Oh crime pays very well depending on who and what you are. Have a badge or the right connections and you can start raking in the cash, and not only will the legal system not hinder you it will go out of it's way to help you.
Remember, 'Stupid criminals end up in prison, smart criminals end up in law enforcement and/or politics.'
Truly a compelling and thought provoking counter-argument to the points raised in the article. Not only that but in all my years frequenting TD I've never seen that particular counter-argument raised, so you must be praised for coming up with a completely new and unique take on the issue at hand.
"Oh that law doesn't apply to me, I wrote it after all."
While a funny idea, and one that would get rid of a lot of bad laws practically overnight something like that would only work if lawmakers were actually required to follow, and were bound by the same laws that they pass and insist everyone else has to follow.
Time to break out the parrots and eye-patches it would seem
India's film industry, said to be the largest globally with some 1,000 movies produced each year, earns around $2 billion from legitimate sources such as screening at theatres, home videos and TV rights. But with $2.7 billion, piracy earns 35 per cent more, and a way out has proved elusive.
If copyright infringement in India is not only more profitable but drastically more profitable than the legal sources then it seems the studios need to start taking notes from the copyright infringers, as they're clearly doing something seriously wrong.
The standard 'people just want things for free' line is clearly not going to work here as copyright infringement is making more than the legal source, meaning that clearly people are not only willing to pay, they're willing to pay above and beyond the standard rates, but the studios are screwing up somehow and someone else is scooping up the money instead.
This is yet another instance where even if you take their claims at face value they still fail to hold up under even the slightest bit of scrutiny, leaving them looking like idiots who don't understand what's going on and how to capitalize on it at best.
Yeah, if only every industry was facing such an existential threat the economy world-wide would be the best it's ever been. The movie industry is always crying about how piracy is about to utterly destroy them, and how they only thing that could possibly save them is more laws to 'protect' them, yet year after year they rake in massive, often record breaking profits.
But hey, I suppose I can't blame them. I mean they're only making billions on a yearly basis, an amount that is barely enough to cover a bowl or two of ramen and a can of soda each day for those poor studio execs. Why if if weren't for piracy eating away at them I'm sure they'd be making trillions on a monthly basis, enough to be able to buy real food for once!
If giving politicians a pass when they lie is a 'break from tradition', then I say don't just break it, shatter it and throw away the pieces. News agencies absolutely should be calling politicians out when they lie, doing otherwise just allows politicians to use them as an avenue to lie with impunity, further emboldening politicians to lie since they know the press won't call them out on it.
"Why no, we seem to have misplaced the paperwork, and will continue to do so for... 56 more days it looks like."
How fast do you imagine they would be to release all stolen goods(because lets be honest, that'e exactly what it is at this point) if any proceeds from the sale of said goods went not to their coffers but was added to the budget of public defenders?
If the incentives were reversed like that, if stealing items from those they arrest, stonewalling requests to get it back until too late, and then selling them padded not their wallets but helped pay for the defense of those they accuse I imagine they would not only not stonewall, they'd go out of their way to either 'lose' the items in some cop's house or return it as quickly as possible.
"Here, have another chance to lie to me and tell me why you were in the right."
Do you really think the police are going to be eager to admit that they had a 'stand-off' with an almost empty house for hours, busting up the place in the process because they were too incompetent, too cowardly or both to simply use the key the homeowner provided to check the house?
They already tried to spin it as though the person they were after was in the building and 'escaped', why would you waste time giving them another chance to lie again?
Yeah, there is no way it takes them that long to exploit a found vulnerability, instead I imagine that's just an excuse not to report it sooner.
'It takes us two years to really begin to fully exploit a vulnerability, and after that it might be good for a few more years, which means reporting it sooner would take a valuable tool away from us before we can really use it. You don't want us to be unable to protect the public, do you?'
Alternatively they're all so incredibly incompetent that it does indeed take them that long to figure out how to use an exploit, though that's not much better really.
Yeah, I don't care how good the rest is, any agreement that includes the toxic pill of corporate sovereignty needs to be shut down, hard. Companies do not deserve the right to be treated as though they had equal if not more power and importance than governments.
Corporate sovereignty is 'solving' a problem that is self-fixing by replacing it with a very real, and much worse problem.
