Who cares?

If a nation's law says you have to do XYZ to become a legal citizen of their country, why should that be circumvented because you don't feel like they "earned" whatever they have? I should not be allowed to say to Japan - "eff all your immigration laws, I don't think you all did anything to earn what you have in your country! So I'm just going to come in an DARE you to kick me out of your own country!" and I don't think people should do it to America or Germany or whatever other country, developed, rich, or otherwise.

A nation has the right to carry out it's laws and if you want to be a part of that nation you should have to follow it's laws, including getting into their borders legally and legally staying within those borders.

You've obviously missed the point.   Oh well!!!

Eh no. I repeated your argument, simplified it and then showed how ridicilous it is.

Ultimately, copyright infringement is a civil matter- and as such, should be handled by the copyright holders- ethically.  (Note, scare tactics designed to force non-infringers to pay through suing them to death should be as punishable as corrupt debt collectors)

That said, some industries aren't big enough to counter piracy- look at the anime industry, where infringement is rampant.  Right now the manga companies are trying to prevent that from happening through banding and doing their own site (Openmanga)

It's a tough issue.  That said, this is not the role of the government.

-

I'd look more at Mussolini's Italy as a parallel example to our current political climate and dangers of its ideology.

Eh no. You missed the point, went off on a tangent and then used ridiculous and exaggerated example as a failed attempt at an analogy.

The OP said from the outset  " don't give me that First Amendment bullshit or "this is just the first step that will turn America into Nazi-Germany."

People can debate the criminality of "illegal file-sharing" all they like but it's an absurd waste of time as the tagline is its own conclusion.

Oh, joy, we're on the third page of a redundant thread and we've already broken Godwin's Law.

We should have a forum rule underlining that invocation of Godwin's Law in an opening statement results in an automatic lockdown.

Edit: Edited for niceties.

?!?!?!

This is a great idea considering all the things the government does well when their hands are in it .  They should be focusing their energy and using our money to combat bigger issues.

Ok, then, so you wouldn't mind living in a society where the government IS law enforcement, judge, jury and executioner???  One where a drunken politician can run over your child and get away with it.... because he IS the LAW? 

You see, it sets a dangerous precedent when government makes itself responsible to chase down and prosecute matters that should remain with law enforcement and the courts... both separate departments funded by taxpayer... meaning government does not own or run them.  If you would like to live in a society where government runs law enforcement and the courts, however, be my guest and move to Nth Korea or Zimbabwe, though I'd expect to see a change of tune in a very, very short while.  Yeah, the atrocities committed there in the name of law and order are nothing short of barbaric... horrendous, even...  and you want to give your government more free rein over your police and your courts?

Look, I'm not against publishers/copyright owners pursuing copyright infringement, but let them do it at their own expense using their only own resources... as it was originally intended to be.  As it was stated a post #7, the RIAA spent 64 million last year to collect 1.3 million from settled cases... so go on, tell me that you want your government to spend your tax dollars to pursue civil matters for extremely wealthy people and tie up the criminal courts.  It won't matter that victims of real crime (burglary, rape, murder, child molestation) can't get their day in court to see justice done... so long as the music and movie moguls are happy it'll be alright, right???   Gimme a f**king break!!!! 

It's one thing to be righteous and all high and mighty, but at least get the priorities straight.  The US is one of the most over-policed countries in the world (what with state AND federal police, the FBI and CIA, Homeland Security AND the FTA, not to mention all the hick sheriffs and their deputies) and yet it is one of the most lawless (murders, shootings, rape, burglary, gang violence, etc, etc, etc) in the world.  Seems to me, you'd want to be getting all that under some semblance of control before chasing some piddling "Robin Hood' file sharer who's stealing from the rich (read filthy stinking rich) to give to the poor... and physically hurting nobody.

I know that I'd like to see murderers, rapists and child molesters behind bars first, but if you think it better to spend the resources to capture and convict file sharers instead, then God help us!!!!   All we need is a few more with similar views and we'll be back in Hitler's Germany... Stalin's Russia. 

So it's alright for government to play policeman for the wealthy... all at taxpayers expense, right??   OK, then, so what about when the government you empowered decides to extend its sphere of influence to pursuing, persecuting, prosecuting you (with a mandatory conviction) for something it perceives as evil and unlawful... unlawful under the new totalitarian arrangements handed to it on a silver platter by the groundswell of unwitting copyright sympathisers.  You see, you don't want to give government too many mandates, given what politicians are, otherwise you set them up to take even more liberties and eventually become omnipotent.

Made my point yet????

