Some people should die for their crimes.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The problem is that if you dont think in financial terms your country is destroyed by one that does. If you wish to see a good example of this, look at europe.

The question is, at what point does it not matter, as you can no longer afford the tools to pirate with. Is that really what you want?

You have not even bothered to read what I said have you??

What I want is to people to think before they try to negate the financial effects of GBH too or even an ACCIDENT! If it happened in a country with no free healthcare do you even understand the financial implications it has for familes or even the person themselves if they are the breadwinner?? The amount of debt incurred,the fact that their children cannot go to school(which affects their financial future) and the loss of productivity overall to the economy??

In this country the debt or cost is still incurred but spread over millions of people. This is why it is not obvious.

Look at the financial implications for both situations(the one you mention and the one I mention) and neither are as clear cut as it seems. The true costs are hidden.

[aidanjt]

Besides, the effects of 'piracy' has been massively exaggerated, often to the point of plain deceit by big content corps. The harm done by assault and murder is very real and not based on imaginary numbers.

[Saracen]

Besides, the effects of 'piracy' has been massively exaggerated, often to the point of plain deceit by big content corps. ....

Even if true, and personally, I don't doubt it, it's still harm and potentially serious harm. Both situations therefore justify some penalties with serious maximums if you break the law and get caught, and in both situations, the penalties need to reflect a variety of factors that make up the seriousness and the circumstances, with a mild chastisement at one end, and serious clobbering at the other, where the seriousness of that clobbering reflects the worst that can possibly come from the illegality.

The 10 year maximum for various forms of copyright illegality reflect that it can be serious in effect, can result in very large financial impacts, can put companies out of business, employees out of a job, and so on. That's not to say that it always does, but it can.

And on the maximum penalties for copyright stuff, remember it can also reflect where, for instance, a crime gang has copied and imported millions of fake DVDS. It's not just the copyright owner that stands to get ripped off, but the buyer that buys it thinking he's getting an original where he's getting a knock-off, and possibly, a very inferior knock-off too.

'Piracy' can also adversely affect the brand of the proper owner. If you get cheap knock-offs that people take for the original, and the quality is poor, it can damage the brand of the original if people think that that represents the quality of the proper item.

Copyright illegality covers a vast range of situations, for a vast range of types of product, and there are, as a result, a significant number of different offences and a significant range of different maxi,um penalties. Even if one case doesn't deserve the imposition of anything like the maximum penalty that can be imposed under a specific offence doesn't mean there couldn't be other cases that do justify it. In a very large proportion of convictions for a very large number of offences, actual sentences never get anywhere near the maximum possible. And rightly so.

[BobF64]

Besides, the effects of 'piracy' has been massively exaggerated, often to the point of plain deceit by big content corps. The harm done by assault and murder is very real and not based on imaginary numbers.

So much so that someone, whos name and job escapes me, said that even the "second hand games market" was almost more of a threat.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So much so that someone, whos name and job escapes me, said that even the "second hand games market" was almost more of a threat.

I believe the CEO of the company behind Heavy Rain was the one chastising second hand sales.

[BobF64]

'Piracy' can also adversely affect the brand of the proper owner. If you get cheap knock-offs that people take for the original, and the quality is poor, it can damage the brand of the original if people think that that represents the quality of the proper item.

The bit that annoys me about counterfeit goods is that they are passed off as original and genuine items.

Personally, Id like to see manufacturers being allowed to sell fake goods that are labelled properly, I mean, who wouldnt want to pay £20 for a knock off Prada item branded clearly as Pruda?

As long as you know what you pay for, its just a case of design infringement, rather than deception.

[aidanjt]

So much so that someone, whos name and job escapes me, said that even the "second hand games market" was almost more of a threat.

Exactly, that's their current target for software publishers, already implementing technological measures to shaft legitimate customers under the guise of combating 'piracy', in some years to come they'll be looking for permanent legal 'possession' of purchased licenses and massively disproportional penalties for selling copyright material second hand, 'otherwise the creative industry will collapse and the economy will be irreparably harmed' and blah blah, then all they have to do is grease the right palms, and hey presto! Their very own anti-second-hand-trade act, much more innocently titled, slips under the radar.

[aidanjt]

I believe the CEO of the company behind Heavy Rain was the one chastising second hand sales.

Lionhead also stated that the second hand market was a bigger threat than 'piracy', too

[Saracen]

.... I mean, who wouldnt want to pay £20 for a knock off Prada item branded clearly as Pruda?
....

Well, me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Prada fan. I'm no brand fan for virtually anything.

So let's take this mythical Prada item. If I like it, and if the quality is decent, and if the price is right, I'll buy it. I don't care if it's Prada or Asda. Personally, I will not pay more for a shirt, or wallet, or whatever, because it's got some poncy brand logo on it. Why would I? The only reason for doing that is people that want others to think they've got Prada whatever, when they either can't afford it, or are too tight to spend it.

All too often (though not always), buying a knock-off means you've bought inferior quality (or utter garbage, sometimes) because you want to show off, because you want to big yourself up and pretend you're something you're not, that being well-off.

And by "you", I mean a generic you, not you personally, Bob.

Personally, I don't care what other people think of my clothes, etc. Which is a good job, because they're a mixed bag. Most of the time, you'll either find me in good quality shirts (with no visible branding, so nobody can tell if they're good or not), or cheap t-shirts. If I'm wearing jeans, they will be cheap, because they're comfy, last as well in my experience and why the hell would pay 20 times the price just so it says Levi rather than George (or whatever).

So that knock-off Prada/Pruda/whatever, personally, I'd rather it had no brand label on it at all, and either I like it and will buy at the price, or don't and won't, regardless of it saying or not saying Prada.

[riding moon]

Criminals get live to easy once charged, remove them from everything they know. How about a prison in Siberia. The one's in charge fully applying themselves to guide the inmates to develop and grow in their minds. Get them physically training many times during a week, allow video calls (non mobile) and small items of mail. The staff would be fully rota allowing them to focus and maintain their minds.

If the infrastructure existed to remove all outside influences and not that I am going on brain washing but developing them to understand they can be more, and pushing them to fully attain something for their level. You could think of it for a school of the less gifted, then follow their progress more closely than today with a level of help when release. They need to try a different form of rehabilitation as it would change over generations.

[Zak33]

I've said this once, and I'll say it again, please, for the sake of all of us, stop reading that bloody paper! It's absolute nonsense.

this

+1

with brass knobs

[mikerr]

It's not exactly surprising that people react with anger when someone attacks another person, is taken to court, and leaves without a prison sentence then celebrates on the steps - whatever the facts.

Interrupting a rant thread with facts:

If you read about the case fully - one of the gang, Oliver O’Neill got 27 months custodial sentence for GBH.

Reading the Daily Mail article's headlines and pictures - you'd think no one actually got a custodial sentence for it, as the Mail preferred to rant about those who got lesser sentences (and some of you were sucked in too it seems).

[jim]

Interrupting a rant thread with facts:

If you read about the case fully - one of the gang, Oliver O’Neill got 27 months custodial sentence for GBH.

Reading the Daily Mail article's headlines and pictures - you'd think no one actually got a custodial sentence for it, as the Mail preferred to rant about those who got lesser sentences (and some of you were sucked in too it seems).

Even if one of them did though, it doesn't change the fact that some of them didn't. I take your point though.

[Saracen]

Even if one of them did though, it doesn't change the fact that some of them didn't. I take your point though.

But that may reflect the possibility that one was responsible for the bulk of the attack, one a bit of it and one not any at all, hence his acquittal on GBH charges. It may also reflect no contrition on the part of one, with a serious record of violence, and lots of contrition from another, with perhaps no previous bad record.

That, of course, is why sentences vary, and should vary, according to the facts, and circumstances.

EDIT - And I stress, I said "may reflect", not that it did.

[mikerr]

I find this a good example of how newspapers often distort the facts to their own agenda.
The Mail article glossed over the fact that someone went down for that crime, and at first glance made it appear that they all got away without punishment.


The Manchester Evening News gave a better, more balanced report:

Bramhall thug jailed for attacks on Good Samaritans near Piccadilly station
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...adilly-station

Now go back and read the Daily Mail article, and see the difference:

Thugs 1 Justice 0: Portrait of a violent yob who assured a judge he was full of remorse
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ping-jail.html

[jim]

But that may reflect the possibility that one was responsible for the bulk of the attack, one a bit of it and one not any at all, hence his acquittal on GBH charges. It may also reflect no contrition on the part of one, with a serious record of violence, and lots of contrition from another, with perhaps no previous bad record.

That, of course, is why sentences vary, and should vary, according to the facts, and circumstances.

EDIT - And I stress, I said "may reflect", not that it did.

I agree, hence why I took his argument. You would presume, given that information, that the guy imprisoned had more responsibility, although of course it could've been for other reasons. Having said that, it doesn't really affect my original argument.

My point was basically that it's all well and good for us to sit here and say that the Daily Mail is winding people up, and the court was the best place to decide, and we don't know all the facts, and so on and so forth (and I've posted similar things before), but if someone is involved in an a physical attack on somebody else, and found guilty of that crime, then people, in general, will be angry with them. If that person then walks out of that court room and goes home, people will be even more angry with them, and also angry at whoever let them go. If that person also decides to celebrate their freedom on the steps, people are probably going to get yet more angry.

Discussion forums in particular can be very cold, analytical and rational places at times, which is excellent for discussing certain topics where facts and well-defined arguments are vital to make your points, and for avoiding the Facebook-style descent into Godwin's law and heck knows what else. But for all the benefits that brings, I think at times like this it's a little problematic.

People are inevitably angry at what's happened, and whilst it may be partly the result of the Daily Mail attempting to artificially create anger, if you look at the very basic facts that we can be certain of, it's no surprise whatsoever that people are livid. Personally, I'm not too impressed. Sitting here and saying that they're all wrong and stupid for believing what the Daily Mail says misses the point a little.

I suppose my earlier post was meant to be the tl:dr of that