MAFIAA at it again - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

MAFIAA at it again

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Madison » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:44 pm

Tavish wrote:
Madison wrote:From the article:

The government said the damages range of $750 to $150,000 per violation of the Copyright Act was warranted.


Looks to me like the $150,000 is just so that there is a maximum in place and it's high enough that it gives the law some teeth.

$150,000 fine for something that retails for $0.99 is a little more than giving the law teeth. Even the minimum is excessive IMO.


I would assume the max range isn't for someone who downloads one song, more for those who rip the tracks and make them available to the general public. So they aren't stealing 99 cents, it can be much, much more than that. Top songs sell millions of copies, so a $150K fine seems like a bargain now that I really think about it.

And I see no issue with the minimum either. Basically it's "Would you rather pay 99 cents and legally own a music track or risk paying $750 if you get it illegally?". Seems stupid to run that risk to me since the minimum fine seems high enough to deter the theft, so I have no problems with the minimum.

Maybe it's how we view this though. Personally, punishments for illegal actions should be severe enough to prevent someone from breaking the law. Punishments should not be weak enough that people will "gamble" and pay whatever fine, serve whatever time, etc, that the weaker punishments have, and that certainly isn't "law enforcement" at all. Breaking/not breaking the law isn't a tradoff, people are not supposed to break the law and the punishments need to be severe enough to convince people not to break the law. Not so weak of a tradoff that people will gamble, because that doesn't solve anything at all. Just how I see it.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:17 pm

Madison wrote:Maybe it's how we view this though. Personally, punishments for illegal actions should be severe enough to prevent someone from breaking the law. Punishments should not be weak enough that people will "gamble" and pay whatever fine, serve whatever time, etc, that the weaker punishments have, and that certainly isn't "law enforcement" at all. Breaking/not breaking the law isn't a tradoff, people are not supposed to break the law and the punishments need to be severe enough to convince people not to break the law. Not so weak of a tradoff that people will gamble, because that doesn't solve anything at all. Just how I see it.

I agree, I think its just a matter of where the punishment crosses the line of being a deterrent to the punishment being excessive. I think we both would agree that chopping off a hand for stealing a pack of gum would be a very effective deterrent, but is a little excessive.

If networks wanted to start suing people for watching illegally uploaded Youtube show clips or music videos, what would you think would be a fair punishment for the offenders and fair compensation for their losses?
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby jfg » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:43 pm

That's my thought too, it's excessive. Stealing a cd shouldn't effectively ruin your life for a couple years. Yes, it is illegal and there are plenty of good options now such as subscription plans that should deter stealing as well but the punishment needs to fit the crime. People break laws and if caught they should pay a price but not a price that shatters somebody's life. Although, I think the RIAA has kind of focused on extreme uploaders and people who leak music pre-release over the past couple years. I don't think they are really going after people who are just downloading now, but I might be wrong about that. I know there were reports that they weren't suing at all anymore and putting it in the ISP's hands but I haven't heard anything about that since.
Image
jfg
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 6078
(Past Year: 82)
Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby AussieDodger » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:26 pm

Tavish wrote:If networks wanted to start suing people for watching illegally uploaded Youtube show clips or music videos, what would you think would be a fair punishment for the offenders and fair compensation for their losses?


Um, I think $0 would be fair ;-7 O:-)

With the Youtube thing, I think that can work to the artist's benefit as well.

Dr Hook profited from it - I bought 2 of their CDs because they had good songs on Youtube THAT WEREN'T REMOVED. :-D
ATTENTION LONG-TIMERS! NEW FBC: http://fbc2.freeforums.net/
AussieDodger
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 11363
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: What do you mean, Flash Gordon approaching?

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby kaveman » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:23 am

StlSluggers wrote:I knew there was a good reason to not like Obama. ;-7

Obama Sides With RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Music Track


Image
Image
kaveman
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar
Eagle EyePick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 581
Joined: 15 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: CA

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Madison » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:53 am

Tavish wrote:
Madison wrote:Maybe it's how we view this though. Personally, punishments for illegal actions should be severe enough to prevent someone from breaking the law. Punishments should not be weak enough that people will "gamble" and pay whatever fine, serve whatever time, etc, that the weaker punishments have, and that certainly isn't "law enforcement" at all. Breaking/not breaking the law isn't a tradoff, people are not supposed to break the law and the punishments need to be severe enough to convince people not to break the law. Not so weak of a tradoff that people will gamble, because that doesn't solve anything at all. Just how I see it.

