File-Sharers Will Not Be Held Liable For Piracy

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Don't get too excited by this announcement, this only applies to people living in Russia.

Russia says "We do not plan to hold Internet users liable for downloading as they do in the U.S., where owners of computers can end up in court. Responsibility [for illegal downloads] will be placed on the owners of pirate websites," Grigoryev said, adding that Russian file-sharers can expect to be subjected to advisory measures similar to those already underway in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Common sense would mean that both the person sharing the files and the person downloading would know not to do it.
 
Yeah, Russia feels this way until someone puts a bootleg copy of Putin's Autobiography on the web ... then it will be free firing squads for all :D
 
Almost nobody gives a shit about US copyright laws. Shocker, I know. I mean, why should we?
 
Sounds good to me, you can arrest the guy buying drugs, or you can arrest the person who sells the drugs and then less people could buy them.

But then again here in 'mericuh we have retarded mentalities, like penalizing the person who hires a hooker more than the hooker because somewhere in time someone said "yanno what if we go after the entire line of people who the hooker bangs we'll do better than removing the hooker from the equation"
 
Demon10000 said:
Common sense would mean that both the person sharing the files and the person downloading would know not to do it.
Click to expand...

Woah now, let's not get too carried away here.... :p . INCOMING self-entitled generation whiners saying you're wrong in 3... 2... 1...
 
Who would expect Common Sense form Soviet Russia. Whoda thunk it !?

Charge the Dealers not the Users... it's cheaper, more effective and makes sense... That's, that's UnAmerican !!
 
Meh. Places like ThePirateBay aren't downloading this stuff to your PC. YOU ARE! Sure they give you access to this or that, but in the end it is you doing it. Not them.

This is the complete opposite of common sense to me. So basically what Russia is saying is download all you want whenever you want for as long as you want...as long as the site you got it from is still up and running...which for sites like TPB will be forever.
 
Wouldn't that be like Wal-Mart being liable for a shoplifter's action because the merchandise is accessible to them?

With the notable difference, of course, that Wal-Mart does this with wholesaler permission with intent to sell, whereas a pirate site does it with no intention of getting developer/publisher permission nor collecting monies on merchandise and giving developer/publishers their share.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Sharing? That's not sharing, that's destructive.
Click to expand...

Destructive in what way? Because last I checked copying something doesn't destroy anything. It may PREVENT a very, very small number of sales, but it doesn't destroy anything. And that tiny number of prevented sales are more than made up for in positive public opinion of the work. Good works benefit from piracy, bad works get what they had coming, because you can't get an accurate review of anything with how much the industry buys and pays for reviews. All the studies that say file sharing actually INCREASES sales, therefore benefiting both the *AA's, studios and artists are wrong, right? The *AA's BOUGHT studies are right in ASSUMING that EVERY time a work is pirated that it would have been bought if a pirated option weren't available, according to your logic. It's people like you who actually believe the SHIT being FED to you by the only people in the industry who have the INCENTIVE to lie to your face that gives the shitty companies any support to further FUCK the consumer IN the ASS.
 
That gives me more of an incentive to go to Russia and meet my mail-order bride. :eek:
 
Oh god, don't get started with GoldenTiger on the subject of piracy...
 
In Soviet Russia, the people do not pirate files, files pirate people.

Someone had to do it.
 
randomdean100 said:
Destructive in what way? Because last I checked copying something doesn't destroy anything. It may PREVENT a very, very small number of sales, but it doesn't destroy anything. And that tiny number of prevented sales are more than made up for in positive public opinion of the work. Good works benefit from piracy, bad works get what they had coming, because you can't get an accurate review of anything with how much the industry buys and pays for reviews. All the studies that say file sharing actually INCREASES sales, therefore benefiting both the *AA's, studios and artists are wrong, right? The *AA's BOUGHT studies are right in ASSUMING that EVERY time a work is pirated that it would have been bought if a pirated option weren't available, according to your logic. It's people like you who actually believe the SHIT being FED to you by the only people in the industry who have the INCENTIVE to lie to your face that gives the shitty companies any support to further FUCK the consumer IN the ASS.
Click to expand...

You sound awfully emotional about the issue... sad that people want to cut off your illegal free stuff? No, it isn't theft, but it is a seperate crime called "copyright infringement" and it does have detrimental effects. If you pirate the music you want, that's less music you need that you might buy. Same thing with any other entertainment: you might buy it if you couldn't leech it for "free", and if not, well, who the heck says you're entitled to take anything you can't afford in life? That's absurd.

When you disagree with something, the action to take is NOT to commit a crime to dish out self-entitled temper tantrums, the action to take is to either not buy it (and thus their profits fall and they are forced to take a look at something else to do) or buy it (but then don't whine when other companies want money too). You wouldn't work for free if you had the talent/connections: why do you think they should?
 
