[Lisheo]

So, as the police state/DNA thread was getting a bit off-topic, I decided to create this.
Quotes from the thread:

Gem Windcaster, on 14 December 2009 - 05:07 PM, said:

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 14 December 2009 - 04:02 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 14 December 2009 - 03:51 PM, said:

Also, Apt, the US government and US private corporations are intimidating Swedish politicians to do their bidding

I'm not sure what specifically you're talking about here. Could you go in to more detail?

The most serious example is ACTA, but there are many examples, you just have to search for information.
Michael Geist writes about leaked ACTA documents
Pirate MEP Christian Engström Writes about it.
And there are more information about it all over the nets.

The fact that US corporations is allowed to influence European laws in ways that is secret and we as Europeans citizens have no insight nor any control over is shameful to say the least. And it's more than a little scary. US attorneys get to see and dictate those documents but the European citizens that it actually concerns can't even know what the documents are about. It makes me sick to my stomach, just thinking about it.

Gem Windcaster, on 15 December 2009 - 03:19 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 15 December 2009 - 03:14 AM, said:

Ok, I`ll admit you`ve lost me there Gem. I clicked on the links you provided, but it`s not clear (from those first pages at least) what exactly the issue is that is being discussed. Help me, I`m slow...

Maybe it's not so clear to you because the documents are secret. But the first link in particular goes into detail on what was leaked. There's a previous leak too, you might want to look for it. The Geist guy is spending alot of time trying to read between the lines, so to speak, so there's lots of info on his site.

[Cougar]

I don't agree with what I can glean in terms of information about the specific policy, but what this seems to be about, or at least what Gem is specifically highlighting here is the US attempting to exert political influence to protect what it sees as the vested interests of it's industries, in this case to restrict access to copyrighted/protected material.

I actually don't see what the big scandal is. That's not to say I don't understand, but this is just an example of a normal process of an actor (in this case a state rather than a megacorp) bringing what power and influence it can to bear on discussions in which it feels it has an interest. It is no different from when any corporation or organisiation etc seeks to exert influence through pressure groups, direct action etc on national governments (indeed it's exactly how any party, including the pirate party functions) which is common to all political systems so far as I know. You may, or may not, find it unfortuante that we live in a system where sovereignty is no longer sacrosanct as it once was, but it would be naive to think there is any way back.

We live in a globalising world with boundaries between countries being eroded. If you isolate the debate about the content of the policy, which is what Gem has done then I really fail to see what is so disgusting or wrong about this. The US isn't exerting territorial claims it is merely seeking to influence other governements and organisiations (in this case it seems that it is the European Commission). Unelected as used in this specific case is misleading too since the Commission is nominated by the elected governments of each country. Moreover it can not pass, only draft and propose legislation, the passing of which still rests in the hands of directly elected officials.

Think on, it could be worse, when we used to think there was a threat to our trade or industry we would merely park the Royal Navy in the nearest accessible port or wide river and shell the capital. I think it's a bit of stretch to imagine the USS Nimitz pulled up of the coast of Scandanavia bombing Gothenburg.

[Shinrei]

It's only going to continue to get harder and harder to protect intellectual property. But be assured, private and public institutions are going to continue to try.

I sense a touch of anti-private sector in some of the stuff I've now read on the subject, which always makes me a tad suspicious of motives.

[Gem Windcaster]

If it only were as you say, Cougar. If one disregards the content (which isn't cute either), it's not the 'wanting to influence' part that I am upset about as much as the influencing without the knowledge of the European citizens or even normal democratic transparency. It's kinda hard to oppose something that you don't even know what it is exactly. Fortunately people on the inside decided to leak documents. As far as the content go, it's not only about nicely caring for private corporate interests (which in itself one could argue against), the horrendous thing is the methods proposed and the way it is done. If you understand partly what the repercussions will be for our society, then you can't help but feel helpless and angry and upset.

