Software/Music/Movie Piracy Worse than child porn??? Huh?

[SUBMAN1]

Are these people serious and would rather give a harsher sentence to someone copying the neighbors DVD than to a Child Porn Ring? Is this a major case of government being way out of touch with its people? Wow!

Europeans should be wary of this too since stuff like this tends to trickle down to them too.

-S

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31256

Piracy worse than child pornography

Society's new perspectives


By Nick Farrell: Wednesday 26 April 2006, 06:44

THE NEW look Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) seems to be giving the world an unusual moral code.
Details of the upgraded act, which has the blessing of the music and film industry and the Bush administration, are now coming to light. It appears that the DMCA will have a maximum sentence of ten years inside for the crime of software and music piracy. It will also give the FBI the powers to wiretap suspected pirates.

Although sentencing varies in the US, the new law does send a very strange message as to what the government considers 'bad' in the 21st century.

For example assaulting a police officer will get you five years, downloading child porn will get you seven years, assaulting without a weapon will get you ten years and aggravated assault six years.

So in other words if you copy a Disney CD and sell it you will be in the same league as a paedophile who is distributing pictures of sexual attacks on children.

If you copy Craig David's CD you get ten years, but if you punch him in the face and pummel him into a seven day coma you will only get six. You are more likely to get the respect of the prison population with your six year sentence as well.

[The Noob]

Those Governement People are Nuts!

They Have the Arsch Offen!

If i Read such Stupid Bullsh!t i Could Freak Out!

[Onkel Neal]

Nick Farrell must have an agenda.

[TteFAboB]

So everybody agrees the only problem is the sentence being too harsh, out of proportion.

I concur, and propose a solution to fix the distortion: raise the rest of the sentences!

If copying a Disney CD for piracy will get someone 10 years, then assaulting a police officer should give 17 years, downloading child porn should give 21 years and aggravated assault 35 years.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

So everybody agrees the only problem is the sentence being too harsh, out of proportion.

I concur, and propose a solution to fix the distortion: raise the rest of the sentences!

If copying a Disney CD for piracy will get someone 10 years, then assaulting a police officer should give 17 years, downloading child porn should give 21 years and aggravated assault 35 years.

Nah - the DMCA just needs to be squashed and re-weritten from a consumer standpoint, not an industry standpoint. That is the only real solution. The way it is now just invades both yours and my rights.

-S

[Onkel Neal]

How would you suggest it be written from a "consumer standpoint"? For example....?

Do you disagree the creator of the material has final say over distribution? I'm curious what you mean by this, Subman.

Which of these parts would you propose squashing?

Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.

· Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.

· Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.

· Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.

· In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.

· Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.

· Limits liability of nonprofit institutions of higher education -- when they serve as online service providers and under certain circumstances -- for copyright infringement by faculty members or graduate students.

· Requires that "webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies.

· Requires that the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with relevant parties, submit to Congress recommendations regarding how to promote distance education through digital technologies while "maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users."

· States explicitly that "[n]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."

You have the floor.

.

[Ducimus]

I don't care what agenda's behind that horse**** of an article, their isnt much that is as digusting , or more disgusting then child porn, with the possible exception of murder.


by comparision, piracy is WAAAYYY down on the totem pole of the serious offenses.

Without going iinto too many details, i work with a large database on the internet. And as part of my job, i see ALOT of whats on the internet, so i have seen ALOT of child porn. Not by choice, but its part of my job. When these sites are discovered we pass them along to the proper authorites.

So i have seen just how bad this crap can be. Some of those images stick in your mind for days. Anyone who says piracy is worse then child pron should be forced to sit down and look through it all. Partcuarly that really nasty **** that comes out of russia or the ukraine.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I don't care what agenda's behind that horse**** of an article, their isnt much that is as digusting , or more disgusting then child porn, with the possible exception of murder.


by comparision, piracy is WAAAYYY down on the totem pole of the serious offenses.

Without going iinto too many details, i work with a large database on the internet. And as part of my job, i see ALOT of whats on the internet, so i have seen ALOT of child porn. Not by choice, but its part of my job. When these sites are discovered we pass them along to the proper authorites.

So i have seen just how bad this crap can be. Some of those images stick in your mind for days. Anyone who says piracy is worse then child pron should be forced to sit down and look through it all. Partcuarly that really nasty poo poo that comes out of russia or the ukraine.

I concur. Software piracy, whether the punishments are too strict or too loose, should not even be mentioned, let alone compared, with child porn.

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Partcuarly that really nasty poo poo that comes out of russia or the ukraine.

That is so true; it also shows how much those countries are full of mob, and its proven. And our government can't do much except giving a few protest in some annual meeting, which falls into deaf ears anyway…

[Abraham]

I have a slightly different comment to make than others up till now did. More about the article than about the maximum punishment.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31256

Piracy worse than child pornography

I find the title of the article demagogic and I am always dislike demagogy, whether it is political correct or not - as it is in this case.
The punishment is about downloading child porn. Every normal human being would consider sexual abuse of children for pornographic (and often commercial) purposes distusting and incomaparable to software and music piracy. But downloading is clicking a few times out of - sick - curiosity. And I find the maximum punishment for that (seven years) a bit stiff, but acceptable. Producing child pornography should hold a much higher maximum punishment.

Society's new perspectives

By Nick Farrell: Wednesday 26 April 2006, 06:44

THE NEW look Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) seems to be giving the world an unusual moral code.
Details of the upgraded act, which has the blessing of the music and film industry and the Bush administration, are now coming to light. It appears that the DMCA will have a maximum sentence of ten years inside for the crime of software and music piracy. It will also give the FBI the powers to wiretap suspected pirates.

