Quote:
|
Originally Posted by s|k
No, I disagree, I think you should only get to defend your copyrights only to the point of absurdity, and not beyond that point. Copyright protection doesn't take precedence over the welfare of a person's life. It's not that important. Forcing someone to stop a service because of copyright violation is fine with me. Destroying an individual's life in order to make an example out of him because of activities that are conceivably victimless and without consequence is despicable, especially when it's perpetrated by an entity that seeks to deceive the public with it's misinformation and misinterpretation of law posted all over its website. That kind of fear mongering ought to be illegal.
|
See "Mortgage" "Equity Release Loan" "Endowment Policy" "Life Insurance" etc etc.
Happens every day. Difference is that Banks fear reputational loss, and their ombudsman can impose stupidly large fines on institutions that take their greed too far.
The RIAA and the MPAA have absoloutely nobody to tell them what to do, and they dont care about reputation. That scares me. It scares me that they can find a copied movie on a DVD in my house and fine me £5000 for the privilege.
Per DVD
And the money will go to ... their shareholders (The Artists represented by the RIAA). How many other companies with shareholders can do this and get the protection of the law?
Last I recall of anything like this was the Lloyds of London "Names" fiasco.