backtop

Print 139 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Mar 25 at 11:38 AM
Results advocate enforcement by providers

7 out of 10 file sharers would cease pirating if they received a warning from their ISP, says UK law firm Wiggin in its soon-to-be-released 2008 Digital Entertainment Survey.

The survey presents compelling news for the world’s content owners, as it paints a telling picture against the resolve of digital pirates in the UK.  In addition to the aforementioned findings, 66% of the survey’s respondents said they would “stop downloading completely” if they felt there was a higher chance they’d be caught.

Of the survey’s 1608 UK respondents, aged 15-54, it was the teenagers who reported the least defiance: 78% of male teens and 75% of female teens would back off piracy if so warned.

“These findings are encouraging for content owners and demonstrate that the Government’s proposals to compel ISPs to take measures to control illegal filesharing could have a huge impact when implemented,” said Wiggin Music and Technology Partner Alexander Ross.

“Fear of being caught is a strong theoretical deterrent,” said Russell Hart, Chief Executive of Entertainment Media Research, who compiled the report on behalf of Wiggin. “[but] if pirates themselves say that a direct warning from their ISP is the most effective measure then this reinforces current thinking to combat piracy with an ISP strategy.”

Indeed, the survey’s results are especially relevant in a time when the UK government is actively deliberating its plan to fight piracy – and the current climate seems to indicate the government would like a “three strikes” plan, with violators having their internet shut off on the third offense. France is already in the process of implementing such a plan, expected to take effect this summer.

Wiggin’s survey places less-than-thrilled ISPs between a rock and a hard place, giving the “three strikes” plan additional support and essentially stripping ISPs of their “mere conduit” status. A conversation between the Internet Service Providers Association and The Register revealed that ISPs want the content industry to “put its money where its mouth is” and underwrite the legal costs of dealing with blocked customers who legally challenge ISPs decisions.

Full details of the survey will be released sometime today, during or after Wiggin’s Digital Entertainment Seminar 2008.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By that same logic...
By frobizzle on 3/4/2008 9:00:13 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
“Fear of being caught is a strong theoretical deterrent,” said Russell Hart, Chief Executive of Entertainment Media Research, who compiled the report on behalf of Wiggin.

This is the same argument used for the death penalty. Has it really deterred that many murders?




RE: By that same logic...
By therealnickdanger on 3/4/2008 9:06:06 AM , Rating: 5
I wish people wouldn't try to use the "deterrent" argument for the death penalty. In my mind, the point isn't to deter what MIGHT happen, but to punish what DID happen.


RE: By that same logic...
By mmntech on 3/4/2008 10:29:13 AM , Rating: 6
It's the same argument the pro-DRM people use. The idea is that it will deter people although we well know that DRM doesn't work. I'm willing to bet almost every reader of DailyTech has committed an "illegal" activity where DRM is concerned. As we know, DRM has only served to punish legitimate consumers who wish to do things that were once common place, such as ripping a disc for their own personal use. I fear this march against P2P will lead to the same restrictions. We've already seen it with ISPs throttling P2P traffic. P2P does have many legitimate uses, despite what RIAA/MPAA want you to think. Just ask the open source community.

I still firmly believe the real issue of piracy is not file sharing but it's still someone in the Hong Kong mafia selling bootlegged DVDs they made with a camera phone in a theater. The industry wants you to believe it's file sharing because they're an easy target for litigation. Pursuing actual criminal cases against foreigners in other countries is too cost consuming and comes with no financial benefits in the end. The whole anti-piracy thing is all about who can we sue and for how much. It never dawns on them that their profit losses may be due to how terrible their products are.


RE: By that same logic...
By TheDoc9 on 3/4/2008 11:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
would give you a 6 if I could, well said.


RE: By that same logic...
By theapparition on 3/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: By that same logic...
By tastyratz on 3/4/2008 12:11:06 PM , Rating: 3
How do people get a 6 anyways? Ive come across it a couple times but I could never vote someone up after 5...

and on topic yes I agree with you its all politics. The irony of it all is its been bad press just as much as its been good press for them. Suing all the 11 year olds, grandmothers, etc. just created a bad taste for the riaa and sites such as the riaaradar.com
Just like the war in Iraq people don't hate the soldiers(artists) but statistically disapprove of those behind it (riaa)


RE: By that same logic...
By darkpaw on 3/4/2008 12:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure only Kristopher can rate someone up to a 6.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/4/2008 1:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty sure only Kristopher can rate someone up to a 6.

Correct!


RE: By that same logic...
By MatthewAC on 3/4/2008 1:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
One problem apparition, I've never stolen any content but I have bypassed the DRM on something I bought on one or two occasions.


RE: By that same logic...
By theapparition on 3/5/2008 8:55:56 AM , Rating: 1
I guess people don't get sarcasm anymore.....


RE: By that same logic...
By cyyc009 on 3/4/2008 12:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe someday I'll post something worthy of 6 rating myself:-P

But I am happy about your reference to the opensource community. File sharing is almost a necessity for linux developers to spread their distros around. Despite its negative implementations, I really wish people would stop pouncing on the argument that file sharing is a bad thing and weigh out its merits before settling on a final opinion. Of course, as most computer users are not very proficient in this area, this will probably never happen.


RE: By that same logic...
By darkpaw on 3/4/2008 3:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, cause I downloaded 5 different distros the other night for the new lab I'm setting up and none of them were via P2P.

I grabbed Fedora, Debian, Free BSD, Suse, and Slax and didn't need to install a bit torrent client for any of them. Yes, there are a few people that use it legitimately, but I think its pretty obvious that 90%+ use of P2P is for piracy.


RE: By that same logic...
By Farfignewton on 3/4/2008 6:17:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yes, there are a few people that use it legitimately, but I think its pretty obvious that 90%+ use of P2P is for piracy.


Yes, there are a few people that use it legitimately, but I think its pretty obvious that 90%+ use of highways is for speeding . Plug in your favorite words. :D


RE: By that same logic...
By michal1980 on 3/5/2008 8:56:47 AM , Rating: 1
theres a big difference between speeding, and stealing. If you can't see that. Then theres no hope.


RE: By that same logic...
By Alexstarfire on 3/5/2008 11:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
True, but they are both illegal and that's what he was trying to get across. There are many things that are commonplace that are illegal. Jaywalking, speeding, pirating, tailgating, breaking DRM, and the list goes on. The point is that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't broken the law. I'd venture that most people break the law at least once a week, might even be close to once a day depending on if you drive or not. 99% of drivers speed. Perhaps not the entire time they are driving, but at least at one point.


RE: By that same logic...
By Farfignewton on 3/5/2008 3:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
theres a big difference between speeding, and stealing. If you can't see that. Then theres no hope.


I am aware of that, so hope away. I'm also aware that there is a difference between stealing and copyright infringement. Frankly, if someone had made off with a copy of my motorcycle instead of stealing it, I could have gone to work the next day instead of filing a police report and arranging alternate transportation for the rest of the week.


RE: By that same logic...
By jtemplin on 3/5/2008 9:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. Free copies of my car too, once I get my matter transfigurator up and running.