GoldenTiger said:
You sound awfully emotional about the issue... sad that people want to cut off your illegal free stuff? No, it isn't theft, but it is a seperate crime called "copyright infringement" and it does have detrimental effects. If you pirate the music you want, that's less music you need that you might buy. Same thing with any other entertainment: you might buy it if you couldn't leech it for "free", and if not, well, who the heck says you're entitled to take anything you can't afford in life? That's absurd.

When you disagree with something, the action to take is NOT to commit a crime to dish out self-entitled temper tantrums, the action to take is to either not buy it (and thus their profits fall and they are forced to take a look at something else to do) or buy it (but then don't whine when other companies want money too). You wouldn't work for free if you had the talent/connections: why do you think they should?
Click to expand...

And no, I didn't say that every pirated copy is a "loss" but it does indeed give you less incentive to spend your cash on anything else as you have taken something already for free to fill your own needs. Yeah, a side effect in some rare instances is that the popularity results in more short-term sales due to publicity, but it's an overall destructive action in the long haul.
 
beowulf7 said:
He sounds like an MPAA/RIAA patsy.
Click to expand...

You sound like a self-entitled crook who thinks he should be able to take or use anything that isn't nailed down, with no idea of the consequences of his actions nor any moral fiber to care.
 
Demon10000 said:
Common sense would mean that both the person sharing the files and the person downloading would know not to do it.
Click to expand...

And content creators would figure crap doesn't sell, and not blame everything on piracy.

But they do, and people are uploading and downloading.
 
GoldenTiger said:
You sound awfully emotional about the issue... sad that people want to cut off your illegal free stuff? No, it isn't theft, but it is a seperate crime called "copyright infringement" and it does have detrimental effects. If you pirate the music you want, that's less music you need that you might buy. Same thing with any other entertainment: you might buy it if you couldn't leech it for "free", and if not, well, who the heck says you're entitled to take anything you can't afford in life? That's absurd.

When you disagree with something, the action to take is NOT to commit a crime to dish out self-entitled temper tantrums, the action to take is to either not buy it (and thus their profits fall and they are forced to take a look at something else to do) or buy it (but then don't whine when other companies want money too). You wouldn't work for free if you had the talent/connections: why do you think they should?
Click to expand...

Actually not emotional at all caps is for emphasis, maybe you should troll a little better. How could I be sad about something that people are already trying, and failing, to do? Detrimental effects, such as? Last I checked the studies show those who pirate the MOST also buy the MOST media, just as giving out samples increases sales people who try the most music also end up buying the most music or movies.

When you disagree with the law, on a moral and philosophical standpoint, and have a different world view from what the government and what they should be allowed to enforce, my "breaking the law" is actually living by my own code of conduct, a personal law if you may. Do you agree with america's foundation? The founding fathers didn't agree with british law, they broke the law. Early christians living in anti-christian rome, didn't agree with the law, so they broke the law. The jews who went against the nazi's in their own home country, they didn't agree with the law so they broke the law. Prohibitionist's in the early 1900's, didn't agree with the law, so they broke the law. All of these acts ended up with the law changing, all of them are viewed as positive in the overall scheme of things. Are you saying that they should have all followed the law, because the law's the law? You're either trolling, are seriously work for some *AA, idiot.
 
GoldenTiger said:
You sound like a self-entitled crook who thinks he should be able to take or use anything that isn't nailed down, with no idea of the consequences of his actions nor any moral fiber to care.
Click to expand...

Law, can't even keep your views straight. In one post you talk about how it isn't theft but copyright infringement, now you're calling pirates crooks? Also what consequences of pirating necessitate needing moral fiber to care? Pirating DOES NOT hurt anyone, except the POS industry that's a dinosaur in this day and age, the artists are making more than ever, people and genres who would only be a small thing, without many shows or much merchandise sales are seeing massive popularity due to filesharing, resulting in more shows/merchandise sales where the artists get the majority of their money, and the people get to participate in more live events, supports a greater number of artists, and appreciate a larger amount of music. The only person pirating hurts is the middleman in a suit, not the consumer, or the producer of the media.
 
Looks like I had you pegged perfectly. Crook is a word for criminal, have you really not heard it before? Case in point on ignorance.
 
randomdean100 said:
Law, can't even keep your views straight. In one post you talk about how it isn't theft but copyright infringement, now you're calling pirates crooks? Also what consequences of pirating necessitate needing moral fiber to care? Pirating DOES NOT hurt anyone, except the POS industry that's a dinosaur in this day and age, the artists are making more than ever, people and genres who would only be a small thing, without many shows or much merchandise sales are seeing massive popularity due to filesharing, resulting in more shows/merchandise sales where the artists get the majority of their money, and the people get to participate in more live events, supports a greater number of artists, and appreciate a larger amount of music. The only person pirating hurts is the middleman in a suit, not the consumer, or the producer of the media.
Click to expand...

