Do you think downloading MP3 files illegally should be punishable by jail time?

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

But do you think Rider and Lay should simply walk away free, without punishment?

Obviously not hence why I said Lay should face a hefty fine and have his business lisence revoked. In terms of Rider..community service should be extended to 2 years, a hefty fine, possibly house arrest. Non-violent criminals should be made to be productive for society and put to use instead of sitting on their duffs in prison doing nothing on the tax payers' dime.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Obviously not hence why I said Lay should face a hefty fine and have his business lisence revoked. In terms of Rider..community service should be extended to 2 years, a hefty fine, possibly house arrest. Non-violent criminals should be made to be productive for society and put to use instead of sitting on their duffs in prison doing nothing on the tax payers' dime.

No jail time = look what I got away with, ma!

 

[shuamort]

No jail time = look what I got away with, ma!

Really? So pecuniary awards are "getting away with things" too?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Really? So pecuniary awards are "getting away with things" too?

It might be. Are you recommending the state pay pay white collar criminals for their crimes?

 

[Dezaad]

Explain why a person would take the risks involved in developing new products if dweebs with copying equipment can then steal it without payment.

Music is the issue here. Frankly, I can't see any compelling reason to help the RIAA enforce these copyrights through incarceration of these particular lawbreakers.

Please explain why we as taxpayers should be forced to pay for the incarceration of people who engage in copyright infringement on artistic work? The purpose of copyright, as a construct, is to benefit society by arbitrarily defining ownership rights (please see the Constitution if you disagree that this is the purpose of copyright in America). What will happen to us as a society if we don't incarcerate these particular lawbreakers??? That is the only question that matters.

 

[shuamort]

It might be. Are you recommending the state pay pay white collar criminals for their crimes?

It's tough road to hoe, my point being that they're not getting away scot-free if they're not doing jail time. Of course, the problem with the way the punishments are being doled out by the RIAA is something raises my ire. The damages should be weighed as to what they had downloaded personally as well as fines/court fees/lawyer expenses. The people that downloaded the music/movies/et al should be punished for what they downloaded themselves and not what was possibly uploaded from their computer. The uploaded material is the sole responsibility and criminality of the other downloader.

 

[Dezaad]

Baloney, in that " Significantly, you've also impinged on no one for the use of any car already produced."

So, the infringer would have impinged on their use of a car already produced?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Music is the issue here. Frankly, I can't see any compelling reason to help the RIAA enforce these copyrights through incarceration of these particular lawbreakers.

Please explain why we as taxpayers should be forced to pay for the incarceration of people who engage in copyright infringement on artistic work? The purpose of copyright, as a construct, is to benefit society by arbitrarily defining ownership rights (please see the Constitution if you disagree that this is the purpose of copyright in America). What will happen to us as a society if we don't incarcerate these particular lawbreakers??? That is the only question that matters.

That's socialist gobbledy-gook.

The purpose of copyrights, patents, and trademarks is to protect the financial interests of the individual possessing them.

People who violate copyrights, patents, and trademarks are stealing.

People who steal are called theives.

Theives are put in jail.

Is that plain enough?

What will happen if the law isn't enforced and people's intellectual property is not protected? Well, I know a man who mortgaged his house, designed a helicopter in his living room, and now owns a 200 million dollar helicopter company based on his patents.

That's how patents, copyrights, and trademarks benefit "society". Frank certainly wouldn't have taken that risk if he wouldn't have been able to reap any rewards from it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So, the infringer would have impinged on their use of a car already produced?

No, they'd have impinged by using a car they didn't pay royalties on.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

No jail time = look what I got away with, ma!

Having your buisiness lisence revoked isn't getting away with the crime. Being made to do labor isn't getting away with the crime. Having to pay a large fine isn't getting away with the crime.

 

[shuamort]

So, should a family who sings "Happy Birthday to You" and does not compensate the copyright holder go to jail?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So, should a family who sings "Happy Birthday to You" and does not compensate the copyright holder go to jail?

Lay's fraud with Enron ruined, totally ruined the retirement plans, and hence the lives, of thousands of people. Jail is the only suitable punishment for crimes of such magnitude.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So, should a family who sings "Happy Birthday to You" and does not compensate the copyright holder go to jail?

Ummm....that's in the public domain...:roll:

 

[shuamort]

Ummm....that's in the public domain...:roll:

Umm, no it's not.
Snopes
Claim: The song "Happy Birthday to You" is protected by copyright.
Status: True.

The important part:
Who does own the publishing rights to "Happy Birthday to You"? They were acquired by a New York accountant named John F. Sengstack when he bought the Clayton F. Summy Company in the 1930s; Sengstack eventually relocated the company to New Jersey and renamed it Birch Tree Ltd. in the 1970s. Warner Chappell (a Warner Communications division), the largest music publisher in the world, purchased Birch Tree Ltd. in late 1998 for a reported sale price of $25 million; the company then became Summy-Birchard Music, now a part of the giant AOL Time Warner media conglomerate. According to David Sengstack, president of Summy-Birchard, "Happy Birthday to You" brings in about $2 million in royalties annually, with the proceeds split between Summy-Birchard and the Hill Foundation. (Both Hill sisters died unmarried and childless, so the Hill Foundation's share of the royalties have presumably been going to charity or to nephew Archibald Hill ever since Patty Hill passed away in 1946.)

 

[Kelzie]

That's socialist gobbledy-gook.