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 11:38:09 AM , Rating: 3
The point is to be conservative of their bandwidth and not download direct over and over, instead using P2P. Thanks for raising the cost of open source software (it does cost, even if you don't pay anything which makes it all the worse to download without consideration of that).


RE: By that same logic...
By Nik00117 on 3/4/2008 4:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
The priatign community would adapt.

They'd find new ways to encrpty their traffic and so forth.

Not only that I highly doubt ISPs would actively pursue the individuals they'd most likely pick off the minority at the top.


RE: By that same logic...
By derwin on 3/4/2008 4:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think you make a good point. Such clear monitoring of P2P by ISPs could force p2p so underground that it would not be toucable by RIAA and MPAA, and by underground I don't mean few users, but more advanced routines of sending the data so that it would not look like p2p.
Not to mention it creates a perfect test bed for p2p software developers to see if the activity is noticed or not (ask a whole bunch of freinds to beta test, see how well you avoid them getting those 1st warnings).


RE: By that same logic...
By Samus on 3/5/2008 1:09:08 AM , Rating: 2
If I own the DVD for Grandma's Boy, and want the DivX (so I can watch it on my laptop without the disc) is downloading a DivX from a torrent illegal?

I don't really have the time, cpu power or know-how to rip it to DivX (professionally) myself, so what's the harm in downloading a copy?


RE: By that same logic...
By Alexstarfire on 3/5/2008 11:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
According to the RIAA/MPAA, yes. Very much so. You'd be hard pressed to find an average Joe who thinks that though.


RE: By that same logic...
By sporr on 3/5/2008 1:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It never dawns on them that their profit losses may be due to how terrible their products are.


Absolutely spot on.


RE: By that same logic...
By Macungah on 3/4/2008 12:27:27 PM , Rating: 5
Death penalty for pirating. Would deter me.


RE: By that same logic...
By Netscorer on 3/4/2008 7:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
I, frankly, don't get this 'death penalty as a punishment' argument at all. The person being sent to death will never be reintegrated into the society, so the punishment will do nothing good to him - it would probably punish his family, but is it really the point? The victim (if alive), victim's family, society would get some sort of retributive satisfaction, though not in the christian tradition, which preaches forgiveness before all. Other potential criminals would get a chill before they commit capital crime, but as many here mention, it would not really stop, or deter them in any statistically significant way.
So what's the point? And I am not alone who thinks this way. Pretty much the entire civilized world has either abolished the death penalty or put a moratorium on the executions. Not the proud US of A, though. This is the country that still believes that keeping a gun is a constitutional right and that metric sytstem is too complex.


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 11:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
The point of punishment isn't necessarily to do something "good to him", but I agree with the sentiment that any punishment that doesn't aim to bring about a change in the offender's behavior is a questionable practice.


RE: By that same logic...
By Raidin on 3/5/2008 2:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
The death penalty is first of all a deterrent. Second of all a punishment by legal definition. But yes, as you said, it doesn't actually 'punish' anyone. It's simply the process of eliminating an offender from society. It seems cruel, and may very well be, but I believe the point of the penalty is not to punish, but to eliminate a threat.

If a person is deemed a threat to society, who is basically beyond help, or beyond reason, and has made it clear that he will continue to be a threat should he be given the choice, then one possible course of action that the human race has deemed feasible is ending his life.

I personally see no good reason to kill a human being, period. Sadly though, others disagree. What's even sadder is that some people, or maybe even governments, feel this is a valid alternative to crowded prisons.


RE: By that same logic...
By jimbojimbo on 3/5/2008 3:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
The point is people have to pay to keep this guy in prison for the rest of his life including all healthcare costs associated with it and all the caretakers necessary to ensure he stays there. Unless they are sent to hard labor camps for the rest of their lives they are a drain on society and should be eliminated.


RE: By that same logic...
By SavagePotato on 3/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: By that same logic...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/4/2008 9:11:01 AM , Rating: 5
The Death Penalty isn't a deterent. It's a consequence for people who break certain laws. I personally think they are far too timid on its use and should really step it up a few notches. I'm not really a fan of paying so much to keep so many in prison for over 20 years. Need a way to clean out the ones who will never get out, or ones that will spend close to their entire lives in there.


RE: By that same logic...
By joemoedee on 3/4/2008 9:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not really a fan of paying so much to keep so many in prison for over 20 years. Need a way to clean out the ones who will never get out, or ones that will spend close to their entire lives in there.


Whereas I'm not anti-death penalty... Actually, most numbers point to it actually costing less for life in prison versus the death penalty. (Strangely enough, I remember that from back in my HS law class)

http://greensboropeerpressure.blogspot.com/2006/08... actually has some decent (published, too!) information to back up the above.

It basically boils down to the added legal expenditure needed to convict someone to death.


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 9:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, most numbers point to it actually costing less for life in prison versus the death penalty.
Under the current system, which he is proposing we fix. Frying a guy who killed 10 people on video the day after the verdict is much cheaper than keeping him around in a maximum security prison for 40 years.


RE: By that same logic...
By Spivonious on 3/4/2008 9:58:46 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, but you have to take the appeals process into account. I'd hate to be wrongly convicted, sentenced to death, and then scrambling around to gather evidence during my final week.


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 10:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
Did you even read my comment? If you are guilty beyond any doubt, there are no appeals. They fry you as soon as they can get the chair warm.

Why should Charles Manson get to stick around? What doubts do you have of his guilt? What constructive purpose would there have been to appeals?


RE: By that same logic...
By jmn2519 on 3/4/2008 10:09:32 AM , Rating: 5
A little thing called due process. One of the major cornerstones of our judicial system.


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 10:16:33 AM , Rating: 2
So being found guilty not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt. Being sentenced to death by a jury. Havign that sentence accepted by a judge. That doesn't add up to due process?

But 30 years of rotting in jail while lawyers show up every once in a while to go through the motions of an appeal, that's justice?


RE: By that same logic...
By 16nm on 3/4/2008 10:56:34 AM , Rating: 5
Are you guys just off topic or do you think we really should invoke the death penalty for file sharing? If the latter then I think the problem is solved.

Imagine if we had harsher penalties.
Caught Stealing: cut off arm
Caught Speeding: cut off leg
Profanity: cut out tongue
Sex addiction: cut off "leg"
If this wouldn't deter crime then at least the prosthetics industry would be VERY profitable. :)


RE: By that same logic...
By TomCorelis on 3/4/2008 11:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
As much as I don't like your idea of consequences, your comment is very funny.


RE: By that same logic...
By 16nm on 3/4/2008 11:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
I guess they are a little harsh


RE: By that same logic...
By theapparition on 3/4/2008 12:03:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Are you guys just off topic or do you think we really should invoke the death penalty for file sharing?

Yes, I'm in favor of the death penalty for the RIAA and it's members.


RE: By that same logic...
By adam92682 on 3/4/2008 1:50:33 PM , Rating: 1
maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia


RE: By that same logic...
By Missing Ghost on 3/4/2008 6:20:36 PM , Rating: 3
Since when is profanity a crime?