Edit:

Oh yeah, and where are all the usual US combatants who say they are over-governed and reckon government couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery?  I've read often enough in the past: "Keep government out of health!" and "Keep government out of stimulus packages!"  Orright, so how about "keep government out of what should strictly be civil matters"?

And why does this matter to me here in Oz?   Because whatever your dickheads in Washington decree, it ends up filtering down to the wankers here in Canberra... and wtf should I suffer totalitarianism.

Why must copyright be a civil matter?

Why can't the 'handling' of [your] children be a personal matter?

Why can't it be a legitimate course of action that if one person hurts you you are entitled to exact personal punishment with total impunity?

The abuse of a person's property is one step removed from the abuse of a person.  It does not make it less wrong, just less fatal [usually].

I want MY government to actively protect ME AND my property.

There is no free ride...."oh, yes, let's catch the murders and rapists....that's an attack on PERSON....meanwhile let's give carte blanche to all thieves, car jackers, vandals....and while we are at it...9 times out of ten arsonists and firebugs don't kill anyone....let's let them loose too."

It is GOOD that people with [large] commercial interests push the Government to enact the laws and pursue piracy, etc as in the long run its banishment will help all.

You don't decriminalize crime to eradicate it...you eradicate the criminals to eradicate crime.

Because copyright material IS private property... and the copyright laws were enacted to enable copyright holders the opportunity to prosecute the theft of their private property in the civil courts.  To enable government the right to do this on behalf of copyright holders sets a dangerous precedent.  Give them an inch... and well, you know the rest...

Yes, exactly!  It is YOUR entitlement... not that of government to exact revenge or punishment on your behalf.  If you are aggrieved it is your responsibility to pursue the legal avenues made available by government to protect your legal rights.

Same here, but it don't always happen.  I was burgled and robbed of $10,000 worth of property... and the bastards didn't even take fingerprints, so any hope of catching the culprits was severely compromised from the get go.  I say "bastards" because the very same cop shop (the one that simply didn't have the resources) could dispatch 6 cars ans 12 cops to a to a complaint about "dope" being smoked at a nearby party  Yeah, there was revenue in arresting dope smokers... not in tracking down the thieves who stole my property.  So you see, Jafo, I am more than familiar with theft of MY property.  

That's why I say 'law' has to be a matter of priority.  I had no recourse outside the criminal system to prosecute the burglars who stole my property...whereas, copyright holders always have the civil court to tun to when they perceive they are aggrieved.  Hence, civil matters like copyright should remain where they belong... in the civil system.

I dunno, Jafo, you really disappoint me... given what the Aussie spirit was built on.  Most Aussies say "fuck the establishment" because it is built to closely on and resembles the mistakes of 'Mother England'.... and here you are, proposing the system acquire greater powers. 

Sorry, I don't like thieves any more than you do, but the last thing I want is for our government to attain power levels anything like those in the US... an agency for every damned thing except breathing and farting.  Oh, wait a minute... uh, um, probably best not to speak too soon.

.

You can sue the burglar for damages.

Nothing stops you.

Assuming of course, just as with the copyright issues.....the 'perp' can be located.

People from different walks of life will have different priorities...place importance on things differently.

If someone steals my professional name/reputation it will do more harm than crashing a Kenworth through the front of my house.

Identity theft/fraud [false claims of IP ownership] can fuck you just as efficiently as a knife can.

I want the arbiters of my protection to protect me PROPERLY, not say "sorry, mate...it's only your reputation/name that's fucked....next time have the person kill you as well...then you come to us and we'll help".

Bit bloody late then, eh?

Been There!!!   Not without first having a successful case in the criminal court...  as in guilt must be established before is one is able to mount a civil suit against the person(s) who committed the criminal act.  What stops me?   Without the criminal arm of law enforcement/the justice dep't providing the onus of guilt (hard evidence/a conviction) one simply has NO case to bring before a civil court.

And, sometimes, sadly so.  In my walk of life, public safety, particularly for my family, is far more important than hauling a file sharer over the coals.  In other words, if somebody steals my ideas I'm going to be upset, but I still place a higher priority on the lives and well being of those I love and care about... therefore I want law enforcement and the justice system freed up to deal with actual harm... not perceived harm.

In such an instance (fraud/identity theft), you have a criminal case... and it is prosecutable within the criminal justice system.  Any civil suit that may or may not ensue is optional and a matter for the aggrieved/complainant.

Great!!!  That's what I want to hear.... that you'd rather not tie up the criminal justice system with piddling civil matters. 

