Post subject: Re: Who the fuck is Joel and why is he fighting back?
Posted: Sat 02-07-2009 7:37PM
bertowned
Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 4:26PM Posts: 2118
Source: Off Campus
cmptrnrd16 wrote:
Plus look at who has jurisdiction over the two cases. You steal a CD and only your local county cares. You share a CD internationally and then it is a federal court issue. Let's be real and make some apples to apples comparisons.
I think I was making apples to apples comparisons. One individual steals 2 CD's with radically different outcomes depending on how the person acquires the CD's.
I'm not even going to get into the whole issue of how our society looks at stealing or distributing digital information. That's a whole different moral issue. Here we're dealing with the fact that the Justice system isn't fair or just. In a truly equal justice system - the consequences would be the same at the federal level at the municipal level. IE: if Bad Guy A kidnapps a kid in STL, MO and takes them to Rolla, MO his crime is all within the state. Bad Guy B kidnapps a kid in STL, and takes them across the Misissippi to Illinois, its a interstate crime. However, their jail sentences should be about the same - even though A is tried in a Missouri court, and B is tried in Federal Court. Under a fair justice system, what jurisdiction stealing a CD falls under should not affect the punishment.
_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil. Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.
Plus look at who has jurisdiction over the two cases. You steal a CD and only your local county cares. You share a CD internationally and then it is a federal court issue. Let's be real and make some apples to apples comparisons.
I think I was making apples to apples comparisons. One individual steals 2 CD's with radically different outcomes depending on how the person acquires the CD's.
I'm not even going to get into the whole issue of how our society looks at stealing or distributing digital information. That's a whole different moral issue. Here we're dealing with the fact that the Justice system isn't fair or just. In a truly equal justice system - the consequences would be the same at the federal level at the municipal level. IE: if Bad Guy A kidnapps a kid in STL, MO and takes them to Rolla, MO his crime is all within the state. Bad Guy B kidnapps a kid in STL, and takes them across the Misissippi to Illinois, its a interstate crime. However, their jail sentences should be about the same - even though A is tried in a Missouri court, and B is tried in Federal Court. Under a fair justice system, what jurisdiction stealing a CD falls under should not affect the punishment.
Intricacy here: Is kidnapping covered under common law? Thus, no matter which court is hearing the case for the offense of kidnapping, the law is still the same. Copyright is a federal law - all copyright cases end up in the federal district so that copyright is handled uniformly throughout the nation.
I think the stiff penalties tied to copyright violation are intended for things like commercial piracy (or other profit motivated violations). The punishment really doesn't fit the crime for "casual" infringement (like sharing music).
_________________ I have now been banned three times. Join the club
Post subject: Re: Who the fuck is Joel and why is he fighting back?
Posted: Tue 02-10-2009 9:15AM
Major General
Joined: Sat 10-18-2003 10:26PM Posts: 2954 Location: Stone's throw from Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs
Source: Off Campus
amd2800barton wrote:
At risk of sounding like the nutso bounty hunter from the end of Firefly, I'm going to propose this:
A guy walks into Best Buy and steals two CDs. He gets caught, prosecuted, and maybe even given jail time. After a couple years - that same man can literally be back in his old life as if the incident had never happened. It will take him a little while to get a comparable job again, but if he's not a total moron - it won't put his life more than a few years behind.
A mom downloads two CDs worth of songs on the internet. The RIAA harasses her, her family, and anyone who has ever known her. They destroy her credit rating, and humiliate her publicly. Then they hit her with the biggest lawsuit you can imagine. Going to court with her lawyers becomes her full time job. The case (which takes years of arduous and stressful litigation) ends with the mom owing hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus her own legal fees) that she has absolutely no way of paying. It would take her decades to pay off, and she still has a family to support. Her entire life is ruined by this.
Now here's where i sound like that bounty hunter: Does this seem fair to you? The laws in this country are so fucked up - a massive overhaul of everything from the patent & copyright laws to the justice system is needed.
-1.
Walking into Best Buy and stealing two CDs is a crime, punishable by whatever state statutes are set up. You'll have a record, you may very well go to jail, and if the DA is able to trump the charges up enough on you, you could be convicted of a felony. When that happens, good luck ever getting licensed. Honestly this is nonforcible petty theft, and any reasonable judge on a first offense is going to sentence you to restitution, a fine, and community service...MAYBE one year suspended sentence if he really thinks you'll prove to be a dick.