RE: By that same logic...
By charliee on 3/5/2008 5:16:22 PM , Rating: 1
Under Canadian Criminal Code Section 175 causing a disturbance in a public place carries a penality of up to a $2000 fine or six months in jail.

http://www.canlii.org///ca/sta/c-46/sec175.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law_in_Canad...

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Matthew 15:11

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/15/11#11


RE: By that same logic...
By Aloonatic on 3/4/2008 11:09:10 AM , Rating: 5
Shariah law for all I say :D

How do you determine beyond all doubt by the way, without the use of lawyers and in a couple of weeks???

Hope that a miscarriage of justice never happens to you, there have been many, often based on forensic evidence which was (at the time) irrefutable but later found to be weak and even laughably bad.

e.g. The "Birmingham 6" case where 2 bombs killed 19 people in Birmingham, planted by the IRA in 1974.

Any who, 6 Irish fellows that were convicted because their hands had a chemical on them that it was said could only be there because they had been handling explosives. It later turned out to be from the playing cards that they were using whilst having a game of cards in a pub.

That the sort of beyond any doubt evidence you're talking about? THey seemed pretty convinced at the time!


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 11:31:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
How do you determine beyond all doubt by the way, without the use of lawyers and in a couple of weeks???
I don't know. If anyone actually suggests this, you should ask them.
quote:
That the sort of beyond any doubt evidence you're talking about? THey seemed pretty convinced at the time!
Sounded pretty circumstantial to me.


RE: By that same logic...
By Spivonious on 3/4/2008 11:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know. If anyone actually suggests this, you should ask them.


... you suggested it...Let me see if I have some troll food in my cupboard....


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 12:46:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you suggested it
I'm pretty sure you're literate, so I doubt you believe that.
quote:
Let me see if I have some troll food in my cupboard
Hungry?


RE: By that same logic...
By theapparition on 3/4/2008 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you determine beyond all doubt by the way, without the use of lawyers and in a couple of weeks???

Video would be a good example.


RE: By that same logic...
By theapparition on 3/4/2008 12:07:40 PM , Rating: 3
Or how about confessions?


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 11:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
Unless someone wanted to frame you and digitally grafted your face onto another body. Just degrade the quality enough that the editing isn't detected and there you go. People are not infallible and always with pure intentions, even a magician or con artist manages to make some people sure beyond doubt of something for a moment.


RE: By that same logic...
By Aloonatic on 3/25/2008 11:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
I saw a video of dinosaurs chasing people on this island where an old guy had built a theme park with them in.

I thought it was all make believe, but if all video is fact then I have some thinking to do :-s

I hope they don't get off of that island :(


RE: By that same logic...
By MozeeToby on 3/4/2008 12:26:04 PM , Rating: 1
As much as I don't want to add fuel to the (offtopic) fire, this really bothers me.

You ignore the people problem. The Judge, the Jury, the Police, the Prosecutor, the Defender... all people, all imperfect. Mistakes are made, bias (racisim, sexism, ageism) is introduced. Black people are much more likely to be sentenced to death, women much less likely even if the crimes are identicle.

The system isn't perfect, since the mainstreaming of DNA analysis for criminal investigations there have been dozens of death row inmates proven, proven , innocent. From 1976-1995, 75% of appealed death senteces have been overturned. Of those, 7% were later found innocent by a court of law. http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/06120...

Where's the justice in sending an innocent person to die for anothers crimes?


RE: By that same logic...
By Farfignewton on 3/4/2008 6:37:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
From 1976-1995, 75% of appealed death senteces have been overturned.

I think you misread the link. It says..

"75 percent of the people whose death sentences were set aside were later given lesser sentences."

I suspect that is a rather small fraction of all appealed death sentences. I think death sentences are automatically appealed, are they not?


RE: By that same logic...
By Polynikes on 3/4/2008 11:37:16 AM , Rating: 1
The appeals process is not part of the punishment. When you look strictly at the punishments, death or life in prison, one is cheaper than the other.


RE: By that same logic...
By Polynikes on 3/4/2008 11:39:29 AM , Rating: 3
Besides, all the salaries of the government employees (who taxpayers pay for) involved in the appeals process will be paid regardless of whether or not there is a death penalty and lots of appeals. Judges, lawyers, etc. do not get paid per case or per hour.

So in the end, to the tax payers, it makes no difference.


RE: By that same logic...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/4/2008 2:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Less cases/appeals = requirement of fewer employed attorneys = less cost. Frankly I find the idea that the #1 product of American schools is Lawyers to be disgusting. We are on a train to disaster unless that changes.


RE: By that same logic...
By Polynikes on 3/4/2008 5:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of courts are backed up as it is, so perhaps they wouldn't need to have less employees. There were an estimated 16,692 homicides in the US in 2005. Not all of them were solved, and there are 14 states (and DC) that do not have a death penalty. Then there are homicides that are not "capital" and the death penalty is not a possible sentence. Overall, I think the impact, nationwide, would be minimal if there was no death penalty anywhere. Sure, it would save a fair bit of money, but I don't think it would be an enormous amount.

quote:
Frankly I find the idea that the #1 product of American schools is Lawyers to be disgusting. We are on a train to disaster unless that changes.

Now this, I think, is more a problem with frivolous civil lawsuits. People just love to sue anyone for anything. That needs to change, but you can't reduce the number of criminal cases unless you can reduce crime, and that's a whole other can of worms I doubt either of us want to talk about. :P


RE: By that same logic...
By nosfe on 3/4/2008 9:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
only problem being that it costs more to kill someone then to put him behind bars for the rest of his life, great system, no?


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 9:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
Do it like Texas and put in an express lane... If it's incredibly obvious that you did it, no appeals for you. And don't force appeals on people who say they just want to get it over with.


RE: By that same logic...
By Sinerider on 3/4/2008 9:31:20 AM , Rating: 1
Research into several papers has shown that the death penalty is actually MORE expensive than keeping inmates in for life. Aside from that, you have cases where people are wrongfully accused and sentenced - who then pays for their unjustly sacrificed life?

Death Penalty just isn't the rising trend, for a reason.


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 9:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
How about this, we change the evidence requirement for the death penalty to be absolute certainty, then we also expand the range of crimes it applies to and make it way faster?


RE: By that same logic...
By MozeeToby on 3/4/2008 12:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
There is no such thing as absolute certainty, unless if you have video of the crime being made as the perp holds up his ID and recites his social security number.

The level of certainty is already as high as it can be for death penalty cases, no judge/jury wants the death of an innocent man on their hands.

It would probably be just as effective and cheaper to get rid of the death penalty all together, since under an "absolute certainty" requirement it would almost never be used anyway.


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 12:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no such thing as absolute certainty, unless if you have video of the crime being made as the perp holds up his ID and recites his social security number.
Just the video would be sufficient to me. Or, say, being caught dumping the body, keeping the murder weapon, leaving DNA around, etc.
quote:
It would probably be just as effective and cheaper to get rid of the death penalty all together, since under an "absolute certainty" requirement it would almost never be used anyway.
So if it's almost never used, wouldn't that make you happy? Or do you want toe videotaped killers to live, too?


