Weekend tech reading: What's a fair penalty for piracy?

By Matthew
Nov 7, 2010
Post New Reply
  1. ---agissi---

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,383   +15

    Yeah seriously its not like your printing off CDs on the curb either handing them out or getting paid for the tracks!
  2. codefeenix

    codefeenix Newcomer, in training Posts: 40

    Copyright infringement is a crime. There has to be punishment for the crime, to deter further lawbreaking. Getting caught and having to pay what you would have normally had to pay to get it legitimately is not a deterrent. It gives little reason to purchase. Oh I could pay for this new CD or I could download it for free and if I get caught all I have to do Is pay for the CD. That does not work. I think a fine of about $500 per incident would be adequate. Now to define what qualifies as an incident... ... ZZZzzzz...
  3. Tekkaraiden

    Tekkaraiden TechSpot Maniac Posts: 892   +52

    Isn't that why most restaurants have changed to singing something else?
  4. ---agissi---

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,383   +15

    Now thats some BS! Since when does plagiarism not exist? Sheesh does anyone get educated at school these days.... ?
  5. spyx

    spyx Newcomer, in training Posts: 57

    A penatly for piracy hmmm, i would say lower prices on stuff and pirating would not be needed ofcourse the *****s who will pirate anyways, should be fined atleast double the amount of the original price that was pirated....
  6. Puiu

    Puiu TechSpot Addict Posts: 1,025   +91

    About Microsoft antivirus, it just works really well (tested by me and other people that work in the IT department) and other antivirus companies just can't accept another good product on the market.
  7. Modena

    Modena TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 182

    It should be 3 times the value of the song, if and only if you make ANY profit off selling that song. Meaning that most of us would not get penalized at all. Seems fair to me :D also $62,500 per song I mean are they high? Almost anybody who downloads has at least 1000+ songs meaning $62million dollars in penalties...
    If they do manage to cut down on pirating, which I highly doubt, they're best bet would be to make it something payable like a speeding ticket. People would then probably think twice, I know I would. Otherwise these people who were caught wouldn't be able to afford media and would have to steal it.
  8. ET3D

    ET3D TechSpot Paladin Posts: 957   +30

    These high penalties make me want to start pirating. I mean, I certainly respect people's right to their materials, but these are obviously not worth of being considered human beings.
  9. DarKSeeD

    DarKSeeD TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 104

    RIAA lawsuits are meaningless and cost too much. How do they expect somebody will pay that kind of amounts not to mention the trials are long...such a waste of resources and time.
    What they have to learn is how to attract people with music, like buy one get one for free. Why should I buy a whole album when I like only 1 song?
    DRM is just another bull....with new methods of anti-piracy will come new ways to crack them.
    And artists (some of them) also should start to really sing.
    Make the products accessible, give extra stuff to subscribers...I've bought this music cd and got a nice T-Shirt too and the list can go on.
    In the end a short example of cost discrepancy: a game in U.S. costs 39.99USD in EU the same game costs 39.99EUR or even more, how fair is that? In both cases it is the digital version and should cost less than the boxed one!
  10. Lokalaskurar

    Lokalaskurar TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 616

    True, the fine does seem a bit cruel. However, the court didn't exactly sentance Jamie to death by firing-squad, so the eight amendment is of no use to the family at this time. I guess the court already ruled that out back in 2005.
  11. dlen

    dlen Newcomer, in training Posts: 32

    This whole piracy does not make sense for me. The next stage is to limit possibility to e.g. grow your own tomatoes and make spaghetti and they will force you to buy it from big malls only.
     
  12. Razerblade

    Razerblade Newcomer, in training Posts: 117

    I think the cost of piracy should be the RRP price plus 20%. You shoulnd't have to pay hundreds for something that can be bought for $10.
  13. 63Jax

    63Jax Newcomer, in training Posts: 64

    just the cost of the product they were CAUGHT downloading and they own at the moment
  14. ET3D

    ET3D TechSpot Paladin Posts: 957   +30

    The problem is the system here, the fact that this even goes to trial. It's not worth going to trial for tiny sums, so they inflate the costs. The RIAA typically offers to settle for a few thousand dollars, going into the millions only if the settlement is denied and this goes to court.

