Topic: Court orders pirate to use Windows

[mistybear]

LINK

[Simon]

I think that's a bit strong, and a total waste of prison resources.  I know the MPAA want to make examples of people, but there are far worse crimes that people should be imprisoned for, and aren't, than downloading pirate movies.   

[Rik]

OTOH, I suppose the punishment of Windows might stop re-offending?

[Simon]

  Sam will be with you on that one. 

[Rik]

I thought he would be making a fortune from all those Windows books he publishes? 

[sam]

lol.

It is just daft, concentrate on the criminals who committ offences that affect people.

[Rik]

They're harder to deal with, Sam, so don't help the headlines. 

[Tony]

Feck me, I bought one of my grandsons the "Star Wars Trilogy" episodes 4/5/6 brand new off Amazon for £15. OK the later episodes are dearer, but is it worth it. Plus would not a big fine and confiscation of his PC be more fitting, instead of trying a prison place up. Funny how assaulting a person can get you community service, but robbing a  Global Corporation of the price of a download gets you prison.

Besides, I'm sure he most have an friend with a  "Halls of Learning" copy of W2K, that should save him a bob or two. I reckon there are loads of school teachers with access to said OS, I reckon he is just a winger. 

[Reno]

I think something like 80,000 people downloaded that copy he uploaded in the first hour? Those big copyright fines they put in the warnings on movies use to be for people selling movies off the street. I remember when they use to bust people with hundreds of vcrs copying all at once. Bittorent is easier and just as bad.

I say they should make pirating legal and levy an entertainment tax on everyone with an internet connection.

[Tony]

You may be happy with that solution Bob, but why should I or anybody else pay a levy on my internet connection, because some people want to download films without paying for them.

[Reno]

Anyone with a connection would be paying for it. The vast majority of honest people don't download films at all. If you paid an extra fee on your bill a month for an entertainment tax wouldn't you take advantage of it? Those films/ softwares/ whatever that got download the most would get their fair share of the funds.

The entertainment wouldn't be pirated or free, because in the end the public would be paying for it. Right now they're saying the music industry is broken due to piracy. If they're was a flat tax on internet connections those entertainers would get their money. Competition would still be their because the more your songs get downloaded the more you would get paid.

Data isn't property in the sense that we think of physical property. It can be changed, manipulated, and copied. To think that piracy will be stopped with lawsuits and DRM is naive. If you want the entertainers to get their fair share and the consumer to be made responsible for what they consume a flat tax is the answer.

[Rik]

Sorry, Bob, but I can't agree with you. Extending your argument, everyone would pay the same to use the roads, HGV or push bike. I'm not keen to pay a tax to fund other people's activities (ever ).

[Reno]

Don't you guys in the uk have universal healthcare?

[Rik]

In theory, yes. In practice, it is now rationed.