Companies wouldn't have to go to any lengths to protect their product from thieves if thieves didn't exist. Punish the thieves? Sure. How much jail time and how big of a fine are we talking about?
There is not excuse for stealing. None. If you steal you're a thief.
Of course, downloading songs from the Internet isn't theft, no matter what the recording industries claim, nor is it actually illegal. It's illegal to distribute such works unlawfully (that is, for money, or outside of your normal circle of friends). Thus, that is in general where crackdowns occur. Even if the RIAA managed to get some sort of mandatory DRM-in-all electronics law passed, it would still not make
Personally, I think it's a pretty fucked up set of priorities to declare that pirating music is worse than murder
. Note this is actual piracy, at least - the poor fellows involved ended up redistributing the music they downloaded.
The 'it's the law' canard is flat-out bullshit. It's the law that any commercial venue which allows public performances has to pay three thuggish companies who represent copyright holders, even if no such songs are played
. Paying a racket or not has nothing to do with ethics, the person running said racket is the one lacking them.
In order for a law to be respected, it must first be made respectable. If it isn't respectable, it will not get respect. The recording industry, and the laws it has set up around itself - many of which are directly set up to screw over the very artists they claim to represent - are in no way respectable. Michael Jackson made billions for Sony, and died effectively bankrupt. Prince had to change his name to a fucking symbol because they 'owned his name'. TLC sells ten million CDs, declares bankruptcy because they only 'earn' 64 cents per, and have to pay back the recording industry for the 'debts' they've incurred in its production. Then the recording industry lobbies to prevent bankruptcies from discharging such debts.
I'm pretty careful about following the letter and intent of the law. But eventually, this crap is going to end.
Personally, I don't think it's ethical to financially support an industry like the recording industry.
True. But in my opinion, that's not a technology problem. Even if the United States hadn't allowed them, there would be other countries who would develop them.
A VCR or cassette recorder is just a piece of technology, it can be used for good and evil alike.
The problem we have is that the entertainment industry and apparently Congressmen think that the average American person can't be trusted to be ethical and moral and use technology responsibly. This isn't tech, it's ethics.
Rather ironic, when you consider some of the things the entertainment industry and Congress have done in the past.
It's a few years old, but I always remember it.
Note that this law does require a trial, unless the owner of the domain cannot be personally contacted
. I set up a business name, with PMB, number and all, for just this purpose.
If the owner cannot be contacted, then said owner can be in quite a lot of trouble.
You can tell it was written by people with very little knowledge of how the Internet works. The US gives ICANN its jurisdiction, I'm rather surprised that they didn't go straight to the source, there. Then again that might have been too obviously far.
A part of me does want this to pass, if only so we can get some impetus behind creating a newer, better DNS system. The current one blows. A distributed one would take a lot of thought, however.