The purpose of copyrights, patents, and trademarks is to protect the financial interests of the individual possessing them.

People who violate copyrights, patents, and trademarks are stealing.

People who steal are called theives.

Theives are put in jail.

Is that plain enough?

What will happen if the law isn't enforced and people's intellectual property is not protected? Well, I know a man who mortgaged his house, designed a helicopter in his living room, and now owns a 200 million dollar helicopter company based on his patents.

That's how patents, copyrights, and trademarks benefit "society". Frank certainly wouldn't have taken that risk if he wouldn't have been able to reap any rewards from it.

Hey, whoa. Let's not go around insulting socialists. I happen to be one who agrees with you. At least here anyway.

They should have tossed out the key when Lay got locked up. Murder ruins what? One life for sure...maybe 10 by association. Enron ruined thousands.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Umm, no it's not.
Snopes
Claim: The song "Happy Birthday to You" is protected by copyright.
Status: True.

The important part:
Who does own the publishing rights to "Happy Birthday to You"? They were acquired by a New York accountant named John F. Sengstack when he bought the Clayton F. Summy Company in the 1930s; Sengstack eventually relocated the company to New Jersey and renamed it Birch Tree Ltd. in the 1970s. Warner Chappell (a Warner Communications division), the largest music publisher in the world, purchased Birch Tree Ltd. in late 1998 for a reported sale price of $25 million; the company then became Summy-Birchard Music, now a part of the giant AOL Time Warner media conglomerate. According to David Sengstack, president of Summy-Birchard, "Happy Birthday to You" brings in about $2 million in royalties annually, with the proceeds split between Summy-Birchard and the Hill Foundation. (Both Hill sisters died unmarried and childless, so the Hill Foundation's share of the royalties have presumably been going to charity or to nephew Archibald Hill ever since Patty Hill passed away in 1946.)

Okay, it's not in the public domain. Guess what?

If anyone EVER pays ME to sing that song as part of a public performance, I"ll more than happy to pay whatever royalties are due to the copyright holder. But private unpaid renditions by amateurs is totally unregulated. Always has been. Just like I can play "My Woman From Tokyo" over and over again for my friends in my home without violating the copyright laws. But I can't do a paid broadcast or use it as part of a DJ collection without paying ASCAP fees.

Get over it, your arguments re copyrights is empty. You've asked a question, it's been discussed. I asked a question, and it's been ignored.

Again. Why would anyone expend effort, ingenuity, time, and money to invent, write, compose, or otherwise be creative if their work is not protected?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hey, whoa. Let's not go around insulting socialists. I happen to be one who agrees with you. At least here anyway.

They should have tossed out the key when Lay got locked up. Murder ruins what? One life for sure...maybe 10 by association. Enron ruined thousands.

Well, it's still ignorant drivel. That better?

 

[Kelzie]

Well, it's still ignorant drivel. That better?

Why is everyone so upsest tonight? Last time I tell you that you had a good point.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Why is everyone so upsest tonight? Last time I tell you that you had a good point.

Hey, I took the socialist part out. I was tryin' really!

 

[Kelzie]

Hey, I took the socialist part out. I was tryin' really!

I don't believe you. :lol: Everyone knew what you were alluding to.

 

[shuamort]

Okay, it's not in the public domain. Guess what?

If anyone EVER pays ME to sing that song as part of a public performance, I"ll more than happy to pay whatever royalties are due to the copyright holder. But private unpaid renditions by amateurs is totally unregulated. Always has been. Just like I can play "My Woman From Tokyo" over and over again for my friends in my home without violating the copyright laws. But I can't do a paid broadcast or use it as part of a DJ collection without paying ASCAP fees.

Get over it, your arguments re copyrights is empty. You've asked a question, it's been discussed. I asked a question, and it's been ignored.

Again. Why would anyone expend effort, ingenuity, time, and money to invent, write, compose, or otherwise be creative if their work is not protected?

For the love of it? Go over to boingboing.net which promotes the creativecommons.org brand of copyright law which allows people to copy all of their work as long as they provide the source. No payment required.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

For the love of it? Go over to boingboing.net which promotes the creativecommons.org brand of copyright law which allows people to copy all of their work as long as they provide the source. No payment required.

Okay, those people are VOLUNTEERING to have their work distributed for free.

So what? We're discussing people who expect to be paid for their work.

 

[shuamort]

Okay, those people are VOLUNTEERING to have their work distributed for free.

So what? We're discussing people who expect to be paid for their work.

Oh, I see, you ask a question, I answer it, then you move the field goal when I kick. Your perimeters didn't say "people who expect to be paid for their work" when you asked your question.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Oh, I see, you ask a question, I answer it, then you move the field goal when I kick. Your perimeters didn't say "people who expect to be paid for their work" when you asked your question.

Well, any system of homogeneous linear equations has at least the trivial solution.

The trivial soluiton is when all the variables are zero.

I'm not usually interested in the trivial solution when posing questions.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Oh, I see, you ask a question, I answer it, then you move the field goal when I kick. Your perimeters didn't say "people who expect to be paid for their work" when you asked your question.

Well, any system of homogeneous linear equations has at least the trivial solution.

The trivial soluiton is when all the variables are zero.

I'm not usually interested in the trivial solution when posing questions.

Besides which, most people that copyright material and give it away for free are the worst sort of egotists. They're well aware what they produce is only marginally marketable, so they copyright it and then let it go for free, knowing it will go farther that way, with their name still attache to stroke their egos.