a CD and rip it...perhaps technically illegal but because it is on such a personal level it isn't going to have a hugh impact. I doubt it; anyone who even considers voting for them knows that's not really true. It's just to differentiate the intention, which is already extremely important in most laws. ¹ http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
- kragen 15y ago
  > in the US copyright infringement is a civil case, unless it's done for "commercial advantage or private financial gain" Unfortunately, the NET Act, passed in the wake of David LaMacchia leaving a writable FTP directory on his server that was also world-readable and failing to be convicted of anything, has redefined "private financial gain" to include the expectation of receiving copies of data in return. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act