I don't think USS Nimitz will be bombing Gothenburg any time soon, granted, but nevertheless there are some concerns regarding our timid and sometimes naive politicians wide eyed doing whatever US tells them to do. Unfortunately we have prior experience of the justice department breaking Swedish law to do Washington's bidding. Big corporations are allowed to extort people, and with methods that even the police aren't allowed to do (although there's a fight against it that seems to be working). It's not when you can trust your elected politicians that you worry about secret negotiations, it's when you can't trust them that you worry. I am not about to give up my democratic and human rights just so a big US corporation can feel they have cared for their 'interests'. Maybe we're wrong to be worried, but as long as it's even a small chance in hell that these dangers exist, people should scream loudly. If we end up looking like paranoid morons, then so be it.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 15 December 2009 - 02:52 PM

[Obdigore]

As far as I can tell, neither of the sites you linked have the actual proposal on them.

The first one is a reaction to the EU's reaction to the proposal, while attempting to infer from some quibbling about language what the proposal is.

The second one is quite entertaining, especially for his US bashing as well as his reaction to the EU's reaction position piece.

I don't see what is wrong with the US attempting to Harmonize Copyright Laws throughout the world. Why do you have a problem with that Gem?

Gem, The Register wrote an article just for you!
http://www.theregist...y_negotiations/

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 15 December 2009 - 03:46 PM

[Lisheo]

Neither of the sites have the proposal on them. It's a secret document, which means, as far as I'm aware, hosting it is illegal. If it was otherwise, I'd post the offending part of it here for discussion.

EDIT: I'll paraphrase. Essentially, it allows for safe harbour, like the DMCA, however, in order to avail of it, ISPs have to put in place policies that will reduce unauthorised storage and transmission of copyright infringing content.
This could mean: Blocks on filesharing websites, download caps, deep-packet inspection to find infringing content, and other things. In the example given on the paper, ACTA seems to be suggesting a three-strike policy, which, I do believe, was ruled as more or less illegal not too long ago by European courts, wasn't it, seeing as the internet is apparently now a basic human right? It also states that ISPs must self-regulate.
Honestly, the whole paper smacks of the US pulling its weight, a lot of the wording does, anyway.
I would like to say I have no problem with the US or American people, by the by. Just that leaked bit of the treaty, well...

Also, that said, I only have one of the two or more sections leaked. I haven't seen the others.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Gem, am I correct in recollecting that you are deeply in favor of internet piracy and do not really believe in copyrights? If I'm thinking of someone else, feel free to correct me. If I am remembering that fact correctly though, is this influencing your thoughts on this matter: namely, not only being offended by the USA throwing their weight around, but disliking the idea of increased copyright enforcement in general?

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 03:03 PM, said:

the US attempting to Harmonize Copyright Laws throughout the world.

I have a major issue with this. Firstly my democratic vote doesn't mean shit in this 'negotiation'. Secondly I have a major issue with the US trying to force laws on the EU that my selected politicians clearly is against and has voted against in the parliament. SO what's the problem, you say? Well,the EU isn't as democratic as you'd hope - the parliament doesn't have that much power, really. There are a lot of good things about the EU, but the fact that the ACTA negotiations exist, and are secret, represents all that is bad with the EU.

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 15 December 2009 - 05:21 PM, said:

Gem, am I correct in recollecting that you are deeply in favor of internet piracy and do not really believe in copyrights? If I'm thinking of someone else, feel free to correct me. If I am remembering that fact correctly though, is this influencing your thoughts on this matter: namely, not only being offended by the USA throwing their weight around, but disliking the idea of increased copyright enforcement in general?

I am in favor of non-commercial file sharing being completely legalized - I am in favor of copyright being reformed - meaning I think a commercial copyright should stay, but that non-commercial copyright should be abolished.
I certainly hope it does influence my thoughts on the matter, it would be horrible if it didn't. And I am not so much offended by USA 'throwing their weight around', but that the EU is letting them. You must remember that I do see this as a part of a bigger picture, and am not fixed on the idea of free file sharing or whatever. The fact that I support free non-commercial file sharing is a symptom of my political views, as is my view on the acta, and not the other way around.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 15 December 2009 - 05:52 PM

[Obdigore]

So, Gem, Unless I am missing something here, you are arguing that your democratic vote, which you used to elect the officials that appointed the officials that are going through with this TOP SECRET WORLD LEADER NEGOTIATION IN A BASEMENT WITH TESLA COILS AND ZOMBIE NAZI'S, is somehow ignoring your democratic right to vote people into office?

Your Selected Politician is a small part of all the 'selected politician' an that is what democracy is, the views of ALL the people, not just the pirates and the people they support. In addition, from what I understand, this 'SUPER TOP SECRET MEETING OF THE LEGION OF DOOM' is only to get the agreements set before the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS get together to vote yay or nay on the bill.

In other news, since the meeting is between more countries than the US and the EU, perhaps opening negotiations on this subject is a good thing, since it will get many countries to hopefully voice the opinion of their peoples.

And, since we are on the subject, what do you view as a 'non-commercial' copyright? Any time someone is making money, or hoping to make money, it becomes a commercial enterprise. I have yet to see anything in the world that would be a 'non-commercial' copyright, but I suppose that depends on how you define 'commercial'.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 15 December 2009 - 06:01 PM

[Lisheo]

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 06:00 PM, said:

So, Gem, Unless I am missing something here, you are arguing that your democratic vote, which you used to elect the officials that appointed the officials that are going through with this TOP SECRET WORLD LEADER NEGOTIATION IN A BASEMENT WITH TESLA COILS AND ZOMBIE NAZI'S, is somehow ignoring your democratic right to vote people into office?

Your Selected Politician is a small part of all the 'selected politician' an that is what democracy is, the views of ALL the people, not just the pirates and the people they support. In addition, from what I understand, this 'SUPER TOP SECRET MEETING OF THE LEGION OF DOOM' is only to get the agreements set before the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS get together to vote yay or nay on the bill.

In other news, since the meeting is between more countries than the US and the EU, perhaps opening negotiations on this subject is a good thing, since it will get many countries to hopefully voice the opinion of their peoples.

And, since we are on the subject, what do you view as a 'non-commercial' copyright? Any time someone is making money, or hoping to make money, it becomes a commercial enterprise. I have yet to see anything in the world that would be a 'non-commercial' copyright, but I suppose that depends on how you define 'commercial'.

I have to ask a question. Do you think it's democratic that the elected officials are discussing this in complete secrecy? This isn't a matter that's essential to national security, so why is it being discussed in complete secrecy? And despite the fact that members have contested that, it is complete secrecy, with no access to the contents for anyone outside of ACTA. If a Trade Agreement is being drawn up between countries, especially one that deals with a sticky topic such as copyright infringement, I'd like to know a little about it.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

I think the distinction he's trying to make between commercial & non-commercial copyright, in reference to file sharing is this:
A person like me, who downloads music and other files for personal use would be a non-commercial copyright violation.
A person who downloads music and other files (especially movies), then burns them on CDs/DVDs to sell would be a commercial copyright violation.
I see a lot of that kind of violation. A family member in NYC makes pretty decent spending cash to supplement his job burning movies & selling them for 3-5 dollars each. He's got a computer with like 8 burners or so & sells quite a few movies every day. He actually takes orders & usually does multiple movies for every person he sells to at a time. I also see it occasionally at the truck stop where I work.
Technically, either is illegal here in the US; how much did Metallica sue a teenager for over the first type? Personally, I know it's wrong, but do it anyway because I don't believe what's offered by the entertainment industry is woth what they ask, so I vote with my wallet for them to lower their prices. If the stuff were much cheaper, I probably wouldn't bother with file sharing. Doesn't make it right of course, but in my mind it's justified for me.

[Obdigore]

Lisheo, on 15 December 2009 - 06:12 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 06:00 PM, said:

So, Gem, Unless I am missing something here, you are arguing that your democratic vote, which you used to elect the officials that appointed the officials that are going through with this TOP SECRET WORLD LEADER NEGOTIATION IN A BASEMENT WITH TESLA COILS AND ZOMBIE NAZI'S, is somehow ignoring your democratic right to vote people into office?

Your Selected Politician is a small part of all the 'selected politician' an that is what democracy is, the views of ALL the people, not just the pirates and the people they support. In addition, from what I understand, this 'SUPER TOP SECRET MEETING OF THE LEGION OF DOOM' is only to get the agreements set before the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS get together to vote yay or nay on the bill.

In other news, since the meeting is between more countries than the US and the EU, perhaps opening negotiations on this subject is a good thing, since it will get many countries to hopefully voice the opinion of their peoples.

And, since we are on the subject, what do you view as a 'non-commercial' copyright? Any time someone is making money, or hoping to make money, it becomes a commercial enterprise. I have yet to see anything in the world that would be a 'non-commercial' copyright, but I suppose that depends on how you define 'commercial'.

I have to ask a question. Do you think it's democratic that the elected officials are discussing this in complete secrecy? This isn't a matter that's essential to national security, so why is it being discussed in complete secrecy? And despite the fact that members have contested that, it is complete secrecy, with no access to the contents for anyone outside of ACTA. If a Trade Agreement is being drawn up between countries, especially one that deals with a sticky topic such as copyright infringement, I'd like to know a little about it.

You do realize that the democracy we are talking about is electing officials to speak for us, wether behind closed doors or in open session, right? Have you stopped and thought that perhaps it is behind closed doors specifically to avoid lobbiests from getting their hands on the fledgeling agreement and harping and whining for change?

Perhaps this SECRET DINOSAUR RESERECTIONS SCHEME is because they are drafting something all the countries can livewith, and since it is not being voted into law until the individual countries ruling bodies agree to it, I am unsure why this is so 'huge' to people.

The _only_ thing I saw in it is that it _might_ be saying (we don't have the actual document, just a reaction to the document) that ISP's would be liable even if they did not know that someone was allowing downloading/uploading of copyrighted material in their system.

Perhaps they had it secret in an attempt to avoid the hyperbole and scare tactics that Gem appears to be falling for? Perhaps not every single thing every single government does is evil, malicious, and out to cause harm to the world and everyone on it?

[Obdigore]

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 15 December 2009 - 06:15 PM, said:

I think the distinction he's trying to make between commercial & non-commercial copyright, in reference to file sharing is this:
A person like me, who downloads music and other files for personal use would be a non-commercial copyright violation.
A person who downloads music and other files (especially movies), then burns them on CDs/DVDs to sell would be a commercial copyright violation.
I see a lot of that kind of violation. A family member in NYC makes pretty decent spending cash to supplement his job burning movies & selling them for 3-5 dollars each. He's got a computer with like 8 burners or so & sells quite a few movies every day. He actually takes orders & usually does multiple movies for every person he sells to at a time. I also see it occasionally at the truck stop where I work.
Technically, either is illegal here in the US; how much did Metallica sue a teenager for over the first type? Personally, I know it's wrong, but do it anyway because I don't believe what's offered by the entertainment industry is woth what they ask, so I vote with my wallet for them to lower their prices. If the stuff were much cheaper, I probably wouldn't bother with file sharing. Doesn't make it right of course, but in my mind it's justified for me.

So what you are telling me is that it is justified for you to break the law because you don't feel that the product put out is equal to the price someone is charging. A Copyright on music is a commercial copyright, and you are violating it by downloading the music, unless you either A) Pay for it, or Have purchased license to use the music, such as by buying a CD.

That is like saying it is ok for me to steal a big mac meal at mcdonalds because I don't think it is worth 4$.

Or like saying I DL copies of Erikson's books because I don't think he is worth the hardcover price. It is foolish, naive, and a childish 'me me me' response to something you don't like.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 15 December 2009 - 06:24 PM

[Lisheo]

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 06:19 PM, said:

Lisheo, on 15 December 2009 - 06:12 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 06:00 PM, said:

So, Gem, Unless I am missing something here, you are arguing that your democratic vote, which you used to elect the officials that appointed the officials that are going through with this TOP SECRET WORLD LEADER NEGOTIATION IN A BASEMENT WITH TESLA COILS AND ZOMBIE NAZI'S, is somehow ignoring your democratic right to vote people into office?Your Selected Politician is a small part of all the 'selected politician' an that is what democracy is, the views of ALL the people, not just the pirates and the people they support. In addition, from what I understand, this 'SUPER TOP SECRET MEETING OF THE LEGION OF DOOM' is only to get the agreements set before the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS get together to vote yay or nay on the bill. In other news, since the meeting is between more countries than the US and the EU, perhaps opening negotiations on this subject is a good thing, since it will get many countries to hopefully voice the opinion of their peoples.And, since we are on the subject, what do you view as a 'non-commercial' copyright? Any time someone is making money, or hoping to make money, it becomes a commercial enterprise. I have yet to see anything in the world that would be a 'non-commercial' copyright, but I suppose that depends on how you define 'commercial'.

