RIAA has got it all wrong

[Joe DeFuria]

I see criminals fundamentally as just humans, rather than fundamentally as bastards....

Um, I feel the same way.

The fact that you apparently equate my view of "punishment of criminals" to "veiwing criminals as something other than human" is interesting, as well as disappointing.

Receiving punishment for a crime does not a bastard make. But then, you've always had an issue with what can generically be termed "tough love." This is a rather interesting topic, and if you'd care to start a new thread on this as Dr. Ffreeze suggests (away from the specifics of pirating software) it could be an interesting discussion.

 

[Humus]

OK, so maybe I worded it badly. It's not that I don't think punishment is needed, it's that I see it as secondary and help as primary, at least for first time offenders, though you seem to think the other way around.

But I'll start a new thread about it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

OK, so maybe I worded it badly. It's not that I don't think punishment is needed, it's that I see it as secondary and help as primary, at least for first time offenders, though you seem to think the other way around.

That's not exactly how I see it.

I said earlier that punishment should certainly be different for "light" offenders, vs. "habitual" offenders. But punishment in some (some kind of negative consequence) must be administered.

That being said, punishment vs. "help" is a case by case situation. I'd say punishment in some form should always be applied. You simply cannot pick and choose which offenders get "punished" and which ones don't. "Help" is not always needed, nor is it effective, as many, if not most times, these people know exactly what they're doing.

Natoma, for example, is a prime candidate for someone who needs help.

In short: yes, I see punishment as primary and "help" as secondary. (Punishment is mandatory, and help is on a case by base basis.) However, this doesn't mean I don't think the level of punishment shouldn't fit the level of the crime.

 

[Sabastian]

These laws against copying music are impractical and cannot be enforced in reality. It is despicable that the recording industry actually prosecuted this child.(Or any for that matter.) Indeed it is an injustice that only one of millions should be penalized for this supposed crime. Must I expect to hear of more children that should come under pen of a lawyer employed by the recording industry, or no? I say music should be excluded from copy right protection particularly with regards to non commercial exploit.

BD : Where is the competitive pricing that consumers are supposed to enjoy in market capitalism? I do not have the time right now to reply to your arguments but I may when I find the time to argue over this.

 

[RM. Andersson]

I think that a lot of ordinary people will not understand the difference between downloading a song on the internet or recording it from the radio.

Of course it might be reasonable to say that there is a difference. But I guess most common people will not think like that.
That´s why people that would normally never steal anything download music. They don´t understand why it´s not legal. It makes no sense to them. They think: I can do this and this and thats legal. Why not this?

A law in it self will not help much if people fail to understand that it´s fair and can be morally justified. People that don´t understand will continue to break that law as long as they think that they can get away with it.
Thats why it´s important that a law is related to a common principle that most people agrees with.
And it must also be valid in all similar situations. I mean most people will never be able to understand that there is a difference between a digital copy and a analog copy. Not a moral difference at least.
Even if I fully understand the difference between analog and digital I must say that there is no obvious moral difference that anyone could be expected to be able to understand.

The problem, IMO, is that the laws must make more sense. They must be easy to understand and must be valid in all situations. They must be based on general moral principles and not on technical differences between different alternatives.
Also I think there must be more options to buy music that will make more customers satisfied.

Regards!

 

[ByteMe]

If they don't and have enough money to make the court system work to their advantage then fokk them. I pirate and recommend everyone to pirate microsoft as much as possible.

I sincerely hope ur joking or have some reason why we shouldn't apply the same logic elsewhere (read: anarchy).

Nope. Not joking. If a company such as Microsoft is NOT following the law and has enough money to corrupt the justice system why should I follow the laws with their (Microsoft) products?


DISCLAIMER *** I am not recommending that you PIRATE any Microsoft product. I am just recommending that you never BUY a Microsoft product.

 

[notAFanB]

oooookaaay........


*runs*