Quote:
Originally Posted by CrkMStanz
your vcr argument is dated - its not about 'a person' giving 'a copy' to their 'friend or two'
its about mass distribution in the scale of millions - COMPLETELY different - tho the vcr judgements were fair when applied to the 'physical tape copy' - they no longer apply.
|
but it not the average bit torrent user seeds to parity which means they are only giving away 1 copy really. so each transaction is exactly the same one copy given away
The only way you can get to mass distribution is to combine all of those individual transactions and falsely assign responsiblity to just one person.
the fact is you could do the same thing in the vcr example by adding up all the individual copies made by the millions of people and say see that mass distribution it should be punished
That a straw man arguement at best
when you take into account the fact that in the vcr example you are giving away a complete working copy of the file and in the bit torrent example even if you seed to parity you are giving no one a complete working copy of the file it actually the complete opposite.
Quote:
|
in canada - even murderers are 'innocent until proven guilty' even when caught red-handed - this however does NOT stop the cops from arresting them. So, why can't the digital theives be busted, presumed innocent, and sent thru the arrest/court system?? So, I say your argument is hot air - I'm not saying that they are to be assumed guilty - I am saying that if they steal they are (allegedly) theives and treated as such, and that laws be made to give law enforcement the wherewithall to actively pursue them.
|
again not the same thing, because they don't go ransacking thru your private info before they have at least a reasonable level of proof that you are potentially guilty.
i have no problem courts going after people if they are proven to be guilty without violating their privacy rights. prove to the level that is necessary to get the courts involved without using any tactic that violates their privacy or pay the fines for those violations and cops should get involved
but your bitching about privacy rights getting in the way of convicting those people, the police in the murders example you gave have to obey those privacy rights when investigating so why shouldn't you have to in the case of your digital thieves example.
Quote:
the private tracker idea is sound but still leaves everyone in the realm of a 'civil suit' against people who couldn't pay you anyways (or would dissappear, or live in an untouchable country or....) - and again - I have to do all the work and lay out the cash. And you know well that it is impossible for any one person to have the resources to identify, track down, and sue all of them.
so - you avoid the 'enforcement of law by the police' issue by basically saying that they shouldn't be involved and I need to personally track every website on the internet myself to 'find the infringers'
|
of course not it all about getting enough proof that the person is actually guilty of a crime without violating their privacy rights to do so. just because that level investigation would be cost prohibitive does not give you the right to take away peoples rights. IF it can't be done effectively then it is simple better to let it go and monetize the technology instead (like the movie industry did with the vcr).
Quote:
sorry - still haven't converted me to your ways
and I shall support every effort made by the courts and law enforcement to bring this to a halt - including voting for 'friendly' political persons/parties
|
and i will vote for the political parties which support fair use and maintaining the rights and freedoms we have. I will also make sure that every time anyone abuses those laws (like the suing of the dead person for the actual actions of a hacker) that every potential voter knows the names of the politicians who voted for that stupid law.
The more those laws are abused and ultimately turned over by the courts the less likely those politicians will get elected again.
We will see which one works, given how every fair use vs copyright battle has worked so far, i think my side will win again.