Downloading music online is also criminal, but it's almost NEVER charged or brought to court in the criminal justice system. Why? It's much too hard to prove intent and commission beyond a reasonable doubt...and it's not worth the DA's time to investigate for it. What's happening here with the RIAA is a civil suit between the record companies and the individual downloading or sharing music under tort law. What the record company is saying is, "You've taken away some of our earning potential by ignoring our copyright. We're going to get that stolen opportunity back from you, plus punitive damages, and all our associated costs, to ensure you'll never do it again." The big point here is it's the record company suing you...it's NOT the government prosecuting you. Therefore, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply. It's who has the most evidence, and the best evidence. And most importantly, there's no circumstance where you can go to jail/prison/even Saturday morning trash pickup over this. No felony conviction. No conviction period.
You say it's more painful to go through litigation. I say that as a professional, I'd rather not have a criminal record. For me, owing $100,000 and having a dinged credit rating is better. Course I'd be smart enough to settle out of court. If I had to get shouldered with 3, 5 million dollars in damages...well, that would just plain outright suck.
To the above argument, is copyright infringement not a law that is punishable? And are those punishments defined within said Act, enforced by the government?
To the above argument, is copyright infringement not a law that is punishable? And are those punishments defined within said Act, enforced by the government?
There is criminal copyright infringement, but for the most part copyright is a civil issue. 17 USC section 103-117 or so is copyright if you want to look it up. I think. The law awards actual damages, statutory damages of (no less than $750, no more than $30,000 per infringement) *or* statutory damages for willful infringement of no more than $150,000 per infringement. It's a pain in the ass to prove actual damages so most entities will elect for the statutory damages.
I don't know/remember the requirements for criminal infringement - but this would be the only point where the government would get involved.
Anyways, you can think of it like a car wreck. Yes, it is illegal for you to crash your car into me. You will get a ticket and the punishment that comes along with it. Regardless, I can still sue you for the damages you've done to me, plus any punitive damages the court finds reasonable. This is why you have insurance - when you accept an insurance payment, it's like a settlement to not go to court and sue the liable party.
_________________ I have now been banned three times. Join the club
Since when do we prosecute based on potential damages?
On the criminal side, drunk driving and mishandling classified information are two things I can think of off the top of my head. And I'm not even trying that hard.
Since when do we prosecute based on potential damages?
On the criminal side, drunk driving and mishandling classified information are two things I can think of off the top of my head. And I'm not even trying that hard.
I guess I should have been more clear: Since when do we prosecute based on potential damages when the laws on the books don't mention them.
When you steal a $100 watch, they don't prosecute you based on the fact that you potentially had access to the whole counter.
_________________ I have now been banned three times. Join the club
Post subject: Re: Who the fuck is Joel and why is he fighting back?
Posted: Tue 02-10-2009 10:44PM
Major General
Joined: Sat 10-18-2003 10:26PM Posts: 2954 Location: Stone's throw from Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs
Source: Wilson Library
benm wrote:
zkissane wrote:
benm wrote:
Since when do we prosecute based on potential damages?
On the criminal side, drunk driving and mishandling classified information are two things I can think of off the top of my head. And I'm not even trying that hard.
I guess I should have been more clear: Since when do we prosecute based on potential damages when the laws on the books don't mention them.
When you steal a $100 watch, they don't prosecute you based on the fact that you potentially had access to the whole counter.
No, but the jewelry store owner can sue you for the cost of repairs to the facility, a day's lost business, damage to the business's reputation, cost of evidence collection and crime scene processing, cost of cleaning and rehabbing of all the jewelry you knocked over, alarm system upgrades, and five year's increased theft insurance premiums, plus attorney's fees and punitive damages. And that's me thinking of the obvious things in five minutes, imagine what an experienced tort lawyer could drum up.
Post subject: Re: Who the fuck is Joel and why is he fighting back?
Posted: Tue 02-10-2009 10:53PM
Major General
Joined: Sat 10-18-2003 10:26PM Posts: 2954 Location: Stone's throw from Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs
Source: Wilson Library
benm wrote:
zkissane wrote:
benm wrote:
Since when do we prosecute based on potential damages?
On the criminal side, drunk driving and mishandling classified information are two things I can think of off the top of my head. And I'm not even trying that hard.
I guess I should have been more clear: Since when do we prosecute based on potential damages when the laws on the books don't mention them.
When you steal a $100 watch, they don't prosecute you based on the fact that you potentially had access to the whole counter.
Also, in order to convict someone of the crime of robbery, the prosecution has to prove seven things, beyond a reasonable doubt: The convicted must have a) illegally taken b) and carried away c) personal property d) belonging to another individual e) without the other's consent f) by force or forcible entry g) with the intent of forever depriving the rightful owner of the benefit of the goods. All seven components must exist. The prosecution can therefore not prosecute on the potential of theft, because none of those objects were taken, carried away, or removed from the benefit of the victim. Therefore robbery of those items has not occurred.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum