Hollywood VS Technology

This is more or less a compairson of what a ruling against technology would be like.

Hollywood hates that people can download their music and blah blah blah so they sue the people that came up with the software. The software vendors say `We are not responsible for how someone uses our product.´

It has been close in some cases but to me this is exactly like people suing the arms industry. They play the same card as the software makers do.

I pose this question, if hollywood won does that set a new standard to be use like in such cases as the gun industry?

I just thought this was an interesting comparison.

That's a pretty damn good comparison there.

"Napster doesn't pirate music - people pirate music."

I think it's a somewhat faulty comparison.

First off, there's the second amendment - the right to bear arms. There's no right to bear pirating software.

Secondly, the intent of the producer must be considered. Whereas a case can be made for p2p programs that the main focus of them is to allow people to easily exchange files and such, it still does not nearly equate with gun manufacturers, mainly for the fact that gun manufacturers cannot monitor the usage of the guns they sale. The people who make these pirating software(most notably, the peer-to-peer programs), not only monitor but update their software regularly. They know what's going on.
Lastly, the intent of such programs. The purpose of guns sold to civilians is not to kill people, whereas the intent of pirating programs is irrefutable. However, if a gun manufacturer did carelessly allow dangerous weaponry into the hands of criminals, and those criminals killed someone, the gun manufacturers can be held accountable(something like "criminally negligent homicide"). So basically, if the gun manufacturers showed the same disregard to the law as do these pirating programmers, they would be held accountable, as well.

This is just looking at it from a legal perspective. I don't have anything personal against illegally downloading music and such, and have done so before myself.

If 'Hollywood' could prove that the software companies were making these programmes in order to promote and improve illegal forms of file-sharing, then it'd be pretty hard for them to fully defend against a lawsuit on that matter. Just as Raistlin has said.
However, the comparison with the firearms industry is a good one, I think. I'll ignore Second Amendment arguments, since that Amendment is only relevant within the US, and treating it as an unchangeable "right to bear arms" is just about the worst example of statutory interpretation I've ever encountered. Goodness knows how they keep getting away with it...

But that's not the point.
Both weapons and file-sharing software can have a lot of different applications and uses. The overall purpose is the same - all firearms are made to fire a high-speed projectile into a target; all file-sharing programmes are made to enable the distribution of electronic data. It's the specific application of these uses that is the problem.
A weapon can be customised and 'improved' to make it more effective as a murder weapon. This could include silencers, laser sights, compact (and thus, concealable) designs, amongst other bits of fine-tuning. Similarly, programmes can be cutomised to make them better for sharing illegal files. I'm not savvy enough to list such improvements, but I know that stuff can be done for this purpose.
It all depends on what the manufacturer intends, or knows, people are going to do with the end product.

But basically, if you make a product that's intentionally designed to be used for a specifc criminal purpose, then you're at least partially responsible for the outcome. (I've never had any time for arguments like "gun's don't kill people, people kill people". That always makes me want to say, "A-bombs and land mines don't kill people, people kill people, so I should be allowed to mine my yard and build a silo in the garage").

If someone's losing a shedload of money they're fully entitled to, as a result of file sharing, then it's within their rights to take legal action. Particularly in the case of small-time publishers, whose profits depend entirely on a small number of artists. Musicians might also foreseeably suffer as a result of having their work distributed in that same way.
Thus, while the issue doesn't affect me and I don't really have an opinion on it, I can fully understand people wanting to sue over it.
If they win, then fair enough. The law needs to protect intellectual property rights or creativity will eventually suffer, as people turn away from entertainment careers because of low revenue. This is not a severe problem at present, but if it got worse it could become a serious issue.[q=edczxcvbnm]I pose this question, if hollywood won does that set a new standard to be use like in such cases as the gun industry?
[/q]Nah... the principles are broadly similar, but they're different enough that one wouldn't necessarily follow the other. Gun laws directly affect people's health and safety, while file-sharing doesn't. Besides, the NRA owns enough politicians that the US will never have to worry about a significant change in gun-control laws, even though most of the public want more restrictions. A lot of people argue, "but if you make guns illegal then criminals will still own them anyway". My response to this is, that if you make gun controls tighter, then (1) there will be fewer guns in circulation, thus fewer will end up in criminals' hands; (2) it'll be easier to remove firearms from people who shouldn't have them; and (3) the rest of us won't have to keep a lookout for every drunk hillbilly staggering down the street exercising his "constitutional right" to carry a sawn-off shotgun for "self defence".

A similar analogy to filesharing can be found in the case of drug manufacturers. If a pharmaceutical company sells methodone, morphine etc to a hospital, then they can argue they're not responsible for any subsequent misuse of their product. When you sell to a hospital, you can reasonably presume they'll be responsible. However, if that same company sells a crate of medication to Cletus from Alabama, they'd have a harder time arguing 'reasonable care'. Again, the issue is what the company intended, and what they knew would happen to their product in that instance.

You're the one who sets up and arms the land mine, you're the one who launches the nuke. It's not the land mine's fault, it's not the nuke's fault, it's your fault. You're the one who pulls the trigger, it's your fault. By the way...got something against rednecks?

As Larry the Cable Guy says, "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

The comparison is a poor one. There's quite a difference in file-sharing programs, created specifically to swap music, and firearms, which are (contrary to some people's thinking, or rather, lack thereof) NOT created and intended for use in crime.

"A similar analogy to filesharing can be found in the case of drug manufacturers. If a pharmaceutical company sells methodone, morphine etc to a hospital, then they can argue they're not responsible for any subsequent misuse of their product. When you sell to a hospital, you can reasonably presume they'll be responsible. However, if that same company sells a crate of medication to Cletus from Alabama, they'd have a harder time arguing 'reasonable care'. Again, the issue is what the company intended, and what they knew would happen to their product in that instance."

Very good point. Just like...well, guns. Firearm manufacturers do background checks on the people they sell guns to. They don't set up shop in a ghetto and put up "Buy one get one free!" signs. Guns are manufactured for safe, legal usage. Whether it be protection, or collecting, or hunting, or simple recreation, firearms are nor produced with the intent of their use in crime. More gun control laws would only take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. It MIGHT effect the numbers of firearms in the hands of criminals, but in doing so, it would durastically decrease the entire idea of an armed populace, and the many many criminals that would still have, or be able to get ahold of, guns would encounter very little resistance with whatever muggings, rapes, assaults, robberies, and home invasions they intend to take part in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You're the one who sets up and arms the land mine, you're the one who launches the nuke. It's not the land mine's fault, it's not the nuke's fault, it's your fault. You're the one who pulls the trigger, it's your fault. By the way...got something against rednecks?

---

If I arm a mine and bury it, I've done nothing overtly harmful. It's the poor fool who steps on it who's to blame. So long as I put up a warning sign, I should be able to mine my lawn. As for nuclear weapons, I'm simply saying I should have a right to own them. After all, we know that the weapon itself is harmless; it's just me that's dangerous, exactly the same as it is with guns. If you can say, "a gun is just a gun, it's the person who chooses to kill", then you can say the same for any weapon that requires a conscious decision to use it.

Quote:

---

More gun control laws would only take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.

---

It'd mean the authorities have more power to remove guns from more people. Just because someone's never been caught and convicted doesn't mean they've never been involved in crime. If guns are simply tougher to get, and there are more restrictions on who can own what, then it's easier overall for weapons to be taken away from those who intend to use them illegally.

Quote:

---

It MIGHT effect the numbers of firearms in the hands of criminals, but in doing so, it would durastically decrease the entire idea of an armed populace, and the many many criminals that would still have, or be able to get ahold of, guns would encounter very little resistance with whatever muggings, rapes, assaults, robberies, and home invasions they intend to take part in.

---

Fact: In the US, if you own a gun and keep it in your house for 'self defence', there is one chance in a million that you will use it against an intruder. There is one chance in fifty thousand that an intruder will take your gun and use it against YOU.

Gun licences and other controls don't prevent all people from owning weapons; it simply makes it tougher to do so. Criminals, both convicted and intending, lose their access to - and ownership of - weapons more easily. The police can't take weapons off "bad people" unless those weapons are prohibited by law.

I can't imagine a more fearful climate to live in, than one where everyone you pass on the street could be carrying a loaded, concealed firearm.

Although I don't think this was intended to be a gun control thread, ed makes some good points in his original post. I don't think legislation in parallel cases will necessary follow through because filesharing seems like such a different issue that no one can really connect to.

This is turning out better than I had thought. More from me tomarrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

This is turning out better than I had thought. More from me tomarrow.

---

you just did this to get people fighting didn't you? :D

"I'm simply saying I should have a right to own them. After all, we know that the weapon itself is harmless; it's just me that's dangerous, exactly the same as it is with guns. If you can say, "a gun is just a gun, it's the person who chooses to kill", then you can say the same for any weapon that requires a conscious decision to use it."

There's a big difference in a weapon that can kill millions and a weapon that usually won't kill one. There's about a 3% chance of dying from a gunshot would--it's not like most people who get shot die from it. The weapon itself is harmless without somebody using it to cause harm.

"It'd mean the authorities have more power to remove guns from more people. Just because someone's never been caught and convicted doesn't mean they've never been involved in crime. If guns are simply tougher to get, and there are more restrictions on who can own what, then it's easier overall for weapons to be taken away from those who intend to use them illegally."

Who intends to use them illegally? Who's call is it whether somebody "intends" to use a gun illegally or not? Even so, what grounds would they have to take the firearm away? The simple fact is, an extremely small percentage of gun-related crimes involve registered firearms.

I'd like to see a source for your "stastic". (If you want a source for mine, even though it's common sense, I'm sure I could find one.)

I can't imagine a SAFER climate to live in, than one where everyone you pass on the street could be carrying a loaded, concealed firearm. I'm sure I could also find the studies that have shown that when it becomes easier in an area to get concealed weapons permits, the violent crime rate goes down. Or, I could see what I could do to find crime statistics in places that require gun ownership in residencies compared to the surrounding areas--by the way, there are places that require by law the people there to own guns, and the crime rates there are much lower than those of their surrounding areas.

Here's a question for you--or anybody. If you were a criminal, and you were going to, say, rob a bank, hold up a convenience store, break into a house... You would very improbably be using a weapon that you bought legally and registered to yourself, you'd most likely be using one that you bought off the street, one with no registration on it. But anyway, back to the question. If you, using a gun that isn't legal, were planning to invade some type of place and steal things from it...would you prefer the people there to have guns, or would you prefer them to be completely unarmed?

Raistlin made the exact points I was going to make, so this is me reapeating them: BLAH!

[q=Sasquatch]I'd like to see a source for your "stastic". (If you want a source for mine, even though it's common sense, I'm sure I could find one.)[/q]Ah, so I'm presumed a liar until I prove my truthfulness? Perfect.

OK, for a source, see Bill Bryson's Notes from a Big Country. There's an article there which is all about random, odd statistics. This particular stat is included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Ah, so I'm presumed a liar until I prove my truthfulness? Perfect.

---

I didn't say I considered you a liar. I just said I wanted some confirmation of that particular statistic before I just blindly believe it, when it doesn't sound right in comparison to what I've seen and heard. There's no disrespect intended, and I wouldn't be offended myself if you asked for a source for a statistic I post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I'd like to see a source for your "stastic". (If you want a source for mine, even though it's common sense, I'm sure I could find one.)

---

Then find it. With your statics I want the names of the towns the statics were taken from.

Moving along to my problem so far with the "guns have other uses" arguement. That is now. Guns have been around for how long? In the beginning they were made to kill. Simple as that. It very soon moved from killing animals to people as war was constantly happening in those days...seems like it is now also though.

The point is file sharing programs do have their uses also regardless of why it was created. Bittorrent is great for companies to distribute their patches on. It gets everyone to share the downloading and uploading of the file. It takes bandwidth away from the company as they are not the one distrubting everything to everyone. What other uses have yet to be discovered as this is new technology but give it time. Things like Bittorrent are tons safer to use rather than things like Kazaa. So the technology is improving as are the uses. Maybe Microsoft will find a use for it to improve the speed at which a company can distribute software throughout their company.

I think the argument holds up well enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Then find it. With your statics I want the names of the towns the statics were taken from.

---

The only one that immediately comes to mind is Dahlonega, Georgia. If and when you look into that and think it doesn't go along with my point, I'll look up some more.

(EDIT: I just noticed I didn't get "statistics" correct. Whoops. Sorry y'all...I was wonderin' why everybody quoting me looked weird.)