In this instance I have to say I agree that it SHOULD be a Civil Matter only. Why? Because I don't think the FBI and CIA and other Government Organizations should be doing the Bidding of Private Industry, period. They should be stopping Terrorism and Guarding our country, NOT chasing down so called "Internet Pirates". That's what we have Fat, Lazy, Donut Eating Pigs er..I mean Cops, for. The Military are NOT police officers. The Military have their own police force to handle Military Matters, they're called "MP's", which stands for Military Police.

If a Company wants to sue a pirate/criminal then let them get a Lawyer, call the Cops, and go after them. I know if someone commits a crime against me I don't call the Vice President, I call the COPS. Corporations should HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING. Why aren't they? Because they OWN people in the Government. I'm sure if I had a few Billion Dollars in my pocket I could get a congressman to solve my problems too, but I don't. If Corporations can use the government as law enforcement then private citizens should be able too as well.....but we can't. Fair? Not in the f'kin slightest. As a private citizen how can you not feel the same way? Unless of course you think Brad's gonna pony up the money for your lawyer if You ever get in trouble?

I'm pretty sure if you got in trouble and needed a lawyer, unless it was work related, Stardock wouldn't be paying your legal fees.

(yes, I know if you use your pay check from Stardock to pay the lawyer it's Stardock money, but you earned that money, it's not "Corporate" money)

I just don't think the government should be a private police force for Any entity that makes money en-mass. It's not fair to the common people who can't afford to have equal legal representation and our legal system is SUPPOSED to be All About being "Fair". We all know life isn't fair, but the U.S. Legal System Supposedly is.

Good points.  I think that the best societies are the ones that have the *most* sharing around of power, and the smallest difference between the most well-off and the least well-off. ie. not too much power in any 1 person's/entity's hands, and the ratio of what the people at the very bottom earn to the those at the very top is not too low.

Who was it who said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."?

Best regards,
Steven. 

You want it to be civil because you want to trivialize it.

It means eff-all when compared to rape and murder and all those idiots who want to eqate 'LESSER CRIMES' with ethnic cleansing prior/during WW2, etc.

Good for you.

It's ALL about scales.

OK...

Let's make damn sure we prioritize our Law protecting exactly right.

Let's make darn sure the white, Anglo-saxon Protestants are protected FIRST. To hell with all those ring-ins from 'some other place'.

The damn truth of the matter is ALL crime is crime.

ALL deserves to be pursued.

If the resources are stretched...well, fuck-it, GET MORE.

The solution is NOT to arbitrarily decide...."oh, he can go free....he's a mate, anyway.", or "slip me ten quid and this crime didn't happen".

Society makes rules.

Society empowers parts of itself to ensure those rules are kept/observed.

Society sets the protections.

Society wants what they ask for.

Guess what?  Those evil bastards you all hate...you know, COMPANIES - they are part of this society too.

Funny, that.

Don't blame Corporations for their ability.

Blame commercialism/capitalism for empowering them.

Lawyers are the issue, not the LEGAL SYSTEM.

Pro Bono isn't an Irish hooker in U2.

It's an ideal.

Life is way too complex for black and white thinking to ever work in more than a handful of cases.  The fact is, there is no-one who is completely 100% perfect, and there is no-one who is perfectly 100% vile.  But I would sooner trust someone who doesn't have a vested interest in getting more power than someone who has.  And companies can't be voted out (except by mass consumer backlash), politicians can, so companies have a higher proof level then the ordinary person on the street.  And as for those two last paragraphs - those who commit serious physical crimes (like murder, rape and so on) in a similar way are part of this society too.  So no matter how you might like to see it, there are always shades of gray/grey (whichever you prefer ;-)) in any situation, including this one.

Best regards,
Steven. 

Or we could just focus on the actions rather than the actual entities.  We don't always need someone to blame (but I must admit, there are times each one of us do!  ).

Best regards,
Steven. 

No no, my friend. I Don't think it should be trivialized, not at all.

I agree, whole heartedly. Don't forget brother, I was a developer once too. A lot of games I worked QA and Beta tested on have been pirated over the years but I'm sure I won't see a dime if someone get's prosecuted over downloading one. I also don't get any royalties off any of the mountains of content I made when I worked for Origin on UO, because as a Origin employee, everything I made while working for them was Their Property, not mine. Don't get me wrong, I got paid what I considered a fair wage for fair work at the time, but if I had been allowed to copyright any of the item or quests or system scripts I wrote I'd be a Very Rich man today. Considering how popular UO was back then and how much money Origin made I'd most likely rival Frogboy in terms of wealth.

