Overclock.net banner

[BBC]Japan introduces piracy penalties for illegal downloads

5K views 83 replies 60 participants last post by  Murlocke 
#1 ·
Quote:
Japan-based internet users who download copyright infringing files face up to two years in prison or fines of up to two million yen ($25,700; £15,900) after a change to the law.

...In theory the new download punishments can be enforced if a user is found to have copied a single pirated file.

The Recording Industry Association of Japan had pushed for the move, suggesting that illegal media downloads outnumbered legal ones by about a factor of 10.

The figure is based on a 2010 study which suggested that people in the country downloaded about 4.36 billion illegally pirated music and video files and 440 million purchased ones that year.
Source
 
#2 ·
Quote:
The figure is based on a 2010 study which suggested that people in the country downloaded about 4.36 billion illegally pirated music and video files and 440 million purchased ones that year
Absolute rubbish. No way is this true.

And if it is, we need figures for non-online sales. Maybe they sold 5BN records etc. from stores, but this takes no account of that.
 
#3 ·
Golden rule in action again - he who has the gold makes the rules.

This was the best thing I picked up from the article though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
About 80 participants picked up rubbish from the ground in the city's Shibuya shopping district for an hour to publicise their opposition to the plan.
Now that is a hell of a way to protest, and get the general public on your side.
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshd View Post

Absolute rubbish. No way is this true.
And if it is, we need figures for non-online sales. Maybe they sold 5BN records etc. from stores, but this takes no account of that.
I don't know Japan does have some fast internet speeds, but I still think is a bad move on Japans part.
 
#5 ·
In the long term, I would rather have legislation with set fines then find myself owing $6 million thanks to a ludicrous civil suit, or being made an example of on a rare occasion.

HOWEVER . The problem with this is, that it's the vested interests who seem to be directing the legislation, rather than the decision being carefully and rationally weighed in line with the rest of the country's laws. Maximum of 2 years for downloading and 10 for Uploading seems a LOT on the harsh side. Wonder what you'd get for manslaughter?

I don't know what the relevant penalties are in the UK, if anything, probably more draconian, given most politicians probably can't even work an iPod.
 
#7 ·
It has been proven over and over that illegal downloads spur sales. In essence it is free advertising. Many artists today would not be known if it was not for illegal downloads. Many programs would not be purchased if not downloaded and evaluated before purchase. The companies say they lose money, but this is not true. Every year media sales go up, for everyone. To say that users should serve jail time for 1 downloaded file. People will not stand for this, nor will the hacker group anonymous. Heads will roll, and legal systems will fall--In the long run of course.
smile.gif
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshd View Post

Quote:
The figure is based on a 2010 study which suggested that people in the country downloaded about 4.36 billion illegally pirated music and video files and 440 million purchased ones that year
Absolute rubbish. No way is this true.

And if it is, we need figures for non-online sales. Maybe they sold 5BN records etc. from stores, but this takes no account of that.
The problem with these numbers is these morons (RIAA) inflate them as much as possible to glorify their statement. I agree with your view, there's just no way. 98% of all statistics are made up (including that one). Who is to say what the 440 million sales would have been if those millions of people didn't get a chance to listen to the music beforehand by downloading it or streaming it? (I'm sure their magical numbers include streams like on YouTube
rolleyes.gif
) I'm sorry but piracy isn't the only factor that has reduced sales in the music industry. Poorer quality music is a much greater and more obvious factor.
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy9000 View Post

People get slammed with the large settlements because of UPLOADING the files, not downloading. Then you're distributing the pirated software, and the fines make more sense.
I don't see how you can justify a fine like this for essentially shoplifting.
It's not essentially shoplifting. It's copyright infringement, apparently far, far worse.
 
#11 ·
Example,

I read about a canadian TV show on an audio forum, it sounded like it would tickle my sense of humor. I`d Never heard of the show at all. Due to its content it seemed unlikely that I would ever see it on UK television so I found and downloaded it.
I really enjoyed it and now I am the proud OWNER of the DVD boxset The Trailer Park Boys.

If I lived in japan would I still have the prospect of the boys in blue kicking my door in and spending the next years sharing a cell with the japanese equivalent of `bubba`?
This dont seem right at all....
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshd View Post

Quote:
The figure is based on a 2010 study which suggested that people in the country downloaded about 4.36 billion illegally pirated music and video files and 440 million purchased ones that year
Absolute rubbish. No way is this true.

And if it is, we need figures for non-online sales. Maybe they sold 5BN records etc. from stores, but this takes no account of that.
Yup. People will find a way to justify anything. The human power of rationalization is the strongest force in the universe.
 
#15 ·
The RIAA believes that 1 million percent of people do nothing but download there crappy music, they believe that 1 billion percent of people don't buy cd's, and they believe that catching 1 percent of people will fix the problem...

my numbers maybe off i have my calcualtor set to RIAA....
 
#16 ·
And it begins...

This will be the norm across the world with in a few years.

Australia will have it in place before then end of the next year, then England in early 2014, with europe soon to follow. The US will have in place by 2015. I am sure most of the rest of Asia will be un-effected by this.

Precedence means everything with this type of crap. The RIAA is going to be foaming at the mouth repeating this over and over to any government ear that might listen and likely greasing any palm that will open up.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

And it begins...
This will be the norm across the world with in a few years.
Australia will have it in place before then end of the next year, then England in early 2014, with europe soon to follow. The US will have in place by 2015. I am sure most of the rest of Asia will be un-effected by this.
Precedence means everything with this type of crap. The RIAA is going to be foaming at the mouth repeating this over and over to any government ear that might listen and likely greasing any palm that will open up.
I can tell you right now if it does come to the UK me and many others I know will be out in the streets of Edinburgh or maybe even London.
 
#21 ·
So I look at it this way, lets say they issue me a $250,000 fine. That would honestly probably ruin my entire life, what I'm getting out of this is that media that was downloaded/shared was worth more than my life. Is that a fair way of looking at it?
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by granno21 View Post

Is streaming a file considered the same as downloading?
Technically, no. In their eyes, yes.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top