[rayiner]

Absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason copyrights should be protected more strongly than traditional property rights. If I trespass on someone's land, it's not a felony. If I build a hotel on someone's land, it's still not a felony. The redress for copyright violations should be civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions.

[mercurial]

> There is no reason copyrights should be protected more strongly than traditional property rights.

There is one: lobbying.

[frank_boyd]

Exactly. It really can't get any more obvious than that.

If we don't take money out of politics our country is going to go down for good.

[rayiner]

You can blame the tech industry for this one. Criminalizing copyright infringement didn't get much traction until Microsoft, Oracle, etc, made a big deal about it in the context of large-scale piracy by the Chinese, etc.

[tzs]

There were criminal penalties for willful, for-profit performances of dramatic and music works in 1897 US copyright law. The 1909 act expanded this to all types of willful, for-profit infringement. I'm reasonably sure neither Microsoft nor Oracle had anything to do with this.

[jlgreco]

The DMCA was 1998. Wasn't that around the same time that Microsoft was getting hammered by the DOJ?

My impression is that the general consensus has that being about the time that Microsoft learned its lesson about ignoring lobbying. Maybe Oracle had something to do with it, but it seems like Microsoft probably missed that particular ship.

[Zoomla]

Didn't that start with Disney?

[nateabele]

The only real way to get money out of politics is to stop allowing politics to have such a high return on investment. Unfortunately, that ship has probably sailed for good.

[alan_cx]

Don't Americans have guns to protect property? I suppose in fairness Disney cant run out and wave a gun at people downloading cartoons.

Yes, its disgustingly over the top, but then, what isn't these days?

[rayiner]

Generally, defense of property must be proportional to the harm threatened, and use of deadly force is not authorized: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1176499503.shtml (interesting blog post in the context of "hacking back").

[hga]

No, actually. Outside of Texas, the exception that proves the rule, you are not allowed to use lethal force to protect property.

As I understand Texas law (which I wouldn't surprise to find judicially nullified someday, like similar Oklahoma law), you are allowed to use lethal force on someone stealing your property after a verbal warning.

Which is in no way analogous to the point you're making. US law very much does not support "self-help" as its called to redress wrongs after the fact.

[jbooth]

I'm pretty sure the castle doctrine applies in most states?

Hell, 'stand your ground' applies in a decent plurality of states these days.

[hga]

Weak Castle Doctrine, no duty to retreat in your home, exists in 46 states according to Wikipedia, which sounds about right. E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law or circumstances.

Stand Your Ground in 22 states. As in no duty to retreat any place you have a right to be, which prevents second guessing from the calm and comfort of a courtroom. Or as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in the 1921 US Supreme Court case Brown v. United States, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

[jbooth]

"E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law or circumstances."

Why?

[hga]

Because that's what the courts want very badly, at least as of the '80s. Several rounds of the solidly Democratic legislature passing "this time we mean it!" laws and the courts judicially nullifying as much as they could.

In one case I "watched" by reading the Boston Globe as it was tried, a man was sent to prison because he wasn't willing to leave his sleep daughter to the tender mercies of an home invader.

Too many people wonder why Michael Dukakis won only 10 states in 1988; not those of us in the the state who were paying attention to e.g. these judges he elevated to the bench.

[nnnnni]

I'm pretty sure that not all states have castle laws, though.

[hga]

Castle laws pertain to "Your home is your castle", and maybe business. I'm not aware of any that touch on property, they just make it clear you have no duty to retreat from your home (ADDED: true in 46 states according to Wikipedia), and the better ones allow you assume a home invader is a lethal threat, as you can reasonably assume about anyone invading an occupied dwelling. Otherwise proving that could be lethal to you, e.g. challenging the intruder gets a bullet in reply.

Note as usual all this is subject to judicial nullification, in my home state of Missouri as of 2010 the latter part of our crystal clear Castle Doctrine has been nullified through middle level appeals court required jury instructions. Our higher level judicial appointments are not surprisingly done according to the Missouri Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Plan), so the usual suspects control the process, not the people through their elected representatives.