All Crime is Crime, and when Crime happens I call the Cops. NOT the FBI and CIA. Pirates are Not violent criminals. They are Not Murderers and Rapists or Child Molesters. They aren't Hackers in the sense of the term as they don't actively aim to hurt people's computers. WHY are the FEDS going after Pirates? COPS need to be going after Pirates. The people who want to stop the pirates Didn't Go To The Cops, they went Straight to the Heads of State for a Non-Violent Crime. It's bullshit man, complete and utter bullshit. Companies are getting SPECIAL TREATMENT because they are Rich and Powerful Companies. As a American I don't think that's fair to the people. A Corporation that wants to seek legal action needs to do so through the PROPER channels just like EVERYONE ELSE or the system of Law is Not Fair or Just and that goes Against EVERYTHING this country was Founded On.

I can't say I disagree with you. I think you're right here as well, but, there's more of "Society" to think about here.

Did the American Government put it to a vote to the common people whether or not it should be spending this kind of money and going after the people they're going after? No. Did they ask the "Society" at large what they should do? No. Did we get Any Say at All in the matter? No.

Congressmen and high end CEO's made these laws and made them get passed. In this case the Companies that are part of Society have a Distinct Advantage BECAUSE they are Companies. There's no way a average private citizen can compete with the wealth a company has, and hence the law won't work as hard for the private citizen.

The point I'm making with that is in America the Law is SUPPOSED To Be in FAVOR of the common people. We are supposed to have a government that is "By The People, For The People"....but this goes exactly Against "The People".

You both (Jafo and starkers) want your property (intellectual and physical) to be protected by the state. To do that, the state must be empowered to act on those matters. There's no choice, really.

You can't have it both ways except by option: The criminal offense is not merely against an individual (including corporations and banks, etc.), but society as a whole. The civil offense is against the individual (including corporations and banks, etc. both due to corporations, etc. being viewed for legal purposes as individuals). The civil plaintiff/victim is the one with the option to pursue suit or not. Manoevers designed to stifle that need to be quashed immediately by the state, since no one else has the power to do so.

The balance is the trick, and an independent judiciary.

You both make very good points. You both happen to be right. Australia should be grateful indeed for having two such citizens.... except for the gas.

No, not here!   I just prioritise crime and see such things as murder, rape and child abuse as deserving much greater attention within the law.  It does not mean that copyright infringement is not a crime, just that it rates well down the list when looking at the victims. For example, if a copyright holder has a family member murdered or a child molested, then I believe that person should receive the full support of law enforcement and the criminal justice system.  However, if that same copyright holder has his/her intellectual property pirated (no physical crime, injury), then it is up to him/her to pursue the matter in the civil courts... you know, those places empowered and originally designed to deal with such 'civil' matters....

And yes, copyright disputes ARE civil matters... as in police will not prosecute a property dispute case. Try going to your local cop shop to complain that I downloaded a copyrighted house plan of yours illegally from the internet... and they will tell you to go see a lawyer to get it into civil court.  That's the way it is for ordinary folk like you and I... we do not have any authority over law enforcement to do our bidding, and it should be no different for corporate entities.  Their power and money should make no difference, but unfortunately it most often does, as is being seen with this US gov't intervening in civil matters now. 

The RIAA spent 68 million on copyright infringement pursuit to get near eff all back, and now it's somehow right to get government to take up the cause... at taxpayers expense???   The fat cat bastards are living lives of opulent luxury in multi-million dollar mansions and laughing all the way to the bank... they get to keep their legal contingency funds AND get their day in court.   Gimme a break, that's just no fucken right!!!!! 

The problem is that it has always been that way....this is nothing new. If you have money you can buy just about anything.

One thing that surprises me though....is that a lot of the people complaining about these pirating laws are smart enough that they could pool together...make their own games and give them away? Naaah...no money in "giving" games away...hmmm. What a tangled web we weave!

But it shouldn't be that way. That's not what our Government was founded on and that's Not how the Legal System was designed to work. In America, everyone, regardless of wealth, is Supposed to have Equal Legal Representation. Anyone who's ever had to use a "Public Defender" (or a "Public Pretender" as I like to call them) will tell you from first hand experience that our Legal System is Not the way it's Supposed to be. People get "rail roaded" through our justice system every day. People complain about it but their complaints go un-heard and un-noticed because they're "criminals"....and who would listen to a criminal saying they were being treated un-fairly? Surely not someone who wants to stay in power or keep making money off those criminals...

LoL I'm sure they/we probably could. I call that "Work" though when I do it and preferably I like to get "Paid" for my Work. I've been there and done that. I don't think we're talking about "employee rights" here though, my friend . That's a whole other can of worms in its-self.