http://extratorrent.com/article/1173/aussie+isp+proposes+to+treat+piracy+as+“traffic+offenses”.html This is absurd. How can free speech be considered free when it is only applicable if it doesn't involve copying someone else? A limit to certain rights must be recognized otherwise you'd have people claiming words, numbers and thoughts as "theirs" and the government treating someone who "copies" them like a traffic offender.
I don't know, if you published something and someone was passing it off as their own and profiting from your work, wouldn't you want some form recompense or punishment for their plagiarism? I think you are confusing plagiarizer someone's copyrighted work with downloading intellectual property. The article you linked is dealing with downloading copyrighted material, not plagiarism as you allude in your post, walsh. Actually I think it's not a bad idea at all. Should the 14 year old who downloads a couple Cd's be held to the same punishments as the person who is downloading entire discography's and then redistributing them on a massive scale? The scheme they propose makes sense to me.
No, it's about publishing someone's elses ideas. Someone should not be prevented from publishing anything. Next we'll not even be able to walk a certain way because someone else has invented it and has claimed copyright over it and walking that way publishes it to the world for others to 'steal'. What, so because a library fine for 80 overdue books is the same as a library fine for 1 overdue book, we should throw the 80 overdue book guy in jail for it?
I think maybe you linked the wrong article or you didn't read it. It said nothing about publishing others work. It is solely and completely about filesharing and downloading movies and TV shows. By the way, you can legally publish another person's ideas, as long as you get their permission and give them appropriate credit. Publishing another's ideas as one's own is PLAGERISM, which is a completely different form of copyright infringement than what the article is talking about. (did you even read it?) Now your just being ludicrous. The focus of the article and overdue library books are not even remotely related situations, but if you want to compare apples to orangutans to try and support your flawed interpretation of it, be my guest.
What exactly do you think filesharing is? Or more importantly, what do you think publishing others' work is? I'm sorry, but you used the concept of proportionality in just as a ridiculous fashion. The two situations weren't meant to be the same, and you completely missed the point.
If I download a TV show and watch myself, and don't attempt to profit from it in any way, that is much, much different than if I downloaded the show, transcribed all the dialog and then filmed and distributed my version of it as a new and unique show of my own, THAT would be the type of copyright infringement you are talking about. BUT that is not the type of copyright infringement the article is talking about. (again, did you even read it, or just go off the title?) And no, my example wasn't ludicrous in the slightest and portrays the EXACT type of situation the article is dealing with, the difference between people who download intellectual property for their own personal use and those who seek to make a profit. What it proposes is differing levels of punishment for differing degrees of infringement, either type of infringement or frequency and volume of material downloaded. Your rant is just another one of those "down with the man" type of juvenile and ill-informed diatribes that does more to make the person ranting it look the fool then any other result.
at first i liked your arguments and then i read that above. I believe that if someone wants something and they cant afford to buy, tough luck, they should be taught that expensive things cost time and money, what buys goods is your time and your money. People should get off their arse and go get a job and then buy it. I could download tens of thousands of dollars worth of software and videos and use them for my own purposes. The fact I dont is because I would prefer to credit the fact someone made those things with the skills they rightly deserve to be compensated for using. How about if people who download illegal software and share other peoples songs go and get a friggin job and that goes for those who download it for their own viewing. there is nothing right about stealing software and films. If people cant afford it - tough friggin luck, they should get out and get a job that pays enough so they can afford it. Just because you download 20,000 dollars worth of films for your own purposes makes it no less illegal than if you download 20,000 dollars worth of films and bring your friends round to watch it with you and give them each a copy. Its still the companies and artists that lost money they should be paid for. I support the idea that people should be taken to court both for recieving and distributing stolen work thats under copyright agreements. No matter what use they put the work to If the hollywood films are too expensive, stop watching hollywood films and watch those by people who distribute their work free or cheaper. If you cant afford windows dont download the rubbish microsoft sells, instead download ubuntu. Its simple Dont thieve stuff, just purchase alternatives if you cant afford whats on offer from expensive companies
Bah, nonsense. Copyright and intellectual property laws have gone way too far. They are anti-market, anti-capitalist and anti-progress. I support the idea of making money off an idea, but we would be much further ahead technologically if the market weren't stifled by anti competitive patent laws protecting their holders from any form of competition and stopping their competitors from improving on their ideas. It's the reason we're stuck with the QWERTY keyboard, the slowest possible layout for typing and hundreds of other plodding inventions which would be far more advanced given exposure to competition. www.youtube.com/v/6dMuGnFdQ0s http://torrentfreak.com/economists-abolish-copyrightpatents-save-the-economy-090310/
In what way Nonesense, they are anti theft There are many patent and forms of copyright licensing which would demonstrate this is not the case For example the patents and copyrights that apply to Linux nonesense, as many different layouts have been tried and people dont like them