I have to ask a question. Do you think it's democratic that the elected officials are discussing this in complete secrecy? This isn't a matter that's essential to national security, so why is it being discussed in complete secrecy? And despite the fact that members have contested that, it is complete secrecy, with no access to the contents for anyone outside of ACTA. If a Trade Agreement is being drawn up between countries, especially one that deals with a sticky topic such as copyright infringement, I'd like to know a little about it.

You do realize that the democracy we are talking about is electing officials to speak for us, wether behind closed doors or in open session, right? Have you stopped and thought that perhaps it is behind closed doors specifically to avoid lobbiests from getting their hands on the fledgeling agreement and harping and whining for change?Perhaps this SECRET DINOSAUR RESERECTIONS SCHEME is because they are drafting something all the countries can livewith, and since it is not being voted into law until the individual countries ruling bodies agree to it, I am unsure why this is so 'huge' to people. The _only_ thing I saw in it is that it _might_ be saying (we don't have the actual document, just a reaction to the document) that ISP's would be liable even if they did not know that someone was allowing downloading/uploading of copyrighted material in their system.Perhaps they had it secret in an attempt to avoid the hyperbole and scare tactics that Gem appears to be falling for? Perhaps not every single thing every single government does is evil, malicious, and out to cause harm to the world and everyone on it?

I have the document, as I said. I paraphrased some of it, because I don't particularly want to post anything illegal on-site.
Also, officials elected to speak for us often go about things the wrong way (especially with regards to the internet). Look at Australia. Today, the Internet Filter was announced as going ahead, despite huge controversy, and I do believe, the majority of the public being against it. If you know a little bit about the filter, you'll know it'll be fairly easy to circumvent for anyone with desperation or knowledge of the net, and thus, is just a tremendous waste of the tax-payers money, and a block that will affect the less tech-savvy members of the public.
Censorship, GO!
Lastly, if you want to keep something from having a huge public outcry, doing it in secret is hardly the best way to go about it, is it? In fact, it'd look a lot better if the process was transparent.

[Lisheo]

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 06:23 PM, said:

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 15 December 2009 - 06:15 PM, said:

I think the distinction he's trying to make between commercial & non-commercial copyright, in reference to file sharing is this:
A person like me, who downloads music and other files for personal use would be a non-commercial copyright violation.
A person who downloads music and other files (especially movies), then burns them on CDs/DVDs to sell would be a commercial copyright violation.
I see a lot of that kind of violation. A family member in NYC makes pretty decent spending cash to supplement his job burning movies & selling them for 3-5 dollars each. He's got a computer with like 8 burners or so & sells quite a few movies every day. He actually takes orders & usually does multiple movies for every person he sells to at a time. I also see it occasionally at the truck stop where I work.
Technically, either is illegal here in the US; how much did Metallica sue a teenager for over the first type? Personally, I know it's wrong, but do it anyway because I don't believe what's offered by the entertainment industry is woth what they ask, so I vote with my wallet for them to lower their prices. If the stuff were much cheaper, I probably wouldn't bother with file sharing. Doesn't make it right of course, but in my mind it's justified for me.

So what you are telling me is that it is justified for you to break the law because you don't feel that the product put out is equal to the price someone is charging. A Copyright on music is a commercial copyright, and you are violating it by downloading the music, unless you either A) Pay for it, or Have purchased license to use the music, such as by buying a CD.

That is like saying it is ok for me to steal a big mac meal at mcdonalds because I don't think it is worth 4$.

Or like saying I DL copies of Erikson's books because I don't think he is worth the hardcover price. It is foolish, naive, and a childish 'me me me' response to something you don't like.

