View Full Version : Euro-consumer groups take Apple, others to task

Nov 11, 2005, 08:52 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Euro-consumer groups take Apple, others to task (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051111095259)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Ja Di ksw
Nov 11, 2005, 10:05 AM
This can best be summed up by Red vs Blue, "I don't want it to be illegal, therefor, it isn't. That's the way it works!"

Nov 12, 2005, 12:12 PM

Nov 12, 2005, 12:18 PM
How can they lobby for "the right to not be criminalized?" If you're breaking a criminal law, then you run the risk of being caught and convicted of the crime, and thus you are a criminal. If you disagree with a specific law, the lobby to have the law changed so that it's no longer a criminal activity. But to say that they want the "right" to not be criminalized; That's like saying "we want the right to break the criminal laws of our land and get away with it." Also, as a software developer, I think it's ridiculous that they lobby for the "right to have interoperability" between competeing products. If I make a product and put it up for sale, and joe blow down the street makes a competeing product, and our two products don't work together... that's just too damn bad. No one has to buy either of them. If you don't like anyone's products, then you can just go live under a rock somewhere.

Nov 12, 2005, 12:28 PM
How can they lobby for "the right to not be criminalized?"

Well, there's a difference between civil and criminal penalties, at least in many countries. So the right to not be criminalized might be the right to be liable only in a civil sense for an infraction. Although, in this case, I think what they are talking about is more an idea along the lines that industry groups could be empowered to shut down manufacturers or distributors of technology that allows for violation of copyrights, but not to pursue direct penalties against users who bought / downloaded that technology in supposed "good faith," while it was publicly and freely available.

An analogy would be... it would be lacking in jurisprudence, if, in the United States, stores sold marijuana to anyone who wanted to buy it, but anyone who bought it would then be subject to criminal liability. If you look at "vice" activity in the U.S., there are two lines of thinking, for instance. When it comes to drugs, law-enforcement tends to want to get the supply side very badly, and pursue relatively few cases against consumers. When it comes to prostitution, on the other hand, law enforcement in the U.S. has a history of siding with the "supply" side, and even using brothels to "sting" the "consumers."

So it's two different ways of looking at law enforcement. If law enforcement against things like p2p were limited to the "supply" side, it would decrease substantially the amount of terror associated with users who are not digerati knowing what is and is not legal. Which, to me, is probable, when you can find copyrighted songs to download on the web, without even installing special software, using Google, within half a minute.