I imagine you could drastically reduce how trigger happy cops like this are if you tied damages to the police budget. Bust up a house to the tune of $25,000 in a 'tense stand-off'? Say goodbye to $25,000 from the department budget, plus housing costs for however long it takes to fix the house to the point the owner can move back in.
Importantly the payment would not be tied to a lawsuit, or even prohibit one if the homeowner decides to file, it would be mandatory, and based upon an estimate provided by a third party with no links to the police or city.
Maybe if they actually had to pay out of their own pockets they'd think before breaking out their toys.
Re: Re: Re: made up krimes with made up victims...
Replace 'resisting arrest' with 'contempt of cop' and it makes a lot more sense. In cases like that the 'crime' isn't that you tried to resist arrest, it's that you didn't show them the 'respect' that they so clearly wanted and deserved, and as such need to be punished.
As for why it hasn't been fixed? Well the police obviously aren't going to object to something that let's them throw their weight around and punish those that don't 'respect' them enough, and most courts and judges bend over backwards to give the police anything and everything they want, because clearly they're the good guys and by definition can't do anything wrong.
Pretend? Oh my no, I'm much worse than a pirate, I'm one of those people that took the 'Buy on their terms or do without' line that I've seen bandied about and ran with it.
I'm someone that does without.
See a pirate, they know about the newest and upcoming films, the newest music from the label musicians, the newest shows on tv. They know and they care, otherwise they wouldn't bother downloading the stuff. As such while they're not paying now there's a good chance they'll do so in the future.
Me though? I couldn't care less about any of that, as I get my entertainment from sources that offer it on my terms, meaning I'm as likely to buy that rubbish as I am to download it, which is to say not at all. I've no problem throwing money at good entertainment, whether that be in books, music or whatnot, I just don't throw it at the crap shoveled out by the parasites that hold me in contempt and make the hilariously wrong assumption that I not only care about what they throw out I care enough to go out of my way to download it.
However we're getting off topic from your sticky fingers regarding stuff I couldn't care less about, so I'll ask again: If no-one cares about the stuff created that long ago, why the push to make sure that it never enters the public domain? If something created more than a lifetime and a half ago is really not that big of a deal let it enter the public domain instead of wasting all the time and effort convincing politicians that an extra two decades of incentive is just what the corpses need to start writing/composing/creating again.
You're talking about an agency that would be perfectly fine deliberately sabotaging encryption, making everyone less safe and secure, simply because it makes their job easier.
Given that it's hardly a surprise that they would 'forget' to inform companies of an exploit or vulnerability as doing so would make their jobs harder(and everyone else more secure), and we can't have that now can we?
As a direct result of Steele’s misrepresentations, between January 29, 2014 and June 5, 2015, this Court expended a significant amount of time and effort addressing matters relating to Steele’s ability to pay the Fee Order.
Steele’s choice to make misrepresentations to this Court and to continue to press the issue of inability to pay necessitated all of the above.
Funny, I'm pretty sure that anyone else wouldn't be accused of 'misrepresentations', they'd be on the hook for perjury charges for lying to the court.
Even now they're forced to treat him with kid gloves so he doesn't wiggle out on a technicality when anyone else would have had the hammer brought down on them long ago.
Alright, I know something you could do that would clear up a whole lot of confusion the public currently has to deal with, and as you seem to care so very much about the public I'm sure you'll be totally on board with the idea:
You want a copyright on something you must register it with the relevant office, with the records easily searched by the public so they know who owns something and how to get a hold of them if they need to. If the copyright changes hands then the records must be updated within a reasonable time-period(one week sounds good) or the copyright is invalidated.
There, no more confusion as to who owns the rights to what, and what is and is not in the public domain. As a champion of the public I have no doubt that you will get right on pushing for such a helpful change.
Because they still like to pretend that they don't believe that the public should have absolutely no say in copyright law, and get no benefit from it whatsoever that doesn't involve the transfer of money.
No one who's been paying the slightest bit of attention believes them of course but they don't care so long as the politicians voting for the laws they buy do, or at least pretend to in order to curry favor with them.
Still projecting your (digital) sticky fingers on to everyone else are we? Tisk tisk, really now if you wan't to go about downloading all the newer songs/movies/stuff knock yourself out, but blaming everyone else for the same and asserting that everyone else does as you do is just tacky.
If no-one cares about stuff made that long ago, then why the fight to make sure that it never enters the public domain? What, is it just habit by now to screw over the public and make sure that copyright is as close to being eternal as you can manage it?