Re: @ Mad Mike 08:13 Karma's a bitch
"No, legislatures with a code on copyright generally include explicit fair use clauses, including among other for satirical, journalistic, and educational purposes. But use of a logo for purposes of description and identification is also pretty universally accepted as 'fair'. This isn't a case of 'passing-off', or a case where goodwill or material benefits are being unjustly enjoyed without a morally and/or legally proper level of permission and/or recompense. It is a very far cry from Pirate Bay destroying human beings and industries and art through stealing the fruits of peoples' professional lives. TPB has no mission. The copyright org here has a very important one. Weighing these factors will always play a role in any judicial balancing of harms."
I agree there is a balancing of harms when weighing the law. However, that's precisely what isn't happening. How is there is weighing when an organisation raids someones house using the police, confiscates property and for what? A small girl has tried ONCE to download something and then her father legally purchased it when he found out. Is that a balanced view? Of course not. The media industry etc. are the people who are showing NO balance and NO moral code. They are pursuing people for trivial violations with significant force and bully boy tactics. The courts are helping them and therefore often showing no balance either. Both these bodies are the ones taking a literal view of the law and not showing any balance or reasonable behaviour. They are the ones who cite preposterous losses against people.
"This isn't about breaking the law, as I said, the law is flexible and intelligent enough to discriminate between people's purposes."
So, you're suggesting that deliberately using someones copyright material with forethought (anti-piracy group) is OK, but going after the girl above for ONE violation is also OK? You're seriously having a laugh. All these incidents show beyond doubt that the law is not being flexibly and intelligently enough implemented for the majority of people.
"But consider the provisions, this isn't even an if, there is no case to answer."
As you like to say, citation please. WIthout one, this is a meaningless opinion. Can you show by legal precedent etc. there is no case to answer.....no. This is your opinion, currently based on nothing.
"We're not talking about protecting convicted criminals, we're talking about preventing very serious ongoing and utterly unjustified industrial sabotage, i.e. crime, on a massive scale. But the criminality isn't the problem, the consequences of it are the problem."
Serious and unjustified sabotage.....again please provide a citation. I think you'll find a significant proportion of the population don't believe it's unjustified against media companies at least. They've been allowed to run cartels (against the law) and artificially inflate prices for years without any action being taken against them. As to the impact on their businesses? All their figures are beyond stupid. They create figures out of thin air that have no basis in reality and then cite them as fact. Some artists are now even beginning to realise that putting their work on the internet can actually provide THEM with better earnings. They're beginning to realise the media companies are the ones taking all their money, not so much the pirates. This will just become more and more over time. The general population simply don't believe their grossly inflated figures. You'll note I'm not saying they aren't loosing money. I'm just saying that if they kept the figures they quote within the bounds of reason, people might have more sympathy for them. But, they don't and stomp around like jackbooted stormtroopers. They are loosing the popularity war with then pirates simply because people don't believe a word they say and consider many of their actions morally reprehensible. All they ever do is threaten people.
"But this isn't the law, you have no law or actual moral case on the side of your argument, otherwise you would have included even the slightest smidgen. In the event, all you could say was “oh it's not good to deprive criminals of justice”. If you accept they're criminals, presumably you accept they're also continuing themselves to commit crime, and calling for others to do so too, with hugely damaging economic and social consequences, on an ongoing basis through their activities. This is the real question at issue: how to stop them, and doing so is an important cause which will be weighed by a judge in the unlikely event he or she ever admits this “case” for hearing."
What utter rubbish. My moral case is rather than kicking down some small girls door and taking her laptop etc. for ONE violation, they could have sent a letter. The father would then have replied showing his purchase, explained what happened and apologise on behalf of his daughter after explaining what she did wrong. That's the reasonable and moral way to do things, but they choose to kick the door down, take the laptop and threaten stupid costs and losses. If the media industry and judges actually thought about things, they might try a different approach, which might have more success, because the current one isn't working!! But not, they simply threaten more and use more bully boy tactics. They have to realise that the law operates with the consent of the population (as do the police), not inspite of it. If the majority of the population don't agree with something, it won't go away, which is exactly what's happening here. If the law (and police) start operating without the consent of the population, you end up with little more than a banana republic.