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 11:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
Video can be doctored. Dumping a body is not proof you are the murderer. Keeping a weapon? I hate to sound pro-gun but it would be stupid to destroy a gun just because it fired a bullet that hit the wrong (thing), typically a gun would be sold on the streets or dumped somewhere and found by an (innocent) another person who is obviously not guilty of the murder.

Leaving DNA? So if you sleep with your wife's friend then someone kills her, you are guilty beyond doubt?

That you so quickly assume proof is exactly why there should not be this clause about clear proof and deadly punishment, that you have made several errors already in determining what would constitute proof. Remember, a murderer doesn't particularly want to get caught most of the time and if they could implicate someone else they probably would.


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/5/2008 1:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Video can be doctored. Dumping a body is not proof you are the murderer. Keeping a weapon? I hate to sound pro-gun but it would be stupid to destroy a gun just because it fired a bullet that hit the wrong (thing), typically a gun would be sold on the streets or dumped somewhere and found by an (innocent) another person who is obviously not guilty of the murder.

Leaving DNA? So if you sleep with your wife's friend then someone kills her, you are guilty beyond doubt?
I see that you have countered my plan of "absolute proof" by coming up with assortment of far fetched and/or comedically inadequate examples. Your entire arguemnt against my philosophy is to pretend It's something else. How often do other people dump bodies for serial killers? What do you think the odds of conviction at all - let alone at a higher standard of proof - would happen when the only evidence is DNA?

I agree that in the case of a massive conspiracy in conjunction with drunken defense lawyers, innocent people would fall through the cracks. I agree that in this would also happen absent these factors in incredibly rare cases under my system (just to save yourself time, don't bother saying how it's less rare in modern or decades-ago systems.)

But the only difference under your plan is that they would spend the rest of their lives sitting in a jail cell for a crime they didn't commit. I know if I was accused of murder, I would HOPE it was a capital case, because it would dramatically increase my odds of proving my innocence.
quote:
That you so quickly assume proof is exactly why there should not be this clause about clear proof and deadly punishment, that you have made several errors already in determining what would constitute proof.
Actually that would be you making up examples and attributing them to me.


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 9:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
Let's just say that in theory most people aren't going to want to get caught for murder, else they'd have confessed to it. With that in mind, how hard is it really to implicate someone else?

Nothing far fetched about realizing there is not only one cookie-cutter set of evidence from a crime. How often do people dump bodies? Who said it had to be a serial killer? How about any time there's more than one person present at a murder and the body were to be disposed of, it's certainly within reason that an accomplice the crime but not the actual murderer does certain things.

The difference in my plan is not that people spend the rest of their lives in prison, it's that this nonsense about certain proof is not the joke of a list posted previously. Under my "plan" we just reject the crazy idea of absolute proof based on ignorant assumptions instead of real direct evidence. Whether the person is in a prison or executed has no bearing on the foolishness of jumping to conclusions about absolute proof on a line-item basis. Each case is unique and there are no absolute proofs, rather ALL of the evidence would be weighed together and we do know it's still not absolute in the generic way the argument was presented.


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/6/2008 8:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about any time there's more than one person present at a murder and the body were to be disposed of, it's certainly within reason that an accomplice the crime but not the actual murderer does certain things.
So this accomplice would rather get the chair than give up the other guy? Nobody to blame but himself, then.
quote:
Under my "plan" we just reject the crazy idea of absolute proof based on ignorant assumptions instead of real direct evidence.
Do you think Jack Ruby was framed? They could have CGIed the video and made up those hundreds of witnesses, right?
quote:
absolute proof on a line-item basis
Once again, the fact that you're pretending (and I don't for a second think you actually believe it) that I am suggesting this shows me how weak you feel your argument is.


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/8/2008 5:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
There'd be no "giving up the guy" because according to the prior claim that's already proof of guilt, or as I already wrote, it isn't really!

Is some video reasonable proof? Yes.
Can we just make blanket statements about the infallibility of video? Absolutely not.

Like I already wrote, it's obvious there should not be these line item proofs rather than a case by case basis. You'd be foolish to think it a weak argument to actually interpret each piece of evidence presented instead of just generically categorizing it by type.


RE: By that same logic...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/4/2008 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Research into several papers has shown that the death penalty is actually MORE expensive than keeping inmates in for life.

Your taking into account the ~10 years of appeals which exceeds a million dollars. If they would cut that down to a 1-2 year appeal window it would be faster. Actual cost to gas or give em the needle is just south of $200. Factor in a few grand to clean up the room, reset the device, and dispose of the body and for less than 10k (half a year's inmate cost) you can execute them. Sounds fairly reasonable to me. They shouldn't get 10 years to appeal their execution, they should get a maximum of 2 or 3, after that, it gets carried out.


RE: By that same logic...
By MozeeToby on 3/4/2008 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 1
This is info from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org so I don't know how accurate it is but...

The original trial asking for a death penalty costs the government on average $470,000 more than the same trial for agravated murder without the death penalty.

It isn't just the appeal, people fight for their life when its on the line, making every step of the process more costly than it would be for life imprisonment.


RE: By that same logic...
By tastyratz on 3/4/2008 3:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wanna think outside the box? How about the controversial addition of a voluntary reduced sentence... Very reduced.
Voluntary Death penalty

Yea that's right, suicide.

Offer people sentenced to 50 years or more the needle for free. Whats it truly cost to just straight kill them? How much is it to empty a needle? substantially less than incarceration I can guarantee it.
No court costs
No extra trials
No appeals process

I bet a lot of life sentence guys prefer death and wish someone would just kill them. Yes its going to make them unhappier if they don't get that option but whatever- still cleans up the streets and I would love to see someone claim that will increase the crime rate because they can choose suicide. No messy investigations if they die, no fear of killing them self with worries of pain. Put a week waiting period on first request and let them pick.

Its a start


RE: By that same logic...
By Denithor on 3/4/2008 9:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I personally think they are far too timid on its use and should really step it up a few notches. I'm not really a fan of paying so much to keep so many in prison for over 20 years. Need a way to clean out the ones who will never get out, or ones that will spend close to their entire lives in there.


Wow, my thoughts exactly. I watch crime shows (or just the evening news) where people get 20 or 40 or however many years behind bars for doing horrible things to their fellow humans. And it frustrates me, because now my tax dollars aren't going for "useful" things like improved roads, better fire protection, more schools, but instead to keep some sorry SOB alive, sheltered, and fed after he did unspeakable things. We can't even provide these services to our homeless poor but if you kill someone, instant meal ticket and humane living conditions are provided for the rest of your natural life.


RE: By that same logic...
By pauluskc on 3/4/2008 10:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
We just need to send them to the right prison. Not "Sing-Sing" but "Shank-Shank". Heinous criminals don't always have a life of happiness in jail. I'd rather have more dastardly criminal criminals sentenced to a violent prison where "accidents" happen then deal with the appeals process.