I think you have to be a little careful about blanket statements on both sides ... most of what you are offering as the pros of unauthorized file sharing is relevant only to the music industry ... movies, games, and books suffering from people partaking of the products for free might not have the same upsides and the downsides might be more severe ...

many game developers, not just the publishers are going under, and although piracy isn't the sole reason, it is definitely a factor ... gamers complain about always on internet connection and pay to win purchases but they are effective ways to control the distribution of a product (if unauthorized users are a major issue)

ultimately I think that attacking the file sharing servers and distributors of pirated materials is the best long term solution rather than attacking the individual consumers (and attacking might be the operative word ... I think we should literally allow the offended party to attack the violator with a cyber attack without penalty ... that would be far more effective than going through the legal system ... fight fire with fire :D ) ... if we get rid of the more professional pirates then the only ones left will be the disreputable ones ... if almost all pirated material came chock full of viruses and malware then I think the attaction of that market would diminish ;)
 
Can you still blame the RIAA for being fucked when Amazon let's you buy songs separately?

I can see the argument with movies(insanely expensive) and games (no demos) , but I have not had any urge to pirate songs in a long long time. Just as I don't have a urge to pirate android apps that are a dollar or so.
 
GoldenTiger said:
You sound awfully emotional about the issue... sad that people want to cut off your illegal free stuff? No, it isn't theft, but it is a seperate crime called "copyright infringement" and it does have detrimental effects. If you pirate the music you want, that's less music you need that you might buy. Same thing with any other entertainment: you might buy it if you couldn't leech it for "free", and if not, well, who the heck says you're entitled to take anything you can't afford in life? That's absurd.

When you disagree with something, the action to take is NOT to commit a crime to dish out self-entitled temper tantrums, the action to take is to either not buy it (and thus their profits fall and they are forced to take a look at something else to do) or buy it (but then don't whine when other companies want money too). You wouldn't work for free if you had the talent/connections: why do you think they should?
Click to expand...

Rights are not defined by state fiat. Rights exist in nature. A crime is a violation of someone else's natural rights. Allowing the state to dictate what is and isn't a right and what is or isn't a crime is dangerous because they can make virtually any peaceful activity, such as protesting, a crime (The constitution is meaningless since the very people it is supposed to limit are the ones who get to interpret it and thus offers no real protection of rights).

GoldenTiger said:
You sound like a self-entitled crook who thinks he should be able to take or use anything that isn't nailed down, with no idea of the consequences of his actions nor any moral fiber to care.
Click to expand...

In order to be a thief or a crook, one actually has to steal something. Since imaginary property is not real, it cannot be stolen. Just because the gang of corporate pirates that runs the government says something does not make it true.
 
damicatz said:
Rights are not defined by state fiat. Rights exist in nature. A crime is a violation of someone else's natural rights. Allowing the state to dictate what is and isn't a right and what is or isn't a crime is dangerous because they can make virtually any peaceful activity, such as protesting, a crime (The constitution is meaningless since the very people it is supposed to limit are the ones who get to interpret it and thus offers no real protection of rights).



In order to be a thief or a crook, one actually has to steal something. Since imaginary property is not real, it cannot be stolen. Just because the gang of corporate pirates that runs the government says something does not make it true.
Click to expand...

I don't get why you keep insisting on pushing this natural rights illusion. Rights are a human creation and exist exclusively because humans have a sense of self entitlement that they'd like to see either become a reality or be maintained if already present. Regardless of which set of humans creates them it takes humans to invent and attempt to enforce them on either themselves or one another. Without humans there are no rights therefore they do not occur naturally. Therefore, any group of people that gets together and insists their idea of rights is more correct is imposing their will via force on an individual who disagrees. This can be a condition caused by a currently existing state entity or a set of wackos like the group in which you place your faith. Either way, regardless of what set of people comes into power, they force their will on everyone else and are no different than the status quo aside from applying a different spin on their lunatic ideas than the last group that was in power.
 
I find this hilarious.
The US is like the Soviet Union was back in the 80's.
Russia is now like the US was back in the 80's.

Did I just step into the twilight zone?!
 
Demon10000 said:
Common sense would mean that both the person sharing the files and the person downloading would know not to do it.
Click to expand...

Common sense would dictate that illegal file sharing/downloading would be considered theft and not intellectual property rights piracy. People are not stealing the source code and trying to sell the content as their own, they are downloading copies of stuff to watch and likely delete when done with it.
 
GoldenTiger said:
You sound like a self-entitled crook who thinks he should be able to take or use anything that isn't nailed down, with no idea of the consequences of his actions nor any moral fiber to care.
Click to expand...

Moral fiber? For who? The MPAA/RIAA?
LOL, if you want to be their agent of chaos, more power to you, but this has nothing to do with morals.

You can keep that attitude for the MPAA/RIAA's ad campaign, but their only loyalty, is to the almighty dollar.
They could care less how they screw the customer and the companies that work under them.

If piracy truly were killing their sales, then the move The Avengers should have just tanked, because it was one of the most pirated movies ever.
Yet somehow *gasp* it made a killing at the box office!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top