Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>>>  > Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>  >
>>>>  > > Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > >>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>  > > No, because treating file swapping as receiving stolen goods is 
>>>> a loser,
>>>>  > > since copyright infringement is not theft. Also, if I buy a 
>>>> CD/movie and
>>>>  > > then encode it and put it in my share directory, the people who 
>>>> download
>>>>  > > it are making a copy of a product that was legally purchased. For
>>>>  > > receiving stolen goods, first you need goods that have been 
>>>> stolen.
>>>>  > >
>>>>  > > The entertainment companies are being harsh to make examples of 
>>>> people.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Which was the point I tripped over my own feet trying to make the 
>>>> last
>>>>  > time this topic came up. We don't treat most copyright 
>>>> infringement as a
>>>>  > criminal offense, which puts the entertainment industry in a really
>>>>  > nasty position. With shoplifting, the police at least pretend to 
>>>> care,
>>>>  > and will run the kid through the police station and try frighten 
>>>> him out
>>>>  > of repeating it. With major theft of physical goods, they will 
>>>> undertake
>>>>  > criminal prosecution, which makes winning the later civil case for
>>>>  > damages much easier. With file swapping, you get kids "infringing" a
>>>>  > half-million dollars in music, and nothing happening to them 
>>>> unless the
>>>>  > entertainment industry sues. With physical goods, little Johnny 
>>>> would be
>>>>  > on the rock-pile, and mom and dad would be locked up as 
>>>> accessories. We
>>>>  > have placed the burden of law-enforcement on private companies, 
>>>> who have
>>>>  > to finance the investigation and prosecution on their own behalf, 
>>>> and
>>>>  > then wonder why they act so ruthlessly. We haven't given them 
>>>> much of a
>>>>  > choice. The police aren't able to act, the criminal courts aren't 
>>>> able
>>>>  > to act, the legislatures won't pass corrective legislation to equate
>>>>  > copyright infringment with theft. Their only option is to press 
>>>> their
>>>>  > civil cases loud and hard, with as much publicity as possible and
>>>>  > seeking maximum damages.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get the idea that Mom and Dad are accessories when 
>>>> Johnny steals chattel?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If little Johnny was running a fencing operation out of his bedroom, 
>>> sufficient in scope to move a half-million dollars worth of physical 
>>> goods, people would look long and hard at Mom and Dad's behaviour. 
>>> They may find nothing criminal. If they found that Mom and Dad had 
>>> bought Johnny the tools of his trade (the case when Mom and Dad buy 
>>> and supply the file sharing computer, or pay for a broadband modem), 
>>> they would be able to make an accessory theory of some kind apply. 
>>> Not always a slam dunk, not easy, but with that kind of dollar 
>>> volume, the prosecutor would be motivated to try.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow. Your lengthy qualifying hypothetical was quite a shift from 
>> "parents are accessories when children commit larceny".
> 
> 
> What other kind of activity with "physical goods" would be analogous to 
> "'infringing' half a million dollars worth of music"? 

I don't make arguments by analogy because they do not offer deductive 
conclusions. At any rate, your paragraph just bandied about a bunch of 
scenarios with no seemingly logical progression. First there is 
shoplifting. Then, "major theft" of chattel. Then Johnny is infringing 
(complete with snear quotes!) $500k in music. Then he is doing something 
with physical goods (stealing them?), although we have no idea what, how 
much, or how, but it makes Mom and Pop accessories to some crime.

> You think most 
> kids go out and buy their own computers and set up separate modem access 
> to the home? Most of these juvenile file-sharers are doing so with 
> computers and modems supplied by the parents. 

Drawing on your legal education, tell me why this matters.

> The lack of morals and 
> disregard for property ownership probably comes from the same source.

I thought you atheists became all hands aflutter when people started 
talking about lack of morals. It's also very hard for me to listen to 
lectures on property ownership from a communist.

- Kevin