What about suing a 26 year old for a total of $675,000 for 31 songs? Do you feel that by copying those songs, a man cost the music industry 22 thousand dollars, per song? I find that quite a me, me, me response to something the copyright agencies don't like. I'm not saying filesharing is right, but I don't think copyright agencies are in the right, either.
Also, by your argument above, anyone who listens to music on youtube is committing copyright infringement. Digital copyright isn't as simple as theft, because it's not STEALING. It's making a copy. What it would be more like would be you using the McDonalds recipe to make your own Big Mac at home.

[Obdigore]

I'm not in any way endorsing that keeping these negotiations a secret is a good thing. All I am saying is that 1) these negotiations will not translate directly into law, because something/one like Gem's ZOMG DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIAL can vote against it, and 2) there are most likely many revisions to go before anything real is presented to the governing bodies.

In addition, I do not have said document, nor would I trush anyone's 'paraphrasing' of the language.

I'm not even going to get into Australia, and their Ban on any video game that a 15 year old shouldnt play, or their lovely new 'fire 2ft wall' system that is foolish, expensive, and done quite poorly. I would assume a country of criminals would love porn, no? (It was a joke!)

[Obdigore]

Lisheo, on 15 December 2009 - 06:35 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 06:23 PM, said:

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 15 December 2009 - 06:15 PM, said:

I think the distinction he's trying to make between commercial & non-commercial copyright, in reference to file sharing is this:
A person like me, who downloads music and other files for personal use would be a non-commercial copyright violation.
A person who downloads music and other files (especially movies), then burns them on CDs/DVDs to sell would be a commercial copyright violation.
I see a lot of that kind of violation. A family member in NYC makes pretty decent spending cash to supplement his job burning movies & selling them for 3-5 dollars each. He's got a computer with like 8 burners or so & sells quite a few movies every day. He actually takes orders & usually does multiple movies for every person he sells to at a time. I also see it occasionally at the truck stop where I work.
Technically, either is illegal here in the US; how much did Metallica sue a teenager for over the first type? Personally, I know it's wrong, but do it anyway because I don't believe what's offered by the entertainment industry is woth what they ask, so I vote with my wallet for them to lower their prices. If the stuff were much cheaper, I probably wouldn't bother with file sharing. Doesn't make it right of course, but in my mind it's justified for me.

So what you are telling me is that it is justified for you to break the law because you don't feel that the product put out is equal to the price someone is charging. A Copyright on music is a commercial copyright, and you are violating it by downloading the music, unless you either A) Pay for it, or Have purchased license to use the music, such as by buying a CD.

That is like saying it is ok for me to steal a big mac meal at mcdonalds because I don't think it is worth 4$.

Or like saying I DL copies of Erikson's books because I don't think he is worth the hardcover price. It is foolish, naive, and a childish 'me me me' response to something you don't like.

What about suing a 26 year old for a total of $675,000 for 31 songs? Do you feel that by copying those songs, a man cost the music industry 22 thousand dollars, per song? I find that quite a me, me, me response to something the copyright agencies don't like. I'm not saying filesharing is right, but I don't think copyright agencies are in the right, either.
Also, by your argument above, anyone who listens to music on youtube is committing copyright infringement. Digital copyright isn't as simple as theft, because it's not STEALING. It's making a copy. What it would be more like would be you using the McDonalds recipe to make your own Big Mac at home.

Yellow and I had this argument before. It is criminal conversion, which in the US is treated as Theft.

I'm not going to argue about the MPAA or the RC-whatever's reactions to this, as they were attempting to provide an obvious and lawful punishment, in an attempt to prevent people from filching their products.

[Lisheo]

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 06:50 PM, said:

Lisheo, on 15 December 2009 - 06:35 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 15 December 2009 - 06:23 PM, said:

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 15 December 2009 - 06:15 PM, said:

I think the distinction he's trying to make between commercial & non-commercial copyright, in reference to file sharing is this:
A person like me, who downloads music and other files for personal use would be a non-commercial copyright violation.
A person who downloads music and other files (especially movies), then burns them on CDs/DVDs to sell would be a commercial copyright violation.
I see a lot of that kind of violation. A family member in NYC makes pretty decent spending cash to supplement his job burning movies & selling them for 3-5 dollars each. He's got a computer with like 8 burners or so & sells quite a few movies every day. He actually takes orders & usually does multiple movies for every person he sells to at a time. I also see it occasionally at the truck stop where I work.
Technically, either is illegal here in the US; how much did Metallica sue a teenager for over the first type? Personally, I know it's wrong, but do it anyway because I don't believe what's offered by the entertainment industry is woth what they ask, so I vote with my wallet for them to lower their prices. If the stuff were much cheaper, I probably wouldn't bother with file sharing. Doesn't make it right of course, but in my mind it's justified for me.

So what you are telling me is that it is justified for you to break the law because you don't feel that the product put out is equal to the price someone is charging. A Copyright on music is a commercial copyright, and you are violating it by downloading the music, unless you either A) Pay for it, or Have purchased license to use the music, such as by buying a CD.

That is like saying it is ok for me to steal a big mac meal at mcdonalds because I don't think it is worth 4$.

Or like saying I DL copies of Erikson's books because I don't think he is worth the hardcover price. It is foolish, naive, and a childish 'me me me' response to something you don't like.

What about suing a 26 year old for a total of $675,000 for 31 songs? Do you feel that by copying those songs, a man cost the music industry 22 thousand dollars, per song? I find that quite a me, me, me response to something the copyright agencies don't like. I'm not saying filesharing is right, but I don't think copyright agencies are in the right, either.
Also, by your argument above, anyone who listens to music on youtube is committing copyright infringement. Digital copyright isn't as simple as theft, because it's not STEALING. It's making a copy. What it would be more like would be you using the McDonalds recipe to make your own Big Mac at home.

Yellow and I had this argument before. It is criminal conversion, which in the US is treated as Theft.

I'm not going to argue about the MPAA or the RC-whatever's reactions to this, as they were attempting to provide an obvious and lawful punishment, in an attempt to prevent people from filching their products.

Just want to point out, that wasn't even the maximum possible sentence. I imagine that guy will be in debt for the rest of his life, for criminal conversion? For accepting a copy of something, without any profit? I consider their responses to copyright infringement far beyond the call of duty.
Lastly, criminal conversion is unauthorized use or control of someone else's property, isn't it? That property in this case is the right to listen to someone's music? Seeing as a copy can hardly be considered someone's property; a copy of a famous painting does not belong to the original painter. I think having to pay for the right to listen to music is somewhat ridiculous. Especially as the majority of that money then returns to the copyright agencies. So, you're paying someone else money to allow them to prosecute someone for the right to listen to music, on behalf of a third party who doesn't even get the majority of the money in the first place?
Anyway. Just wanted to give my opinion on the subject; I doubt, somehow, that we'll ever convert each other, so arguing over it would just be flaming, really.

[Obdigore]

Actually, I believe he was sued for that amount because he was on a file-sharing website, and that was the amount of downloads from his machine, multiplied by the cost of the singles of the songs.

And when you look at it, copyrighting music is the only thing that allows musicians to exist, unless they have the 'skill' that noone else can ever duplicate.

In other news, I am completely against agencies that do nothing but hold broadly worded copyrights on things that might come to be, so they can then sue anyone they can think of that actually does something with the copyright. There should be a clause in the copyright law that forces you to have a product or something out that is using said copyright.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

I wasn't trying to justify it to you, just explaining how I justify my actions to myself. As I said, what I do there is wrong. Period. But my rationalization works for me, I feel no guilt over it at all.
As far as copyrights being the only thing that allow artists to exist, cry me a friggin river. EVERY "artist" who's ever had anything even resembling a hit, who ended up in the gutter, ended up there through extreme spending/waste/substance abuse. MC Hammer is the first to come to mind. Guess what? He still managed to pull himself back out after he cleaned up. They've all been GIVEN what they have. They worked a bit, but what they receive for it is WAY out of proportion to what they give. Not their fault, it's the fault of all the sheeple who're willing to pay exorbitant prices for CDs, concerts and products they endorse. Just my opinion. They obviously have a right to get whatever they can from their music or whatever it is they produce. It just bothers me that so many people have an issue with, say, a doctor making a couple hundred thousand/yr. Those same people have no issue with enabling an "artist" to make several million. Or an athlete. Or an actor. Etc.