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

KWW