The importance of proper education.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:43 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:@ Deathlike2: Sorry, I was a little fast, what I mean with "don't care for" (witch should have been NOT care for) is "ignore" as in pretend there wasn't a law against it in the first place. Because laws need ACCEPTANCE to be efficient in the long run.

As an example, there was a law in Sweden you must pay a tax for giving gifts of greater value than about $700. however they never got any tax paying requests what so ever, concluding that people didn't want this kind of law, they removed it, and that is what I hope will happen with laws agains piracy, excepted if you make a profit from it, witch in my opinion is wrong.

What you speak of is enforcement of the law. Of course if you don't enforce it, then it isn't really useful at all. Groups such as the RIAA want enforcement of the law (although, they want more than that).

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:01 pm

what really disgusts me is they want to make it possible to keep it outside the justice machinery by turning it into civil cases. giving the explanation that when speaking with the police about putting more resources into enforcing the copyright law (we have about one court case every 6 months here) the police replied they have to prioritize "real" crimes.. witch really should tell why it is retarded that the law is there to begin with.

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:29 pm

Firon wrote:No, it's copyright infringement. There is a legal distinction between theft and copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is the use of copyrighted materials wholy or partly without permission or proper attribution for fair use.

If payment was a prerequisit to permission, then its theft, like its theft to steal power.

Stealing software is both a civil tort and a criminal offense.

Its called piracy because the first batch of big software stealers were dumb enough to call themselves pirates rather than copyright infringers.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:46 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:what really disgusts me is they want to make it possible to keep it outside the justice machinery by turning it into civil cases. giving the explanation that when speaking with the police about putting more resources into enforcing the copyright law (we have about one court case every 6 months here) the police replied they have to prioritize "real" crimes.. witch really should tell why it is retarded that the law is there to begin with.

So even if they turn a punishable crime into a civil case, in which you only need to settle in how many damage was done with your action and pay the person you damaged.. You want to be treated as a criminal?

Man, I want you to be my thesis.

And I won't credit you one bit.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:58 pm

funkyass wrote:Its called piracy because the first batch of big software stealers were dumb enough to call themselves pirates rather than copyright infringers.

Argh.

Joe Camacho wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:what really disgusts me is they want to make it possible to keep it outside the justice machinery by turning it into civil cases. giving the explanation that when speaking with the police about putting more resources into enforcing the copyright law (we have about one court case every 6 months here) the police replied they have to prioritize "real" crimes.. witch really should tell why it is retarded that the law is there to begin with.
So even if they turn a punishable crime into a civil case, in which you only need to settle in how many damage was done with your action and pay the person you damaged.. You want to be treated as a criminal?

Man, I want you to be my thesis.

And I won't credit you one bit.

Making these cases civil actually helps the courts... since criminal cases are supposed to be for vile people. The RIAA does have a good point, believe it or not. The police as also correct in putting more resources into enforcing copyright law is not really as important since I'd rather have the more evil menaces to society behind bars.

Joe, this is too funny if Oskar thinks that being charged as a criminal (meaning jail time and fines if applicable), instead of being charged in civil court (simply fines) is a better idea.

Where is the straight jacket when you need it?

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:03 pm

As long as you agree the money you pay is a fair "compensation" for the "damage" you did the the poor starving billion dollar software/record/movie company I believe it would be better, the problem is I do not think its right to pay one CENT above the supposed "market value" of the stuff you downloaded, but they will make you pay millions, so, again they manage to do something that is totally out of proportion.
I heard in the Stated they're trying to sue People who have never had an internet connection, and even DEAD people.. they haven't got THAT retarded in Sweden just yet, but they're working on it I'm sure. Also, in a civil case, the side with the most expensive lawyer always win. witch is another reason I don't think its a good system. Justice should not be able to be bought by money.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:10 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:As long as you agree the money you pay is a fair "compensation" for the "damage" you did the the poor starving billion dollar software/record/movie company I believe it would be better, the problem is I do not think its right to pay one CENT above the supposed "market value" of the stuff you downloaded, but they will make you pay millions, so, again they manage to do something that is totally out of proportion.

