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.
KWW