Although sentencing varies in the US, the new law does send a very strange message as to what the government considers 'bad' in the 21st century.

This is utter nonsense.
The new law is not giving "an unusual moral code" and is sending only one message (one that is not very strange at all): maximum punishment for music or software piracy is 10 years.
The existing law on child pornography is sending the message that downloading child porn will get you a maximum sentense of 7 years.
You can criticise that law or not, but comparing punishments in new laws with existing laws will lead to one certain conclusion: it is impossible to make any new law that is 100% fair in this aspect.
My reaction: could there be a political agenda here?

For example assaulting a police officer will get you five years, downloading child porn will get you seven years, assaulting without a weapon will get you ten years and aggravated assault six years.

Here the journalist states correctly "downloading'.

So in other words if you copy a Disney CD and sell it you will be in the same league as a paedophile who is distributing pictures of sexual attacks on children.

I'm always wary when somebody finds it necassairy to translate perfectly understandele English "in other words".
And yes, there we go: the journalist suggests that "distributing" child porn holds a maximum punishment of 7 years.
Let's see if I can do the same:

Originally Posted by Abraham

In other words, criminal who steals for millions and millions of digital information from bona fide software and music producers and is thereby hurting a whole branch of the US economy finds himself in the same league as somebody who - let's say out of boredom or curiosity - once downloaded some child porn but never went into it again.

I think that was a fair mirror of mr. Nick Farrels argumentation.

So what is this journalist actually talking about: a maximum punishment of 7 years for a child-porn 'consumer' who is downloading or for a child-porn 'distributer', who is making a living out of sexual child abuse?
I sincerely hope that the greedy distributer gets a much stiffer sentence than the sick downloader...
(all italics by Abraham),

[August]

Originally Posted by Abraham

I have a slightly different comment to make than others up till now did. More about the article than about the maximum punishment.

I find the title of the article demagogic and I am always dislike demagogy, whether it is political correct or not - as it is in this case.
The punishment is about downloading child porn. Every normal human being would consider sexual abuse of children for pornographic (and often commercial) purposes distusting and incomaparable to software and music piracy. But downloading is clicking a few times out of - sick - curiosity. And I find the maximum punishment for that (seven years) a bit stiff, but acceptable. Producing child pornography should hold a much higher maximum punishment.

This is utter nonsense.
The new law is not giving "an unusual moral code" and is sending only one message (one that is not very strange at all): maximum punishment for music or software piracy is 10 years.
The existing law on child pornography is sending the message that downloading child porn will get you a maximum sentense of 7 years.
You can criticise that law or not, but comparing punishments in new laws with existing laws will lead to one certain conclusion: it is impossible to make any new law that is 100% fair in this aspect.
My reaction: could there be a political agenda here?

Here the journalist states correctly "downloading'.

I'm always wary when somebody finds it necassairy to translate perfectly understandele English "in other words".
And yes, there we go: the journalist suggests that "distributing" child porn holds a maximum punishment of 7 years.
Let's see if I can do the same:

I think that was a fair mirror of mr. Nick Farrels argumentation.

So what is this journalist actually talking about: a maximum punishment of 7 years for a child-porn 'consumer' who is downloading or for a child-porn 'distributer', who is making a living out of sexual child abuse?
I sincerely hope that the greedy distributer gets a much stiffer sentence than the sick downloader...
(all italics by Abraham),

Not really. You add amounts not present in the original argument and hurting a whole branch of the US economy is a bit over the top since if one were to somehow instantly remove all forms of electronic music it would hardly make a dent in the overall economy.

Also you fail to address the articles other issue, which is violent crime (assault) which is far worse.

[scandium]

I agree with the author of the article that the people drafting this legislation are out to lunch. Laws don't exist in a vacuum and the severity of a maximum sentence should be proportionate to both the crime and to maximum sentences for other crimes. Bad laws or those with out of proportion sentences are often simply not enforced.

In Canada we are still in a bit of a grey area as far as downloading music is concerned. Our Canadian version of RIAA has unsuccessfully sought in court to obtain the IP addresses from our biggest ISPs of those it alleged were illicitly downloading copyrighted material. The court refused, however, on the grounds that it was an unwarranted invasion of privacy and that Canadians already pay a levy on blank CD/DVDs that is distributed among the artists. The record industry had effectively sought to double dip by having us pay this levy, on the grounds that people buying blank CD/DVDs are using them to record downloaded music, and then attempting to sue them to regain "lost profits" for downloading music.

[micky1up]

these guys need to get real if copying movies and music is destroying the buisness then how come the british industry posted record profits earlier this year what a load of tosh for once im with the french on this one they are bringing a more liberal approach on file sharing and copying. its typical of the justice system most countries run if u harm people light sentences are given ,rob a bank of cash harming no-one and u get the book thrown at you

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

If you copy Craig David's CD you get ten years, but if you punch him in the face and pummel him into a seven day coma you will only get six. You are more likely to get the respect of the prison population with your six year sentence as well.

Quite frankly if anyone copies a Craig David CD they deserve to get life in jail.

[Wim Libaers]

There's something people are missing in that rather sloppy article, and it is mentioned in the source here:
http://www.ipdemocracy.com/archives/...ice_powers.php

"Even worse, the bill would expand section 1201 of the DMCA that bars trafficking in or distributing software capable of bypassing DRM systems to make it a crime to “make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess� such software."

So, you don't really have to pirate anything to be a criminal under the proposed new law. It is sufficient to buy SH3, and then use an unofficial patch that makes it run without Starforce because you're worried that it might damage your PC. Because you've bypassed a DRM system. Removing the rootkit installed on your PC by a Sony music CD? Go to jail.