Well, let's put it this way. You pay $10 for the music cd, or 100-1000x that value if you get caught. The math is simple there. You are not actually "compensating" for the product when you are fined, rather you are feeding the monster known as the RIAA. Strangely you might find that just ironic. Fines are not supposed to be "fair compensation". You do the crime, you pay up.

I heard in the Stated they're trying to sue People who have never had an internet connection, and even DEAD people.. they haven't got THAT retarded in Sweden just yet, but they're working on it I'm sure. Also, in a civil case, the side with the most expensive lawyer always win. witch is another reason I don't think its a good system. Justice should not be able to be bought by money.

Those are instances where the RIAA are simply just stupid morons. On the other hand, lots of things are influenced by money. It is rather unfortunate that money influences peope, society, and politics.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:20 pm

That's what I have been saying all along. These laws exist because the entertainment industry has money enough to MAKE it exist. No sane person (unless he was payed really really good) would put the law the way it is today. If it was there because people in general actually believed the picture of starving performers, people would also respect the law. However, people never actually saw a starving musician blaming piracy he had to sell his wife and children in order to survive, so they don't respect the law. There is no reason to have it.
So far, Noone has ever gone to prisson for downloading in Sweden, but they have been forced to pay fines, though said fines have allways been paid by donations or insurance companies specialized in helping people that are victims of copyright laws, one of them is brilliant, if you get caught, they pay your fines and you get a t-shirt with the text "I got caught for piracy, and all I got was this crappy t-shirt".

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:28 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:That's what I have been saying all along.

Doubtful.

These laws exist because the entertainment industry has money enough to MAKE it exist. No sane person (unless he was payed really really good) would put the law the way it is today.

Some of them yes. However, the average person who has created something cool wants to be paid. These are the people that these laws primarily were designed for. You are overlooking the basic concept why those laws were there in the first place. If you don't like the specifics, that's fine, but the general idea is not going to be changed anytime soon.

If it was there because people in general actually believed the picture of starving performers, people would also respect the law. However, people never actually saw a starving musician blaming piracy he had to sell his wife and children in order to survive, so they don't respect the law. There is no reason to have it.

Most of the time, the people who suffer the most are those that are simply unsuccessful (in other words, they suck). They aren't around to bitch+moan about this because noone is going to listen to their stuff in the first place. Note that music artists, singers, whatever make the most money from concerts. A relatively small portion is from cd sales. The people most affected (the RIAA) wants the missing dimes they are not getting for cd sales. I can understand the reluctance to feed the evil RIAA, but by comparison.. get caught is feeding them more. You simply don't understand the magnitude of difference there.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:38 pm

I don't have a problem with people getting payed for what they do, the way I see it though is that if you have ENOUGH (yes that is indeed a vague expression based on individual opinion) There is no reason why I should pay.

After I got paypal I did do quite a bit of donation to people I beleve should have credit and appreciation for their work.

If people suck. then they need to find other jobs. it certainly isn't a RIGHT to make billions of dollars just because you are a musician or whatever it might be.

I have said all along that the main income for musicians are coming from concerts, witch I believe you should pay for.. because you get an IRREPRODUCABLE experience.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:47 pm

Hopefully this is the last post I have on this topic.

Oskar, I've concluded that you have a sense of entitlement... the same thing the RIAA has. You feel that you are entitled to pirating music and you just can't justify that at all.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:51 pm

The RIAA can't justify it either, but they don't need to because they can just pay the cash and make laws.

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:54 pm

Its not a sense of entitlement - he just wants the laws to change so he is no longer a crook in his own mind.

In short, he wants to fart, and have it smell like roses.

He doesn't give a damn about painters and forged paintings, or anything else he was infringed upon.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:01 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:The RIAA can't justify it either, but they don't need to because they can just pay the cash and make laws.

The thing is, the RIAA doesn't have to justify it. There's generally no justification for breaking the law. The RIAA can do whatever they want when you break those particular laws.

funkyass wrote:Its not a sense of entitlement - he just wants the laws to change so he is no longer a crook in his own mind.