    If personal copyright violation was put in the same category as speeding, with a system put in place to ticket those who download illegal content, then small fines could work. However that won't be possible unless people agree to measures for monitoring such downloads and that they're valid, which I think is unlikely to happen.
  15. sMILEY4ever

    sMILEY4ever TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 156

    I agree.
    The example is wrong. Way too much for those songs.
  16. hassaan

    hassaan Newcomer, in training Posts: 90

    I consider piracy legal cause I live in a part of the world where most of the things we get owe to Internet. As long as its not stealing, making a copy is OK.
  17. dummybait

    dummybait Newcomer, in training Posts: 45

    ye shall walk the PLANK!!!!
  18. DSparil

    DSparil Newcomer, in training Posts: 35

    The only reason that piracy is thriving is because the recording companies are charging exorbitant prices for their stuff. And no - the artist only gets a very tiny slice of the corporate pie for their work. Hence, some artists are encouraging people to download their own stuff.

    Besides, music nowadays suck a lot so I'm surprised that people are still downloading music. I guess newbies have to learn the hard way.
  19. vangrat

    vangrat Newcomer, in training Posts: 223

    So.. .the person who downloaded 24 songs is being charged for Piracy at the lump sum of $62,500 per song, and they are called the Pirate? Frankly, the lawyers, the judge, and the jury who passed this sentence are the god forsaken Pirates here. I mean, unless they were suing a millionaire or something, this is just ridiculous! The legal system is flat out broken, when a stay at home parent is charged $1.5 million for a few songs, while murderers, pimps, drug dealers, and tax collectors walk free!
  20. vangrat

    vangrat Newcomer, in training Posts: 223

    Also, about Trend Micro...what the heck. I can see plainly that Windows Security Essentials is an opt in only service. I have yet to even see a pop up on my computer about it, and do not use it. As hard as this is for me to say....I am siding with Microsoft on this one. Trend, you are a great A/V company, but seriously, you just bit the biggest dog you have ever met...you gonna get wooped.
  21. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,473   +301

    I'm with Vangrat on this one about Mircosoft and the anti-virus argument. Microsoft isn't actually pushing it out but making it an option to install under the "Optional" tab in Windows update, this by no means is a "antitrust issue" I also read the article and it says that Windows Updates itself is "Compulsory" when it clearly isn't, when you open up a Laptop or Desktop for the first time it asks if you would like to enable automatic updates. The Moment that appears it is giving a user a choice meaning it is "Optional" not "Compulsory".

    I think Trend don't like the fact that Microsoft's solution picks up more virus's and uses less resources :)
  22. fpsgamerJR62

    fpsgamerJR62 Newcomer, in training Posts: 489

    Regarding Trend Micro and the other companies who sell anti-virus /anti-malware programs, I guess they just can't live with the fact that the top 4 free anti-virus programs control about 42% of the anti-virus software market. Microsoft adding MSE to Windows Update is actually an added benefit to Windows users, a number of whom continue to surf the Net without anti-virus protection. MSE, in my experience, performs better under Windows 7 than under Windows XP and also seems to run better on newer machines. You also have to be proactive when using MSE and get used to manual updates rather waiting for MSE to update itself.
  23. ET3D

    ET3D TechSpot Paladin Posts: 957   +30

    The reason piracy is thriving is because it's very easy and the chance you'll get punished for doing it are very low.

    Lowering prices will help a little, but will not eliminate piracy. I remember reading a survey a few months ago where people were asked what would be the price which would make them stop pirating. A third said that no matter the price they'll continue to pirate. Most said about $2 for a movie, IIRC. So most people who pirate are at most willing to pay the price of a rental to own the content, and at worst aren't willing to pay anything. (At least according to that specific survey, but I believe that it's on the money.)
  24. uttaradhaka

    uttaradhaka Newcomer, in training Posts: 53

    One of the biggest fears I have is buying a new device with a shiny display and finding a dead pixel on it. It happened to me once with a PSP and I have feared it ever since. Companies should have a policy to deal with these kinds of issues.

    There are work arounds, but they don't work all the time.

    I just hope I never have this problem with a new LCD monitor..
  25. Recipe7

    Recipe7 TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 142

    Pay for what you steal [dunno]


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.