I agree, I think its just a matter of where the punishment crosses the line of being a deterrent to the punishment being excessive. I think we both would agree that chopping off a hand for stealing a pack of gum would be a very effective deterrent, but is a little excessive.

If networks wanted to start suing people for watching illegally uploaded Youtube show clips or music videos, what would you think would be a fair punishment for the offenders and fair compensation for their losses?


I agree with the hand/gum example being excessive. ;-D

Unfortunately the line between being a deterrent and being excessive is a very fine one.

On the Youtube example, the viewers aren't stealing anything, so I don't really see how someone can be punished for that. Now if someone ripped a track off of a Youtube video, be it audio, visual, or both, then sure, I could see a lawsuit of some sort happening because they actually "took" something, be it a file, a CD, DVD, something. The biggest problem with viewing things on Youtube is that some companies don't care what's on Youtube, they are cashing in on the publicity (and now commercials are being run during many clips).

Here's the all time top views:

http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=mp&t=a

A few with over 100 million views and quite a few in the music area. So unless there's a way to tell people exactly which videos are legal to watch and which ones are not (and of course the illegal ones would be taken down by the site), then there's really no way to prosecute the viewers.

And when stealing music, there's really no question that someone is stealing music. They are making a copy of it, so there is something physical, be it a file, CD, DVD, whatever. Really two different kinds of things here.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby AussieDodger » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:04 am

Madison wrote:
Here's the all time top views:

http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=mp&t=a

A few with over 100 million views and quite a few in the music area.



I must have the Australia-only list, I have none with 100 million views.
AC/DC appears 3 times (I prob helped with that) and there is that dramatic squirrel thing, and something called "Japanese Sex Doll".

:-b
ATTENTION LONG-TIMERS! NEW FBC: http://fbc2.freeforums.net/
AussieDodger
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 11363
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: What do you mean, Flash Gordon approaching?

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:38 am

There is practically zero difference between the two except perception. Point by point:
On the Youtube example, the viewers aren't stealing anything, so I don't really see how someone can be punished for that.

The same could be said for downloading music from P2P.
Now if someone ripped a track off of a Youtube video, be it audio, visual, or both, then sure, I could see a lawsuit of some sort happening because they actually "took" something, be it a file, a CD, DVD, something.

People doing a music download aren't "taking" anything, they are making a copy of it. That's why the lawsuits are for copyright infringement and not for theft.
The biggest problem with viewing things on Youtube is that some companies don't care what's on Youtube, they are cashing in on the publicity (and now commercials are being run during many clips).

The same goes for music. There is plenty of music that is freely published by the artist (or whomever holds the copyright) that is out there on the P2P networks or through MySpace or artist sites or where ever. There are also many labels that are not part of the RIAA and see free downloading as the best way to promote their work.
So unless there's a way to tell people exactly which videos are legal to watch and which ones are not (and of course the illegal ones would be taken down by the site), then there's really no way to prosecute the viewers.

The same holds true for music downloads. They don't come with warnings whether it is a work that is intended for the general public to download or not. It hasn't stopped any of the lawsuits so far. With music and movie downloads the industry lawyers have basically painted the picture that consumers should consider "all" downloads illegal when they are not. Even more confusing for the public, I can watch a clip of The Daily Show on Hulu or Comedy Central's site and it would be legal, but if I were to watch it on YouTube it would be illegal. Or even worse with networks now putting their own material on YouTube, watching a YouTube clip upload by HBO would be legal, but the same clip uploaded by BillyBob would be illegal.
And finally
And when stealing music, there's really no question that someone is stealing music. They are making a copy of it, so there is something physical, be it a file, CD, DVD, whatever. Really two different kinds of things here.

When you watch a video clip on Youtube that file is being downloaded onto your computer. When the video is over, the file is typically discarded. What most of the streaming capture programs do is simply write that file to a more permanent location. From the copyright owner's perspective they have absolutely no idea how to tell if the person watching a YouTube clips is simply watching the buffer copy or saving a download of the clip. The same goes for music downloads, the RIAA has very little idea if the music was ever burned to a physical medium, or shared with other users, or even ever listened to.

I don't think it will ever get to the point where companies will go after YouTube viewers (mainly because it is just easier to go after the hosts), but it is absolutely arguable that it would be within their rights to protect their copyrights in that way. The question still remains. If those companies felt that YouTube viewing was a serious threat to their income and the best possible way to put a stop to it was to make an example out of a few thousand people through lawsuits would you think that a $150K fine is excessive or an means to an end to deter the illegal behavior?
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Madison » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:41 am

AussieDodger wrote:
Madison wrote:
Here's the all time top views:

http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=mp&t=a

A few with over 100 million views and quite a few in the music area.