In short, he wants to fart, and have it smell like roses.

He doesn't give a damn about painters and forged paintings, or anything else he was infringed upon.

Point taken.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:10 pm

As they are the ones who CREATED the law that kind of goes without saying,

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:15 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:As they are the ones who CREATED the law that kind of goes without saying,

That's not quite true. IIRC, law provides compensation/fines to those affected. In this case, it can be any person, group, or representative. In this case, the RIAA is the one representing here. These copyright laws were written by people+companies.. not the RIAA in particular. To suggest that the RIAA wrote the very basic laws is totally wrong.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:31 pm

Deathlike2 wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:As they are the ones who CREATED the law that kind of goes without saying,
That's not quite true. IIRC, law provides compensation/fines to those affected. In this case, it can be any person, group, or representative. In this case, the RIAA is the one representing here. These copyright laws were written by people+companies.. not the RIAA in particular. To suggest that the RIAA wrote the very basic laws is totally wrong.

My mistake. However they are the ones (among others) who has got anything to benefit from it and they are the ones making the laws worse and worse, reducing the right for the consumer with every new revision of these laws.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:42 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:As they are the ones who CREATED the law that kind of goes without saying,
That's not quite true. IIRC, law provides compensation/fines to those affected. In this case, it can be any person, group, or representative. In this case, the RIAA is the one representing here. These copyright laws were written by people+companies.. not the RIAA in particular. To suggest that the RIAA wrote the very basic laws is totally wrong.
My mistake. However they are the ones (among others) who has got anything to benefit from it and they are the ones making the laws worse and worse, reducing the right for the consumer with every new revision of these laws.

You mean the CONSUMER who doesn't PAY for the PRODUCT?

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously, thesis material right here.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:53 pm

Joe Camacho wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:As they are the ones who CREATED the law that kind of goes without saying,
That's not quite true. IIRC, law provides compensation/fines to those affected. In this case, it can be any person, group, or representative. In this case, the RIAA is the one representing here. These copyright laws were written by people+companies.. not the RIAA in particular. To suggest that the RIAA wrote the very basic laws is totally wrong.
My mistake. However they are the ones (among others) who has got anything to benefit from it and they are the ones making the laws worse and worse, reducing the right for the consumer with every new revision of these laws.
You mean the CONSUMER who doesn't PAY for the PRODUCT?

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously, thesis material right here.

Heh.

Seriously, I don't have any issues with people not wanting crappier consumer laws. On the other hand, I don't have any issues with companies wanting you to pay up even more if you did not pay for their product.

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:57 pm

Joe Camacho wrote:You mean the CONSUMER who doesn't PAY for the PRODUCT?

What he probably meant to say was that the laws are restricting the rights for the actual paying consumers.

lockharte · Post by **lockharte** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:58 pm

are you two related

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:00 pm

Johan_Hanberg wrote:
Joe Camacho wrote:You mean the CONSUMER who doesn't PAY for the PRODUCT?
What he probably meant to say was that the laws are restricting the rights for the actual paying consumers.

BRILLIANT!... err.. I mean.. yes thats exactly what I mean, no seriously. It does, but the main reason is still that the punishment is far from in proportion to the crime.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:03 pm

lockharte wrote:are you two related

No. Just because a person has a different opinion than you doesn't make them retarded, but maybe you fail to realize that because YOU are retarded?

lockharte · Post by **lockharte** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:05 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:
lockharte wrote:are you two related
No. Just because a person has a different opinion than you doesn't make them retarded, but maybe you fail to realize that because YOU are retarded?

you just proved yourself wrong

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:08 pm

lockharte wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:
lockharte wrote:are you two related
No. Just because a person has a different opinion than you doesn't make them retarded, but maybe you fail to realize that because YOU are retarded?
you just proved yourself wrong

And you just proved yourself clueless.

Seriously.. If people think that certain opinions can be WRONG rather than NOT AGREEABLE thats all I need to know.. we have too different system of values to even be able to have a discussion. I am done with this thread (Unless someone write something I feel tempted answering too.)