I've got to reject the argument of "If songs cost less people wouldn't steal them."  It doesn't hold up on principle and I don't think it holds up in reality either.  Honestly I believe songs could cost 10 cents and people would still steal them.

I hated the "Sue them for a million dollars" approach.  I hated the "Put a virus on their machines" approach Sinperium mentioned (I'd forgotten about that one).  I don't particularly like this one either, but "don't particularly like" is an improvement over "hate".

I did sit here and try to think of a better idea and the only idea I came up with was the realization I'd acquired a headache.  So I guess I won't be getting my $5 million bonus this year    Such is life.

lol, DaveRI. Me too. Malicious software isn't an answer, I agree. Although tracking them to their sites is more attractive... still another would crop up in it's stead.

No, the answer has to reside with the market... same as with drugs. Make it really hard to deal, and at the same time try to convince people not to steal. Not great, but what else is there?

 

Not always... not when you have companies who act as monopolies, etc.  We were told by our state government that the privatisation of electricity would force prices down through competition.  WRONG!!!!   Electricity prices have risen over 300% and are still rising.  July 1st next year there will be a 30% increase, so we are told.  Hmmm, market competition, eh?  To me it looks like gouging... a handful of companies charging like wounded bulls because they know we are a captive market and have no place else to turn.

The thing is, Doc, I don't look at the world through rose coloured glasses.  I call a spade a spade and out greed and corruption whenever wherever I see it.  Now I'm not saying that theft wouldn't exist under a fair pricing scheme, but I do believe the less fortunate would be less likely to steal if items of need [and want] were made affordable to all, not just a select few.

As for the wealthy retailers, there are some here in Australia I'd have executed for their thieving greed that drives market prices up, and thus placing more people below the poverty line.  Like Gerry Harvey, a billionaire retailer who wants government to tax online sales at exorbitant rates to drive more customers into his crappy stores to be ripped off by 400% markups.  If I were a legislator, I'd pass a law to have he and others like him executed without mercy... such is their insatiable greed

No, the appeal procedure is a joke. I shouldn't have to pay the cost of an independent review. The prosecution should. And then, who chooses the independent party of the review and if the independent review rules against me, do I have to take the ISP to court to "prove my innocence". The burden of proof should NEVER BE LEVIED ON THE DEFENDANT. End of discussion. I'm pretty much going to keep harping this point over and over and over. 

The pirates haven't made this necessary. Evidence points to the contrary on the effects piracy has on the market despite the RIAA/MPAA ridiculous "studies" which have mostly been "So, how much do you think your company has lost to piracy" rather than actual statistics.

Yes, piracy is a problem. There is no moral justification for it. Those that scream the corporations are greedy are ridiculous: if you don't think the price they charge is worth it, you move on. However, this is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is solved simply by copyright already. We need no new police and we need no new laws (I'd argue quite well we need more limits on copyright and a complete retooling of the patent system).

The ISPs should never be involved without a court order. Ever. It is a violation of trust and yes, violates privacy. You don't want the library or Netflix or whoever to pass information onto a stranger who just comes out of the blue and goes: "Can I see what DrJBHL checked out in the past year? I'd like to know what he's reading/watching?" Or, even better, your phone tracks you right? "Hey, Google/Apple, can I find out where DrJBHL has been? Thanks!" COURT ORDER first, then private information. Not the other way around.

Doc, there is no, "get with the ISP in advance and work on a solution"...they flat out don't care (unless you're a well-known, huge business).  In the US, cable providers (which now are the primary internet providers) are allowed to be  regional monopolies.  Ten miles from my home is the demarcation line for the "other" cable company and they are the only two in a 45 miles radius from where I am--I can't even pick between them...I have to use the one nearest me.

As a recourse, I could use satellite (and explain to clients I couldn't get their work to them on time because it rained) or I could grab a mobile hotspot and re-mortgage my home to pay for the cellular bandwidth use.

One thing you can do is go to your local government meetings when it becomes time for them to review cable service providers (usually about every three years or so).

But your suggestion assumes the cable BUSINESS is "reasonable" and will "understand".

Years ago, I paid for a woman's gas in front of me at a local station because she left her wallet at home.  She insisted I take a check which I explained wasn't necessary.  She would not take "no" for an answer so I politely acepted it and added it to my business account deposit.

Right after that, my bill payments went out and unknown to me, the check I was given was no good.  It was the Thursday before a four-day holiday and the bank attempted to draw on the no good check three times on that single day.  Each time, I was charged a $35 service fee.  As a result of this, EVERY check I had written bounced because the bank decided to put her check "in front" of my own that I had written. The first business day of the next week, I received my mail at the end of the day notifying me my account was closed and I "owed" the bank $525 in bounced check fees. I spent the next morning  arguing with the bank president and finally had my account re-opened after splitting the difference on the fees and then spent the rest of the day calling business clients and warning them to wait a day or my checks would bounce.

I was completely at the mercy of the bank and short of a lawsuit, had no other options.  They were in fact at that time routinely 'stacking' checks so they could get the most in fees and when I had talked with them refused to explain to me how they determined what check was first, etc....and of course, there was no law restricting them from doing this.

I have had a scam creditor falsely add a delinquent balance to my credit report in past and even after notifying our state attorney general and getting a statement from the creditor that I had no balance was unable to remove it.

I could go on with other examples but the fact is, "trust business to fairly self-regulate" doesn't work.

We have a credit protection act (very weak) and we need at least the same sort of oversight on ISPs and RIAA and the like to prevent abuse and gouging by them.

If we don't have things like this we will end up having to pay a fee to "restore service",etc., etc.  When you own the water hole, you can charge what you want for a drink.

Years back there was a chain record store in Louisiana that had a high rate of shoplifting.  There solution was to pat down search every customer leaving the store.  Needles to say, I stopped going there--but in this case, "there is no other store".

What's really happening here is letting RIAA and whoever else is with them decide whether or not you can use the internet on any given day.

How about the more complete version?

But you say

I don't believe that the poor are less likely to steal if pricing was more reasonable. Those who steal non food items (those not hungry) do so for pathological reasons.

This is not defense in a legal sense. The appeal does not go to the Apellate Court Division. There is no law involved. 

You do not prove "innocence or "guilt". You state what was downloaded, and provide evidence of right to do so. What's wrong with that? 

@ sinperium: You sound truly victimized by the system, and I agree and have stated in several places that cable is monopolistic since the law is perverted in thie sense it is blatantly anti-competitive.  As for the check thing, well, were I you, I would try to move my account to a Bank which didn't engage in such a practice as stacking, and have a larger balance on hand... what can I say?

I still say that if you have to, you can sue in small claims court. I believe it would be solved long before that, though. Also, since you're not moving pirated files, there shouldn't be any question of what you're doing, and you can prove it.

 

No I can't prove I didn't steal. I can give them all my hard drive and I can tell them, "Swear this is every hard drive I've ever used." But is it? Can I prove it? No. Why? You can never prove you didn't _do_ something. Maybe I used someone else's hard drive. Maybe a erases the files. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

An internet meme proves the point: "DID RUSH LIMBAUGH RAPE A CHILD IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC?" This certainly made headlines. Basically the argument went: Rush was caught with viagra, illegal, coming from the Dominican Republic which has a high concentration of underage prostitutes and no matter if he had consensual sex, it was still rape being it with a child. Can he prove he didn't rape anyone? Nope. He can't prove his whereabouts every minute of every day while he was there so if the burden of proving his innocence was on Rush's shoulders, there would be plausibility who could never overcome.

You can't prove something didn't happen. Its up to prosecution to prove something _did_ happen. Common logic, really.

That is a huge oversimplification. There are plenty of necessities that aren't food, stolen money can be used to buy necessities, and non-necessities such as phones and computers can be sold for money. Additionally, pathological theft (kleptomania) is significantly more common among people in impoverished communities. It is also worth considering that there are other psychological reasons for theft that fall significantly short of full-blown pathology.

It is also worth noting that theft is really not related to piracy, especially when we're talking about underlying psychological motivations.

Whatever, Cruxador. A thief is a thief. They'll get caught - and that's what they deserve.

OK, have it your way, if you're ever warned.

WTF  . I missed that post.

I wonder how many people have internet skeletons in their closet that can be used against them?

 

I was just doing a quick scroll through the posts to see if Doc was the only proponent of these measures by ISPs. Looks to me like Americans are once again not allowed any say in what goes on behind closed doors. Canada is also getting worse.

Can you say Corporatocracy children?

Describes the US of A to a T.

So, I've yet to hear a viable alternative.

BS - yes, but no alternatives.

Sadly, Americans have been brainwashed by the Capitalist system, and have been for the last 200+ years, so they will always argue on the side of the almighty dollar no matter what.  Anything and everything that reduces/takes away from profit is evil in the purest sense, and anyone who is caught, found guilty of reducing company profit by theft or any other means is harshly dealt with.

Frankly, I'm glad as all hell that I don't live in the US.  It's often referred to as the 'Land of the Free', yet I have fewer shackles than most Americans. Despite the downward spiral Australia has been on since Howard became bum buddies with Bush, I really am free.  Yeah, if I lived there some bastard would have me locked up or shot for my views on capitalism, greed and the distribution of wealth.  Although Australia is fast out-Americaning the Americans in terms of capitalist greed and profit at any cost, I am still better off for living here, and not just by a little bit.

Anyhow, I'm done arguing the point here... it's like banging your head against a brick wall when the brainwashed know no other way and fear a world that challenges the capitalist/greed mentality they've always known.  Death, disease and poverty, the products of greed and unnecessary, so yes, I support the merciless execution of businessmen whose greed has caused nothing but suffering to mankind.

Piracy isn't caused by economic inequity. Piracy is caused by greed. Yes, greed. Wanting something so much that you don't care how you get it.

Romanticize it however you wish, or rationalize it by whatever means, it's still theft.

I don't care for the excesses of any "system" or "-ism". However, theft is still theft.

As stated in my previous post I will add....

Why so many celebrities=people with money  survive cancer. And yet they say there is no cure for cancer. I think it's because they can afford treatments. If 2 people come to hospital. One rich second poor. Who will get experimental treatment. It doesn't matter who has family. Rich will survive because he can afford it. So what is left for poor guy. He will die or think out of the box and go rob a bank.

True this is extreme example but I'm reading above statement as piracy overall. I'm just pointing out problem in the system and until these problems exist piracy will be a reality.