Hopefully these "accidents" happen faster too. In 2001 - according to the USDOJ - cost is $22,650 per prisoner per year. 20 years ~ $500,000 . And the appeals process costs more than a half a million dollars??? WTF? And most of the time no reversal is found.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf

I do think that they deserve a chance. But man - it shouldn't be automatic. That's like the court system automatically granting itself more money from the taxpayer because it wants to. "We find the defendant guilty of murder - he's buying the next round!!"


RE: By that same logic...
By bldckstark on 3/4/2008 12:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
I used to be a prison guard after I got out of the Army, while I was going to college for my engineering degree. People used to ask me all the time what I thought about our death penalty, because there are so many things to consider overall. I really and truly don't know what to do about it, but that didn't seem to be a satisfactory answer.
So I made up the following -
Starting today each death row inmate is given one Rambo knife each. All guards will be removed to the perimeter, and all cells are opened. Enough food for one person to eat well will be provided to the prison each day. Each new prisoner is also given one Rambo knife and let loose inside. Let nature take it's course. Pretty soon you can consolidate all death rows into just one, and we only pay for one prisoner from then on.

Heck, you could probably televise it and make enough money to pay for the non-death row inmates.


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 11:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
That would certainly cause those accused and convicted to be more brutal to everyone else too, not just fellow death row inmates. Enticing people to act like animals is never a good idea.


RE: By that same logic...
By Oregonian2 on 3/4/2008 5:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Death penalty isn't so much for being a deterrent, it's to cut down on repeat offenses. Murderers who get the death penalty imposed on them have a zero repeat offender rate, AFAIK.


RE: By that same logic...
By Netscorer on 3/4/2008 7:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Need a way to clean out the ones who will never get out, or ones that will spend close to their entire lives in there.


By your logic we should just as well kill any person reaching the unproductive stages of their lives. Got to 65 - please visit your friendly neighbourhood gas chamber to collect your pension. Became permanently incapacitated - get a calming shot of cyanide from your family doctor and so on.


RE: By that same logic...
By Raidin on 3/5/2008 2:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. That sounded so cruel.


RE: By that same logic...
By frobizzle on 3/4/2008 10:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong on this. I am not against the death penalty. Whether or not it is a deterrent is a subject that can be debated for endless hours. The one thing it absolutely does is deter the sentenced (and executed) felon from murdering again!


RE: By that same logic...
By SilthDraeth on 3/4/2008 10:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
The reason it cost more is because the system is screwed up. The whole system needs a revamp in both civil and criminal cases.

Take for instance the Los Angeles case of a "black" firefighter that was fed dog food by a "latino" firefighter, and the city cracked down on the "white" firefighter captains. Payed the black guy 1.5 million settlement. They two white captains counter sued the city and are now getting 1.3 million each.

There are criminal cases where evidence is convicting someone beyond any doubt of a crime. Those involved in murder, rape, child molestation/rape should be killed right away. But bleeding heart liberals think people can be rehabilitated. So they go to prison for 20 years, get out and do it again.

I would like to hear someone's reasoning of why this man should not be killed on the spot. Sex offender guilty of numerous crimes. http://www.kirotv.com/news/15453785/detail.html


RE: By that same logic...
By pauluskc on 3/4/2008 10:35:22 AM , Rating: 1
Did you read that story or just base your opinion on the headline alone?

quote:
James Henry Christy was required to stay at a campsite on a beach near the Shelton Yacht Club between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. every night. Shortly after midnight on Friday he was found to be nine miles away at his parent's home.


He went to his parents house instead of the campsite at the yacht club. And that would be reason enough to waste the bastard, huh. Why the hell do they have him required to be at a campsite at a yacht club? Never heard of potential targets at a yacht club, that's for sure. Stupid situation all around.

Now, his crimes are bad. He shoulda been sent to that "shank-shank" prison instead of "sing-sing" and I'm sure he probably was molested as well. He sure as shit doesn't look like a contributor to society.


RE: By that same logic...
By theapparition on 3/4/2008 12:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, well how about this quote?

quote:
Prior to his release, Christy told a Department of Corrections staff psychologist that he would kill anyone who revealed he is a sex offender.


Why was he released after making death threats?


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 12:51:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why was he released after making death threats?
To make room for non-violent drug offenders, probably.


RE: By that same logic...
By Noya on 3/4/2008 3:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The conviction stems from when Christy was 38-years-old and was baby-sitting a relative's friend's two girls, ages 5 and 6 . He began sexually abusing the girls by grooming them through sexually oriented games, deputies said. Eventually, the molestation escalated to rape , deputies said.


That's why he should have been killed in the first place. If someone ever molested my nieces of a similar age...


RE: By that same logic...
By eye smite on 3/4/2008 9:24:02 AM , Rating: 4
Well, after reading this article I can see why a Socialist gov't like the UK would seek this kind of solution. As a deterrent I can see it having some effect, but I think 70% is inaccurate as they only surveyed 1608 people. I wouldn't call that a very large sampling. As with all deterrents though it will only affect a few. I think the death penalty comparison is a bit harsh, car alarms would be better. Yes, a car alarm stops quite a few, but certainly not all car thieves and it would be the same with this solution. Besides, it's too easy to mask what you're downloading.


RE: By that same logic...
By joemoedee on 3/4/2008 9:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, after reading this article I can see why a Socialist gov't like the UK would seek this kind of solution. As a deterrent I can see it having some effect, but I think 70% is inaccurate as they only surveyed 1608 people.


And out of the 1608 people, I bet none of them were actual hardcore underground types. It may be a deterrent to the 14 year old teenage girl downloading the latest Avril Lanegne (sic? Well, honestly don't care if I spell it right.) but I doubt any of the real underground groups will care. (Or get caught, for that matter. ;p)


RE: By that same logic...
By BMFPitt on 3/4/2008 9:39:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And out of the 1608 people, I bet none of them were actual hardcore underground types. It may be a deterrent to the 14 year old teenage girl downloading the latest Avril Lanegne
That is their target. The 14 year old girl who would pay $18 for a crappy CD. Stopping dedicated pirates wouldn't cause them to actually make any more money.


RE: By that same logic...
By Spivonious on 3/4/2008 10:01:53 AM , Rating: 3
I think the casual pirate hurts them more than the person who goes out and downloads 500GB of music "just because." If they get that 14 year-old to stop, then she might just spend that $1 on iTunes, or buy the $15 CD.


RE: By that same logic...
By joex444 on 3/4/2008 9:50:45 AM , Rating: 2
1608 people is WAY more than enough to have a valid study.

But we need to know if they reperesnt the demographic of the UK piraters. If 70% surveyed don't pirate, then this study actually showed nobody will stop.

And you're still left with the 30% "hardcore underground" piraters that everyone wants to talk about.


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 11:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
Many people would disagree, that there is no way for the 1608 people to be enough to represent the demographic of anything and certainly not random based on method of data acquisition.


RE: By that same logic...
By frobizzle on 3/4/2008 10:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the death penalty comparison is a bit harsh, car alarms would be better. Yes, a car alarm stops quite a few, but certainly not all car thieves and it would be the same with this solution.

Car alarms, like laptop Kensington-type locks, prevent the casual, amateur thief. Neither, however, will stop a professional.


