Got A Message from Comcast about abuse violations (1 Viewer)

[John_Berger]

That's why 'intent' doesn't really enter into law; it can't.

I'm not necessarily saying that it can; however, it most definitely should when it comes to those who are attempting to enforce the laws since it is their judgement that is being used. But from what I'm reading in this thread, if you share or download, then you deserve any punishment that can be thrown at you regardless of the situation.

No, I don't think so.

 

[Andy Olivera]

I was trying to explain the difference in how value is determined between mediums with finite or infinite supply, not what that value means to a company. I'm making one set of points, you're making another, but we're both coming from the same perspective.

 

[Kelley_B]

man it would suck to go to jail for downloading Notting Hill. That'd be like a one way ticket to becoming Cell Block C's bitch.

 

[Kelley_B]

oh and be happy they sent you a warning instead of just busting into your house and taking you and you computer.

 

[Ken Chan]

Why is it acceptable for you to drive one mile over the speed limit and expect the police to leave you alone, but I am expected to be riddled with guilt for breaking the law by downloading a movie that I already own or will be buying when available?

Just to be clear: it is not technically "acceptable". (Although as I understand it, in California at least, there is a distinction between "Maximum Speed", which is absolute, and a posted "Speed Limit", which is essentially a suggested speed for "safe operation". For the latter, the officer would not pull you over for going one mile over; if 35 is safe, they can't reasonably argue that 36 is suddenly unsafe, although 40 might be.)

But sure, people speed for a lot of reasons. Aside from being a matter of degree, it's partly because they don't think they'll be pulled over, because obviously, usually they aren't; and that's partly because there just aren't enough police. And who's to say some people don't feel guilty speeding?

As to your downloading, if you believe you're entitled to that copy, you don't need to be "riddled" with guilt. Maybe you can feel just a little guilty because you are participating in a system that in large part facilitates theft. So maybe it would be beneficial to support reasonable restrictions on P2P sharing so you can share with a clear conscience.

Will the RIAA and MPAA ever adopt reasonable restrictions? Maybe not, but stop distorting my words in an attempt to make your point, or vent your anger at them -- I ain't them!

//Ken

 

[Mike LS]

The fact of the matter is that no on can know what another persons intent is. Whether I download a file to get out of paying for it, or to simply "sample" it to make a decision about purchasing it....no other person on earth can know what I'm thinking or intend to do with that file. Only me.

So in all reality, there is no true grey area. The law should either state that it is legal or illegal to download copyrighted material.

This whole argument of intent sounds so much like hate crime laws. Murder is murder. Clear-cut, no grey area. What a person is "thinking" when they commit a crime against another person should not be used to add punishment.
I don't care if it's the most blatent case of one person hating another of a different race or orientation, the punishment for murder should be the same. The reason why the crime was committed should not be an issue, because no one can prove 100% what's going on inside another person's head.

It just sounds so similar. The law cannot bend and flex depending on what a person's intent or thought is. It's right or it's wrong.

 

[MikeAlletto]

It just sounds so similar. The law cannot bend and flex depending on what a person's intent or thought is. It's right or it's wrong.

But if the law doesn't bend and flex there would be no reason for trials. If you are caught doing something illegal it should be immediate punishment. Afterall, you say laws the law, no point in going to trial to see if someone broke it or not or if it applies to someones situation.

 

[AjayM]

But if the law doesn't bend and flex there would be no reason for trials. If you are caught doing something illegal it should be immediate punishment. Afterall, you say laws the law, no point in going to trial to see if someone broke it or not or if it applies to someones situation.

Huh? The police don't judge, they make arrests based on evidence. Going by your way of thinking if somebody shot somebody else in front of two cops he'd never have to go to trial, right? If I stole something and it's on video tape, don't need a trial there either....

The whole idea of trial is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if you did or didn't break the law.

Andrew

 

[Mike LS]

I'm not as much talking about whether you did it or not. That's not the case here either. We know for a fact that the file was shared....whether by accident or not, it doesn't matter.

I was using hate crime laws as a specific example. With the file sharing....there's no question that the file was downloaded and made available to others. The "crime" has been committed. No question. The thing now is what did the "perp" plan to do with the file once downloaded? What was he thinking when he downloaded it? There's no way to tell.

In my example, it works the same way. A murder has been committed. No questions if it was done or not, it was. Man A kills man B. That should be enough for punishment to be rendered.
But with these silly "hate thought" laws on the books, it matters that man A was white and man b was not. Maybe man A told some racist jokes in the past or whatever....so now, according to these laws, we now "know" beyond a shadow that man A is a racist down to the very core of his rotten soul. So his punishment gets upped. They fry him twice.

What's the point? The crime was done. No grey.

 

[John_Berger]

Sorry, but I see a hell of a lot of grey. Keep in mind as well that not all laws are as absolute as many make them out to be. There are cases of blatant illegality thrown out due to mitigating circumstances all of the time. I guess that P2P is excluded from those possibilities, isn't it?

I also see that we've all just about exhausted the explanations on each side and that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. But that's okay. The world would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.

I still think that we did a good job at behaving ourselves.

 

[Rob Speicher]

Fair use says you can make a copy

If you personally ripped a DVD that is encrypted with CSS, you broke the law by circumventing that protection (with DeCSS) according to the DMCA, regardless of whether or not you're allowed to make a copy.

 

[Mike LS]

I also see that we've all just about exhausted the explanations on each side and that we're just going to have to agree to disagree

Yeah, at this point I think everybody is just bent over blowing smoke......

Not too many more points to be made.