Well, there's legalese and then there's reality. People who host copyrighted files so that people can download them at no cost may call themselves champions of some freedom or another, but the truth is that they are aiding and abetting people in the commision of a crime. Label it what you will, but it's getting something for nothing when it should be paid for. It's unfortunate that some poor sucker gets made an example of by the courts, but they should have been aware of the consequences in the first place.
In essence it comes down to the fact that the big corporate movie/music/book publishers have no idea what to do with the unusual new market the internet presents and are trying "round peg in square hole" fashion to make this new paradigm fit the traditional way they always did business.
The whole DRM/theft etc issue stems from a total lack of imagination on the part of the big corporations.
As a case in point my step-daughter by 15 had amassed over 100Gb of MP3 music. She never listened to most of it and tended to often buy the CDs for the music she liked and listened to regularly.
Now the music industry would claim she "stole" that 100Gb of music and would otherwise as a typical 15 year old girl have gone out and spent the $50,000 or so to buy all 3000 odd Cd's . Totally ludicrous.
It gives me a business idea for protecting software and other types of IP.Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
Well, there's legalese and then there's reality. People who host copyrighted files so that people can download them at no cost may call themselves champions of some freedom or another, but the truth is that they are aiding and abetting people in the commision of a crime. Label it what you will, but it's getting something for nothing when it should be paid for. It's unfortunate that some poor sucker gets made an example of by the courts, but they should have been aware of the consequences in the first place.
Basically, they just need a third party to introduce bunk software into the pirated market so anyone looking for pirated copies of their material will always find copies that don't work or invite spam. If they wanted to take it one step further they could even introduce a malicious component to it that doesn't take effect right away so the user is uncertain of the causes when problems arise. If they complain its another way of them admitting they stole software. Sometimes its not so much that a case need to be drawn or that catching hackers/pirates is essential. They just need to be deterred the same way a thief would pass up on breaking into a house with a well known alarm system installed. You use a third party so any damage can't be directly linked to the originator of the software.
This third party speaks every language except the one the complainer/thief is from.
Bill
That's an extremely debatable question in common law countries as theft devolves from the old English offense of larceny which involved carrying away and depriving the rightful owner of tangible personal property.Originally posted by Chivas:
Keep calling it whatever you like. Its still STEALING.
Unless you mean in the overly simplistic general sense that for example you might tell a child "regardless of the circumstances that is a lie and lies are bad" (then get upset when they tell the Gestapo where the Jews are hiding).
Or in the sense you might tell a sexually active teenage girl "I don't care what the legal situation is your behavior upsets me and your still a depraved little tramp".
In the end what the "moral majority" might condemn as stealing and something "people like us never do" is irrelevant, its only what the law currently states (and that of course may change) that counts.
It gives me a business idea for protecting software and other types of IP.Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
Well, there's legalese and then there's reality. People who host copyrighted files so that people can download them at no cost may call themselves champions of some freedom or another, but the truth is that they are aiding and abetting people in the commision of a crime. Label it what you will, but it's getting something for nothing when it should be paid for. It's unfortunate that some poor sucker gets made an example of by the courts, but they should have been aware of the consequences in the first place.
Basically, they just need a third party to introduce bunk software into the pirated market so anyone looking for pirated copies of their material will always find copies that don't work or invite spam. If they wanted to take it one step further they could even introduce a malicious component to it that doesn't take effect right away so the user is uncertain of the causes when problems arise. If they complain its another way of them admitting they stole software. Sometimes its not so much that a case need to be drawn or that catching hackers/pirates is essential. They just need to be deterred the same way a thief would pass up on breaking into a house with a well known alarm system installed. You use a third party so any damage can't be directly linked to the originator of the software.
This third party speaks every language except the one the complainer/thief is from.
Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh they already do this, flood the channels with bad files. They pay third parties lots of money for this. These third parties also hack sites and perform ddos attacks on sites their clients deem threats. The software companies also tried that trick of making pirate copies of their games glitch at critical parts, that backfired when word of mouth got out from early reviews that the game was buggy and didn't work, so they abandoned that.