I must have the Australia-only list, I have none with 100 million views.
AC/DC appears 3 times (I prob helped with that) and there is that dramatic squirrel thing, and something called "Japanese Sex Doll".

:-b


Dunno what you've got, but here:

Avril Lavigne - Girlfriend - 117,658,678 views

Evolution of Dance - 116,557,481 views

Evolution of Dance is actually pretty good. :-D ;-D
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Madison » Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:03 am

Tavish wrote:There is practically zero difference between the two except perception. Point by point:
On the Youtube example, the viewers aren't stealing anything, so I don't really see how someone can be punished for that.

The same could be said for downloading music from P2P.


I disagree. If I download something off the net, that's to keep. Even if all it takes is a "right click save as" on an image or something, that's knowingly transferring something to my machine. Watching a video or listening to a song (via an mp3 site, radio site, etc) isn't the same thing.

Now if someone ripped a track off of a Youtube video, be it audio, visual, or both, then sure, I could see a lawsuit of some sort happening because they actually "took" something, be it a file, a CD, DVD, something.

People doing a music download aren't "taking" anything, they are making a copy of it. That's why the lawsuits are for copyright infringement and not for theft.


Exactly. Making a copy. Something people aren't doing while watching a Youtube video. Now if there are people doing that (copying stuff on Youtube), I say more power to those prosecuting the offenders.

The biggest problem with viewing things on Youtube is that some companies don't care what's on Youtube, they are cashing in on the publicity (and now commercials are being run during many clips).

The same goes for music. There is plenty of music that is freely published by the artist (or whomever holds the copyright) that is out there on the P2P networks or through MySpace or artist sites or where ever. There are also many labels that are not part of the RIAA and see free downloading as the best way to promote their work.


Is it not known that the best way to get official and licensed material is to do it directly from the publisher/group/etc?

So unless there's a way to tell people exactly which videos are legal to watch and which ones are not (and of course the illegal ones would be taken down by the site), then there's really no way to prosecute the viewers.

The same holds true for music downloads. They don't come with warnings whether it is a work that is intended for the general public to download or not. It hasn't stopped any of the lawsuits so far. With music and movie downloads the industry lawyers have basically painted the picture that consumers should consider "all" downloads illegal when they are not. Even more confusing for the public, I can watch a clip of The Daily Show on Hulu or Comedy Central's site and it would be legal, but if I were to watch it on YouTube it would be illegal. Or even worse with networks now putting their own material on YouTube, watching a YouTube clip upload by HBO would be legal, but the same clip uploaded by BillyBob would be illegal.
And finally


I don't really buy the music one, however, I do see what you're saying as far as who's uploading to Youtube. That is confusing.

And when stealing music, there's really no question that someone is stealing music. They are making a copy of it, so there is something physical, be it a file, CD, DVD, whatever. Really two different kinds of things here.

When you watch a video clip on Youtube that file is being downloaded onto your computer. When the video is over, the file is typically discarded. What most of the streaming capture programs do is simply write that file to a more permanent location. From the copyright owner's perspective they have absolutely no idea how to tell if the person watching a YouTube clips is simply watching the buffer copy or saving a download of the clip. The same goes for music downloads, the RIAA has very little idea if the music was ever burned to a physical medium, or shared with other users, or even ever listened to.

I don't think it will ever get to the point where companies will go after YouTube viewers (mainly because it is just easier to go after the hosts), but it is absolutely arguable that it would be within their rights to protect their copyrights in that way. The question still remains. If those companies felt that YouTube viewing was a serious threat to their income and the best possible way to put a stop to it was to make an example out of a few thousand people through lawsuits would you think that a $150K fine is excessive or an means to an end to deter the illegal behavior?


But that's the exact difference. Without turning on, installing, or whatever, the streaming capture program, no one is making a copy of anything. I see clips from sites all over the net (Youtube, MSN, Yahoo, TNA, WWE, etc) and not one is on my machine anywhere. Now if they can prove someone did install a motion capture or whatever in order to have their own copy of a clip without permission of the copyright holder, then I agree it's the exact same thing as stealing music.

Even if they did go after the Youtube viewers, you're talking $750. The higher figures would be for the uploaders and Youtube themselves. And to be frank, I'm not sure $750 would deter people from watching videos on Youtube (I don't have that kind of money to throw away, so I'd never visit there again :-b , but I'm not hooked on their site or involved with it like some people are), so if anything, that would need to be higher.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact