Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Feb 2013 02:02 UTC
Legal "This means that people can no longer get convicted for violating the copyright monopoly alone. The court just declared it illegal for any court in Europe to convict somebody for breaking the copyright monopoly law when sharing culture, only on the merits of breaking the law. A court that tries somebody for violating the copyright monopoly must now also show that a conviction is necessary to defend democracy itself in order to convict. This is a considerably higher bar to meet." Well, that's progress, I guess.
Thread beginning with comment 551953
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Interesting
by WorknMan on Sat 9th Feb 2013 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

There is one fundamental difference. In case of sharing a copyrighted work, there is a book, a movie or some other dead thing attached to the information and maybe an expectation of monetary remuneration.


Right, like the person/people who wrote the book or made the movie are dead things ;) Ultimately, that's someone's livelihood that you're sharing with a few million of your closest friends. From my experience, when trading copyrighted content, filesharers don't tend to discriminate between something that was made by a billion dollar corporation, or something made by an indie developer/artist who is struggling to survive.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Interesting
by r_a_trip on Mon 11th Feb 2013 12:04 in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

You deliberately fail to understand that the information in the book/movie/painting is not necesarrily something pertaining to the authors life. (Even if it is, then that was by choice of the author). That is why I said the attachement might be "an expectation of monetary remuneration".

When we talk about user profiling it is information like every other piece of information, but that information has the potential to negatively impact someones real life in meatspace. We are not talking about illegal things, but things that hypocritical people feel offend their pompous sense of social norms. It is also something the "user" has no say in. The only thing guarding against it, is opting out of society. Not being able to safeguard ones own privacy can only lead to a painful existence.

Just look at what happened when Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky had their affair. Does having an affair impact the ability to run a country? I don't believe that for one second, but president Clinton was nearly impeached over it.

Does it matter that a good pediatrician has a penchant for watching wacky, but adult Asian porn in his spare time? No it doesn't, but that won't stop boring, bourgeois people branding the man a sexual deviant and shunning him and his practise. Of course to "protect" their "precious" offspring.

Does anyone need to know that a masseuse has an incontinence problem? Would there be people feeling comfortable with knowing a masseuse is probably peeing while kneeding the muscles?

What about a sexuologist, who was born without discernable genitals? An ambassador with toenail fungus? A culinairy chef with Crohn's disease?

The above examples are over the top exaggerations, but they do paint the picture. What do you have "hidden" that you don't feel the world has a right to know? Or are you such a limited and boring Goody Two-shoes that there are absolutely no parts of your life that warrant privacy protection?

Reply Parent Score: 3