Weekend tech reading: What's a fair penalty for piracy?
- Thread starter Matthew DeCarlo
- Start date
codefeenix
Posts: 39 +0
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...
Tekkaraiden
Posts: 996 +93
Isn't that why most restaurants have changed to singing something else?
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.
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 
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.
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.
DarKSeeD
Posts: 92 +2
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!
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!
Lokalaskurar
Posts: 513 +0
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.
Razerblade
Posts: 117 +1
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.
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.
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.
sMILEY4ever
Posts: 157 +0
I agree.
The example is wrong. Way too much for those songs.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Burty117
Posts: 5,105 +3,678
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
I think Trend don't like the fact that Microsoft's solution picks up more virus's and uses less resources
fpsgamerJR62
Posts: 489 +0
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.
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.)
uttaradhaka
Posts: 53 +0
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..
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..
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Review: Quiet Release, Dodgy Name- petalsofpain replied
-
Fallout TV show secures second season after stellar debut- Vulcanproject replied