RE: By that same logic...
By AlphaVirus on 3/4/2008 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Car alarms, like laptop Kensington-type locks, prevent the casual, amateur thief. Neither, however, will stop persistants .

There, fixed it for you.

A professional will already have the tools to break into a car, do it right and steal it.
An amateur will try to do it like they saw in the movie, fail, and give up on it.
A persistant person will try and learn from their mistakes to get better at it. Eventually they will steal it.


RE: By that same logic...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 12:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to disagree, that a professional is more methodical and not as desperate as a (crack addict, etc) and would pick easier targets and leave if an alarm went off.


RE: By that same logic...
By barjebus on 3/4/2008 10:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
So it's limited to socialism eh? So you're saying that the non-socialist way of letting rampant corporations sue the pants off of single mothers without any checks, balances, or real chance of ever winning is a far more preferable system? Or what about letting your government watch your communications without any legal oversight to fight "al-qaeda", and "osama", and every other enemy you've created for yourself you dirty yank.


RE: By that same logic...
By eye smite on 3/4/2008 12:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well one I wasn't trying to insult you. Two, do you deny the UK is a socialist gov't? Three, I never claimed America doesn't have more issues than you can count in a day. Four, implementing a solution like this in America would have so many civil rights advocacy groups up in arms it would be retarded. Five, if you insult me again, I'll lay open with so many insults I'll be banned from commenting here again and be more than happy to do it. Hello?


RE: By that same logic...
By barjebus on 3/4/2008 5:48:14 PM , Rating: 3
My curiosity is simply aroused that you slap this on socialism. Sure socialism has more government intervention in the daily lives of their people, but I think alot of American's are living in this dream world of capitalism. Here are some examples of where Canada and the U.S. are similar:

1.) Welfare.
2.) Public Schools.
3.) Universities that require money (Canada's government subsidizes theirs while the U.S. hands out scholarships and government funding in different ways).
4.) Federal savings plans for retirement, including RRSP and the U.S.'s 401k.
5.) Similar tax rates, especially for those earning under 50 - 60k. (Canada's tax rates jump ahead of the U.S. when you reach a higher annual income).
6.) Free trade policies, however, it appears that the U.S. is clamoring to escape it's free trade obligations under NAFTA, and has been trying to cheat the Canadians for years because they are destroying various industries in the U.S.....sounds kind of protectionist don't you think....maybe even a little, socialist?
7.) We both subsidize our farmers, but the U.S. takes that to new heights that are unheard of in Canada.

The list goes on and on. Yes the U.S. isn't socialist, I'm just saying for those countries that are labeled as socialist (Canada, U.K.) it's ludicrous to think that the term really describes any major differences between the U.S. and those countries.


RE: By that same logic...
By eye smite on 3/4/2008 6:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
I totally disagree with you. The difference is your system of gov't will intervene on an issue like this and hand out a rule that you can't do such things. Our gov't won't and that's the difference. We don't need gov't intervening on something we can decide for ourselves and that's why your country is Socialist and ours isn't. Believe me, if I had wanted to insult you I would have done so with words other than calling your country Socialist. I also didn't make my original point to start a debate with you on issues with your gov't and mine. I simply stated it would make sense that the UK would do this as it is socialist. Jesus please protect me from your followers.


RE: By that same logic...
By jskirwin on 3/4/2008 9:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the same argument used for the death penalty. Has it really deterred that many murders?


According to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national... it does.
quote:
Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).


RE: By that same logic...
By anotherdude on 3/4/2008 9:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Why choose the death penalty as a comparison? As it stands there is virtually no penalty. So it's more like introducing the idea of a penalty, a consequence - somehow I think law enforcement in general IS a deterrent to crime. No?


RE: By that same logic...
By Pythias on 3/4/2008 6:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
It deters at least one murderer per execution.


RE: By that same logic...
By cubby1223 on 3/5/2008 12:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the same argument used for the death penalty. Has it really deterred that many murders?


Flawed logic. You only know how many murders happened, there's no way to count how many were deterred.

Besides, let's see how you react when your isp gives you a call. My isp has called me in the past.


/me waits by the mailbox for said notice
By SilentSin on 3/4/2008 9:08:00 AM , Rating: 3
But then what would Comcast do with its brand new traffic shaping hardware that it doesn't have? They couldn't use lack of bandwidth as an excuse for craptacular service anymore. They might actually have to provide a decent internet experience *gasp*.




RE: /me waits by the mailbox for said notice
By Spivonious on 3/4/2008 10:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
I routinely get my advertised 6Mbps bandwidth. Is Comcast the new company to hate?


RE: /me waits by the mailbox for said notice
By SilentSin on 3/4/2008 10:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
I've never gotten that advertised "powerboost" speed. Not even close. I'd be lucky to get 3mbit down on a speedtest, let alone actual usage. I routinely get disconnected for no reason. They've given me shoddy hardware that's 5+ years old to work with when the lifespan of the modems under continuous use in a high turnover area isn't that high. My router randomly gets disconnected from the modem when it's worked perfectly fine otherwise. I've heard reports from numerous people from different areas of the country having the same problems with different routers/modems. My friend in Houston lost the ability to connect through ethernet on her modem. Their response? "Just use the USB connection". Don't mind the fact that her modem obviously has some kind of hardware issue. Kinda makes using a router impossible, huh?

I want an ISP that will provide me with the Internet, simple as that. Not one that provides me with their version of the Internet. I really hate that they're the only option in town.


By AlphaVirus on 3/4/2008 12:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My friend in Houston lost the ability to connect through ethernet on her modem. Their response? "Just use the USB connection". Don't mind the fact that her modem obviously has some kind of hardware issue.

Perhaps your friend lived in the same area as me, I had the same issue a few years back when I had them.

I did not get the advertised speed but it was close enough, my main problem was latency. I dont know if the modem was shoddy or if it was a bad line issue (Comcast never fixed anything or let me know what the problem 'really' was) but my connection would drop often.


By Spivonious on 3/5/2008 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
I bought a modem (which btw vastly improved my bandwidth from the one they rented me) and when I'm downloading a large file I get rates of about 1.1-1.2 MB/s, or around 9Mbps. Not quite the 12Mbps I should get with 'Powerboost', but perfectly acceptable to me.

I had a Linksys router randomly disconnect me too, but changing it to a D-Link solved the problem. It was a pretty old router.

I will agree that Comcast's customer service department leaves much to be desired, but their product has always been fine for me.


By JazzMang on 3/4/2008 12:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
New hate? No. Ever called customer service? God help you.


By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 12:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly why some hate them, that they're throttling things when there isn't a bandwidth problem. If you were getting a very low speed instead, THEN there'd be more justification for their actions.


Oh yeah?
By napalmjack on 3/4/2008 8:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Survey: 8 out of 10 analysts need job security...




