Sharing 2,999 Songs, 199 Movies Is Safe In Germany 212
unassimilatible writes "Torrentfreak is reporting that German prosecutors will now only pursue larger-scale file sharers on the Internet, as they are tired of being the entertainment industry's profit collector. 'Prosecutors in a German state have announced they will refuse to entertain the majority of file-sharing lawsuits in [the] future. It appears that only commercial-scale copyright infringers will be pursued, with those sharing under 3,000 music tracks and 200 movies dropping under the prosecution radar.' And the money quote: 'It seems that the legal system in Germany has had enough of this "abuse" of the criminal law system for "civil" monetary gain.' If only an American politician would make this point. Why should taxpayers underwrite their government becoming enforcers for the entertainment industry? Then again, when you see how much politicians are being paid, an answer suggests itself."
logic error (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:logic error (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:logic error (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First they came (Score:3, Insightful)
come on people, its about distributing, not obtaining, it's ALWAYS about sharing, NEVER about downloading. STOP SPREADING THEIR FUD FOR THEM! [/rant]
Re:logic error (Score:5, Insightful)
Which takes up time in court, Which wastes tax money, Which you and I pay.
Sorry, but that is irrelevant. If you suggest that we should create a system in which only "fair" lawsuits could be brought to court, I'd ask you who would decide which is fair.
In any case, the court can always ask the looser to pay court costs if they decide that the lawsuit had no merits.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, sure. Why should taxpayers underwrite their government becoming enforcers for car owners?
Re:logic error (Score:1, Insightful)
You must be lost.
Re:First they came (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, it doesn't really take much to be up to 200 "movies".
A nice long running single TV series will get you to that point.
My current total is up to about 2200.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Court time is a limited resource, and prosectors in Germany are making the point that it shouldn't be spent on hundreds or thousands of frivolous lawsuits. Not all crimes are the same, and some "crimes" have no business in court, particularly when they're only there as part of a multinational private-sector terror campaign having nothing to do with redress of grievance.
The Courts have better things to do.
stupid analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
You're comparing theft of actual property with making duplicates of intellectual property.
In the former case, you deprive the owner use of said property. In the latter, the owner still has the property.
The slippery slope is actually people like you making stupid analogies about this kind of thing, prompting ever more draconian laws and malicious prosecution.
Anti-equivocation and conflation post (Score:5, Insightful)
I've already seen it:
This is akin to the local sheriff saying he will no longer prosecute muggings where the victim did not go to the hospital.
This equivocations seem to say that these people want *all* the laws enforced without any regard to a prioritizing by benefit to society.
The key they mentioned was "criminal law for monetary GAIN."
They are right in refusing to criminally prosecute citizens where no appreciable harm was incurred for the monetary enrichment of a single party. Its like watching a car speeding a little but otherwise safely and *NOT* pulling them over and giving them a ticket.
There isn't a single country in the world in which you would want all the laws enforced consistently.
Re:logic error (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:logic error (Score:4, Insightful)
It is entirely within your power to stop the RIAA suits as well.
Turn off your file-sharing software.
What about legitimate file-sharing, such as creative commons, open source, and free as in free beer content? And how exactly do you define "File sharing". File sharing can be done through anything as simple as e-mail or ftp.
The RIAA's been known to target the most trivial instances of file sharing, and in some cases you [afterdawn.com] don't [techdirt.com] even need a computer [metafilter.com]
Re:First they came (Score:3, Insightful)
They came first for those who downloaded 3000 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 1000 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 100 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 1 song, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for me,
And everyone complained because I stopped seeding the torrents
Re:Signed/Unsigned tags (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the system needs to be fixed.
Now that's funny! Too bad most moderators will only hear the "whooshing" as it goes way over their heads...
Re:John McCain: Warmonger +1, Informative (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:logic error (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure the RIAA is guilty of abuses. They should be punished.
There are legitimate uses of file sharing. They should not be prohibited.
There is an enormous population of people using p2p software to copy movies, music and software with no plans to ever pay the producers for what they use. This should at least be acknowledged.
It is the people in that third group provoking companies to lash out.
I personally have taken a different course and just don't buy what isn't worth buying. I'll do without. I'm not entitled to every song I kind of like but not enough to pay for.
Now, please proceed to mod me down again. I'm as on topic as anyone else in Slashdot, but I'm disagreeing with you and that is usually enough.
Re:First they came (Score:3, Insightful)
Apples and oranges my friend, but, nice try.
In OS, the plan was to transfer money (sub-cent fractions) from the bank's customers into a central account and let them aggregate. Ignoring plot holes like simply editing the account balance, money in this system can only be in one account at a time. It can go to Peter & friends, the customers, the bank, or the void, but not to more than one at once.
File sharing is making clones, at near-zero cost of something that can very well exist in multiple places at once, without affecting its original owner's or creator's ability to use it.
Note: I understand why unauthorised sharing can be bad, and is immoral. I also see that we desperately need a new system of content distribution that takes into account the new model presented by P2P and customers being able to choose exactly what they want on their own and being able to make informed decisions without the need for a content cartel to tell them how to choose.
Re:John McCain: Warmonger +1, Informative (Score:3, Insightful)
This reads like a Martian found a Thesaurus and a copy of English: the Journal of Literary Criticism and then got stoned on too much Dr. Pepper.
The entire point of communication is to transfer ideas. This is just a really bad attempt at that. It's like someone juggling chainsaws as an attempt to build a house.
Re:stupid analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
And we don't call it theft now do we? Copyright Infringement != theft. You want to label illegal downloading Copyright Infringement, do so. Don't call it theft.
Really? I notice all those DVDs of the movie I just downloaded still being sold at WalMart, so exactly whose time did I steal if the product is being sold everywhere? I also notice the back wall of Blockbuster filled with that same movie and being rented repeatedly. Again, whose time is being stolen? A downloaded movie != a lost sale and may, in fact, result in more sales of not only the movie in question but associated merchandise. Point is, no one knows and no one can claim to know what, if any, impact downloads have.
How about this scenario. Instead of going to the theater or downloading or renting I just wait for it to come on cable for free. I pay nothing extra for it since I pay for cable every month, yet the end result is the same. I did not buy the CD, rent it or download it yet the effect is the same so I have stolen those people's time? Yes, I am well aware that the cable company pays the studios, but I paid the same amount as if I downloaded it. You cannot claim that one behavior steals time and the other does not.
Does it make downloading right? No, but please spare me the theft argument. No one is being deprived of anything or has had anything, including time, stolen. These movies make millions in profit so all the associated people that worked on it were more than adequately compensated for their time. It still makes it wrong, IMO, but don't try to compare it with theft.
Re:It's OK (Score:1, Insightful)
True, but if mods were fair they would give the original off-topic post an off-topic moderation before giving one to a response to the original off-topic post.
Re:Germans doing Republicans a favor. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the actual actors, directors and set workers may lean democratic, but I posit that the actual owners lean heavily to the Republicans. You know, companies like General Electric and so on. Board members, people like that. The sort of people that see movies and songs as commodities, not as artworks. The people behind the RIAA and MPAA, who constantly lobby for longer copyright protections.
It isn't much different in newspapers either. The reporters may be more liberal and social-minded, but the owners often are Authoritarian and will lean on the editorial staff to ensure that the peons don't rock the boat.
All you are doing is repeating an old canard, one that has been stated for so long that "everyone knows" without even stopping to consider who "everyone" is. Cheers!