[Ars] What's next for Jammie Thomas-Rasset? - Page 2 - Overclock.net

Dittoz · 06-22-09

I think most reasonable people would agree this judgment does violate the Eighth Amendment. I also hope people are starting to realize that the Bankruptcy Bill passed a couple of years ago was an utter screw you to the people.

Political affiliation is a moot point when I say that is a piece of crap bill. The Republicans started it, but it only got passed with the help of Democrats such as Biden. (Biden from Delaware where all the credit card companies are incorporated pushed it hard).

Peoples' lives are ruined now because of this bill. All so Visa could make a few more $.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0312-03.htm

That link has the roll call vote.

Quote:

''Families are borrowing to make ends meet, and they're one missed paycheck away from collapse,'' said Tamara Draut, director of the economic opportunity program at Demos, a think tank. ''The Congress members of both parties who are embracing these punitive measures for working families are dangerously out of touch with the grim economic realities faced by ordinary families.''

So now bankruptcy may actually be out for this poor woman.

Dittoz · 06-22-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kryten

I think that the near univsersal outrage is correct and probably those few people for this actually reside here at OCN!

those few people for this actually reside here at OCN!

Yup. They'll be along in this thread pretty shortly.

**t4ct1c47** · 06-22-09

Most current copyright laws were written before internet access, and thus filesharing, became widely available in people's homes. The laws never were intended to protect intellectual property in that manner.

Someone writes a book and releases it, and then someone else rips off the works and releases it. That infringes copyright as they are selling somebody elses works. Someone lends an audio CD to a friend, or a DVD, that does not infringe copyright and falls under fair use.

Where peer to peer downloading falls under this is hard to say. Is it lending or shareing? Possibly. Is it illegally distributing copyrighted content? Possibly. How laws are written now they have to assume one of those two options. Reform is needed to make the laws fit in with modern technology and society.

Urufu_Shinjiro · 06-22-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by t4ct1c47

Most current copyright laws were written before internet access, and thus filesharing, became widely available in people's homes. The laws never were intended to protect intellectual property in that manner.

Someone writes a book and releases it, and then someone else rips off the works and releases it. That infringes copyright as they are selling somebody elses works. Someone lends an audio CD to a friend, or a DVD, that does not infringe copyright and falls under fair use.

Where peer to peer downloading falls under this is hard to say. Is it lending or shareing? Possibly. Is it illegally distributing copyrighted content? Possibly. How laws are written now they have to assume one of those two options. Reform is needed to make the laws fit in with modern technology and society.

^ This! Copyright should be reformed so it differentiates between corporate, for profit, use of copyrighted material, and personal non-profit downloading.

KusH · 06-22-09

Another reason why the government isnt out to protect and serve THE PEOPLE, but to protect and serve their corporate scumbag buddies that pay their salaries.

Down with lobbying!!!

Best quote EVER
"Politics should wear uniforms, like nascar. That way you can tell who their corporate sponsors are"

liermam · 06-22-09

I have so much to say about this article, but none of it is appropriate for the younger ears and eyes of OCN, nor do I feel the need to ruin my day by seeing the depressing side of humanity so I'll keep it short:

The 1.92million makes the $5,000 look like a bargain. That is totally ridiculous. Just like the article stated, Sony BMG only had to reimburse users of their purposely SPYWARE INFECTED media 150$. Her fines shouldn't exceed the cost of purchasing the songs/CD's from Sony, which is to say her fines shouldn't exceed 50$.

MrMan · 06-22-09

if that s*** aint the very definition of excessive, i dont know whatTF would be. why havent they locked up lars ulrich? he even admitted in an article that he downloaded his own album cuz it was easier. total BS

GBob314 · 06-22-09

Why not just come up with a flat rate for song sharing? $50 per song? That way it isn't a life ruining amount for people that get caught downloading 24 songs, but it will also add up for the people that download thousands of songs. Or maybe we can just make the punishment of every other crime equate to the blown out of proportion sentence of this one by just sentencing everybody that commits any crime to life.

Dittoz · 06-22-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBob314

Why not just come up with a flat rate for song sharing? $50 per song? That way it isn't a life ruining amount for people that get caught downloading 24 songs, but it will also add up for the people that download thousands of songs. Or maybe we can just make the punishment of every other crime equate to the blown out of proportion sentence of this one by just sentencing everybody that commits any crime to life.

If it were up to the RIAA and their supporters (I still don't know why none have posted in this thread) we'd be executing pirates. Forget that life in prison nonsense.