RE: Oh yeah?
By logaldinho on 3/4/2008 8:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
and the survey says...

im not going to lie, im sure bandwidth would improve if your regular pop-tarts stopped leaving limewire (ect.) open. these are the same people that killed the once great napster only to put it in the mainstream with a billion of the same britney spears songs all named incorrectly.

i miss the old napster where you could actually find really good underground and seldom played music :(


RE: Oh yeah?
By therealnickdanger on 3/4/2008 9:00:32 AM , Rating: 3
"They've done studies, you know. Sixty percent of the time, it works every time."


RE: Oh yeah?
By zsdersw on 3/4/2008 9:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
"People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of all people know that."


RE: Oh yeah?
By drebo on 3/4/2008 10:04:00 AM , Rating: 2
"75.27% of all statistics are made up."


Testing
By rdeegvainl on 3/4/2008 9:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
Then send everyone a notice! That way you get one to every pirate.




RE: Testing
By tedrodai on 3/4/2008 9:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see that having the desired effect. When they realize EVERYONE got the same notice, people think "It's just a bluff. They're no closer to pinpointing me as a pirate than they were before."

If I were in that situation, it would take a notice to me personally and exclusively to scare me into quitting.


RE: Testing
By AlphaVirus on 3/4/2008 12:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
You would be surprised at how many people receiving a note in the mail would scare them enough to stop downloading. Also you have to remember, word of mouth is more dangerous than anything. Parents will tell their coworkers and their coworkers will fuss at their kids for downloading illegal content. It will basically have a ripple effect.

If all ISP's send a note with something like
"We have noticed an increase in Peer-to-Peer downloading which causes a decrease in overall internet browsing integrity. There are ways for us to pinpoint a direct source of this illegal usage and theft."


RE: Testing
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/4/2008 12:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
Notice how everyone who has settled or been sued by the RIAA are people who are relatively clueless in the technology field? I haven't yet seen them bust someone who knew what they were doing. This lends weight to the idea that careful covering of ones tracks and not being stupid about it can give you a free pass to go.


RE: Testing
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 12:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, so you think the average citizen that gets on a computer, finds a P2P client, installs it, finds content, learns how to use the P2P client to acquire the content, is technologically clueless? The average computer user has no idea how to do this, though I would suspect the youth are more likely to pick up this /skill/ faster.

So what exactly is knowing what you're doing? Is it avoiding music and major films? Is it making an excuse that you have an open router? Is it using some kind of IP filtering software? Is it securely wiping a drive of the data when you get that letter in the mail? Is it doing it at someone else's house so they'd take the blame (or hacking into their wifi)? IMO, none of these are universal safeguards to someone who is supposedly tech savy. If someone had to go through a lot of work and inconvenience to do P2P they'd likey not be doing it at all, or at least only for content they wanted bad enough.


how do you...
By Screwballl on 3/4/2008 10:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
How does the ISP and "trackers" tell the difference between legitimate file charing between business associates or users downloading the latest nightly build of a linux distro compared to "illegal" file sharing? If they see a bittorrent or other method being used, some such as Comcast is just interfering with all connections of this type, other ISPs are starting to severely slow down proxy connections to 50kbps, yet not a one has a way to separate illegal from legal file sharing.
I think it is good that they are taking the low road and not actively pursuing this. People are downloading this media because the prices are too high and most music or movies suck overall. This has become a type of disposable media. Actors and "musicians" with their 4th platinum plated Rolls Royce are complaining about not making enough money yet all over the place we see them in rehab, we see them end up like Britney or Tom Cruise or other complete nut jobs. They are portrayed as great people when they donate 0.0005% of their income to some charity (like MADD) and then the next week they get caught drunk driving and doing 80mph over the limit.
No wonder we find a way to get this stuff for free. As people, most of them suck at it so the public feels that they are not "entitled" to anything. Make them work for a living like the rest of us and actually produce a movie or album worth a crap. Then we may be willing to step away from the downloading client and actually go to the theater to watch the movie.




RE: how do you...
By AlphaVirus on 3/4/2008 12:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
I can agree and disagree with your comment.

I agree with artists and producers making better products because it seems to get worse and worse every year. Movies having lame plots, if any at all, and music sounding horrible with artists not even writing their own lyrics.

On the other hand, when people download a program with the intent on downloading a song or movie that is sold for a premium at a store then that is stealing. People who do it know that it is stealing but because it is easy and convienent then they engage in the action.


RE: how do you...
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 1:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
It would be as fair to say people invest as much time (or money, and time=money) as they think the content is worth. It certainly isn't stealing though and you know this as well as anyone if you know what the definition of stealing is. It is copyright infringement. Two different crimes, it would be just as crazy for you to call jaywalking a motor vehicle license violation.


Confused by the stance some people here take...
By sceptus on 3/4/2008 1:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not addressing all the stances made here in this thread, but, most notably, I don't understand the idea that bad artists implies pirating. If a certain type of music were really that bad, why are you even trying to obtain it? If people are listening to some sort of music, there is clearly some demand for it, and therefore the sale of such music is justified.

I understand that many of these punishments won't work because they are impractical. However, I'm starting to get the vibe that people here actually don't want illegal file-sharing to stop at all.




By JakLee on 3/4/2008 5:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think it has something to do with the trade off. People that would not buy it at all will happily take it for free. Often people here will comment that since its crappy to begin with its OK to steal it because they would not have purchased it anyways. This helps them to rationalize the theft in their own mind. Some people would steal no matter what; some people will only steal if they think they can get away with it. Some people will rationalize what they will/won't steal. Some will not steal at all. Part of the problem though is directly related to usage. Hearing a song playing on the radio is not stealing, nor is borrowing a friends cd (at least in most places). But with technology moving fast some of these things don't make any sense: If I own a cd I should be able to listen to it in my car, on my computer, while I am out jogging, ect without having to worry about weather or not I have the actual piece of media in my hand. When laws don't make sense (ie when the record company says I am stealing music I own already & am using in a way they don't like such as adding it my mp3 player from cd) then people tend to ignore the law & become ambivilent towards its other forms. We often see the same thing happening with drugs in the States. I personally don't see anything wrong with downloading a movie I plan on buying. I have a fair movie collection and some of the ones I own I have not watched on dvd, I simply enjoyed it so much when I did watch it (in the theatre ect) I purchased it when it came out in case I do want to watch it again. I use my bt mostly to trade dj mixes, like electronic music resume's. Chances are I am breaking a usage agreement somewhere with that, but its hard to hear how good a dj is at spinning vinyl if he can't play any.


By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 1:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
If a certain type of music were really that bad, how would you know it until you heard it? If you could hear it in good quality already, you already had the opportunity to record it in most cases.

Otherwise, people may listen to music in the typically degraded low bitrate MP3 format to decide if it is worthy of their money to buy it, but then most who are particular will still want the full non-lossy digital version which is typically buying the CD then they can't even put it on their portable device without what the RIAA/etc claim is a violation. It leaves customers without a good option and music too expensive given today's information age where distribution should not cost much at all, nor does producing the music need to cost nearly as much as claimed until all the middleman leeches jump onto the bandwagon. They may claim promotional costs but when one samples something over P2P, there was no promotional cost for that.

In other words the P2P filesharing is a symptom of the problem. Eliminating the symptom doesn't fix the problem, does not make people more willing to (buy) music. Plain and simple truth is people today have more avenues for entertainment, the body of existing multimedia content is larger than every and continuing to grow. When there is more supply than demand and the *required* costs to produce, deliver, and sell go down, it becomes necessary for the market to react with a substantially lower price but it hasn't happened.

Sales do reflect public demand and disposible income, still, the most basic things like the cost of gasoline are what keep teenagers and upward (old enough to have a job, and thus income) from buying so many CDs these days. I remember when gas cost less than $1, but average income levels and car fuel efficiency has not gone up by the same rate, just in the difference in gas cost I could have bought a few CDs every week many years ago, not to mention other new expenses rapidly seeming to be necessity like a computer, the broadband internet access a pirate would need, etc. These costs would pay for several CDs a month if we didn't have them. Music just isn't as valuable as other things today. People will say "then don't download" and I agree with that, but even then I can't support the nonsensical idea that the person spending free time downloading pirated material would otherwise spend the money - it's typically people who can't afford to go out and do more interesting things that end up sitting there downloading, at least that is my impression 'cuz let's face it, staring at some file and seeing a percentage on screen isn't a very interesting way to spend one's time.


Har har fiddel de dee
By Jynx980 on 3/5/2008 3:36:36 AM , Rating: 3
The term of pirate here is used too broadly. If you are downloading something your not pirating it. The release groups who remove copy protection and make software available are pirates. Sharing and pirating are two different things.




RE: Har har fiddel de dee
By TomCorelis on 3/5/2008 3:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. If you are downloading something not legally available you are pirating it. It may also be shared to you, but the two terms are *not* mutually exclusive.

What you are arguing is akin to calling the blind people "visually impaired." Sure, saying someone is visually impaired avoids hurting their feelings, but it doesn't change the fact that they're blind.

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:
quote:
Main Entry: pirate
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: pi·rat·ed; pi·rat·ing
transitive verb : to take or appropriate by piracy; especially : to copy, distribute, or use without authorization esp. in infringement of copyright <the pirated software> <pirating cable signals> intransitive verb : to commit piracy


and

quote:
Main Entry: pi·rate
Function: noun
: a person who commits piracy


I do not know
By tmouse on 3/4/2008 9:59:07 AM , Rating: 4
I question the application of this survey to the general population. Its number is very small, it appears to be a web based survey; was it solicited via e-mail or other websites? Many people who do pirate (or unauthorized download if you prefer) are probably suspicious of an invitation to express their views on piracy. Many people who do respond to filling out long surveys (the report is over 49 pages long so there must have been several hundred questions) tend not to be the defiant, “down with the man” (should I say straight laced & compliant?) types so I suspect the sample population was biased. Trying to compare the views of 115 males aged 15-19 to the entire population in this group is stretching to say the least. I wonder how many they "invited" did not respond. If it was 1608 out of 2-3 thousand then maybe there is some value however if it was 1608 out of 10-20 thousand then its worth next to nothing, except maybe for some propaganda value or a "good pat on the back, were right!" Here is an example: the number of game players who say they “hate to or never stop playing games” is the same for 15-19 as 45-54 year olds at around 1/3 ! There is lots of this type of "data" in the report.




By rninneman on 3/4/2008 10:07:38 AM , Rating: 4
Hackers and pirates will just move on to other methods to avoid detection. As effective anonymizers like Tor (http://www.torproject.org/) grow in popularity, content owners will have a harder time tracking down just who is pirating their stuff.




Stupid banner ads on dailytech!
By Sunbird on 3/4/2008 11:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
Now there is finally something that will drive me to Firefox and ad-blocking, these dumb drop down banner ads on Dailytech! Then I dont even need to see any ads and your advertisers will definitely get their moneys worth...




By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 1:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have a good point, that if ads are too offensive, distracting, annoying, etc, it will make more people block them altogether.


Just wondering!
By sporr on 3/5/2008 1:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Im just wondering how many employee's of the MPAA have ever used a VCR to record a TV programme or movie?

Im just wondering how many employee's of the RIAA have used a tape cassette recorder to record a song off the radio or make copy a friends cassette.

Ok, both my examples are of old, but if i remember rightly, pretty much everyone was at it.




RE: Just wondering!
By mindless1 on 3/5/2008 1:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're thinking about fairness and they're thinking about extracting money from an unwilling public - incompatible ideas.


Questions....
By pauluskc on 3/4/2008 9:20:12 AM , Rating: 1
1) What's an offse?
quote:
internet shut off on the third offse .


2) Isn't S usually lower case when it begins the sentence?
quote:
S conversation between the Internet Service Providers Association and The Register revealed


Otherwise, seems like a logical solution. Then we'll just go back to sharing DVD libraries. Or actually, mailing 832 GB SSD drives around the world. Shouldn't cost more than a postage stamp or two.




RE: Questions....
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/4/2008 12:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks - the CMS put out some weird errors on us today. All fixed.


Glad I'm in Canada...
By Captain Orgazmo on 3/4/2008 12:00:06 PM , Rating: 3
I got a call the other day from a large Canadian ISP trying to sell me on their internet service, and they went as far as telling me I can "download music and movies faster now than ever before" with their service. ISPs in Canada will fight this anti-P2P stuff at every step, because without P2P, many people would still happily be using dial-up or slow DSL instead of their newer, more expensive services.




By LumbergTech on 3/4/2008 1:01:08 PM , Rating: 3
I think this is quite hilarious. If you could be arrested for download songs would you stop? Of course a lot of people would stop. That doesn't make the punishment right. On top of that, it won't drive sales. I will not purchase CDs that are involved with RIAA no matter what. You can sue sue sue sue sue and cry cry cry. You are losing customers fast. You need to get better artists that people actually want to pay for.




General UK nonsense
By Aloonatic on 3/4/2008 10:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is, different laws apply in different places and they aren't particularly clear so everyone is a criminal.

The police could just go from house to house prosecuted pretty much everyone if they wanted too.

Luckily, the police in the UK are too few and too lazy to do this :D

This is a story based in UK where we are pretty screwed over when it comes to rights most of time, we don't even have a constitution for god's sake :-s

Any who, what is theft and piracy is still unclear over here.

Apparently, it is illegal to rip music from a CD that you have bought legitimately in order to play it on your own ipod/walkman/mobile phone or whatever.

I doesn't even matter if the files are in a shared folder or put on a file share.

This is the land where a motor repair garage was fined for playing the radio too loud in the workshop and not having a public events licence after all :-s

for laws to work they have to be clear and fair.

i'm sure most people have downloaded an album or two that are reading this and know that it is wrong, but when you are made a criminal by using the very software that comes with you mobile phone to break the law then we are all criminals anyway then you mite as well commit a few more minor infractions?




This Just In
By Flunk on 3/4/2008 10:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
Less than a day after the file sharing detection was implemented it has been cracked by an anonymous hacker.

Yet more proof that companies have not yet learned that anything written in software (and most hardware) can be circumvented in software.




.
By RockinZ28 on 3/5/2008 3:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
I have received a couple piracy notifications from my isp, Charter cable. Sure hasn't stopped me.




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki