I'm sorry, but you don't live here and you have no idea what you are talking about. You make it sound like police in riot gear are patrolling the streets in vans, picking up piles of people and throwing them in jail for no good reason. There is nothing like that at all going on. Yes, some of our freedoms were compromised during the Bush administration, but don't believe everything Hollywood spouts about things like the Homeland Security Department. They are not the "thought police", they cannot throw you in jail without charging you (if you are a legal citizen, if you're not, you're screwed) and they certainly don't pick people up for downloading songs or movies (not a single person has been jailed for downloading... ever). Yes, we do have a rather high crime rate, but there are 24 countries in the world with higher murder rates than us (including GOG's own Poland) and the UK is actually higher on the list of total crimes per capita (number 6 in the world to our number 8). Yes, we have our problems with our justice system, as does every other country in the world, but ours is no where near the worst nor is it anything like the Orwellian picture you paint.

Someone doesn't get the point which is that they CAN do this. It doesn't mean they do it all the time, but if you follow politics and read around (not to mention read site trustworthy sites that analyze these new laws), you'll find that what I said is true: Bush allowed for big loop holes so they can "legally" detain people for the silliest of reasons - under the guise of holding terrorists and having any means possible to keep them detained. But that doesn't mean it can't be used against anyone else, that's being naive.

About the murder rates: you're basing those on false facts. Poland has one of the lowest murder rates, actually. The figures wikipedia posted (and which I bet you referenced to) are completely wrong as well, not to mention greatly outdated. For starters, different countries have different interpretations of what a murder means. If you add euthanasia as a murder, or hitting a person while driving a car, or suicide, etc. (which Poland all includes) the numbers quickly add up. A few years back, they investigated and did an extensive study which put all the ratings on the same level (removing accidental or voluntary deaths for example), and guess what? The US was the first country of any Western country by far. Deaths by gunshots makes the US number 1 there as well - the UK comes seconds I believe, but already far behind.

I'm going to see if I can find a link to the survey - it's several years old so the data is at least a few years outdated but it beats yours that are 10+ years old and grossly unbalanced.

Actually, I didn't use Wiki, I used NationMaster.com which uses data from the most recent United Nations Survey of Crime Trends
Murders per capita statistics: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Total crimes per capita statistics: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Sorry, but you're backpedaling now. You didn't say one thing about what they can do versus what they actually do, you just said they arrest anyone for any reason and just throw them in jail which is patently false. Even so, they still cannot do that. All the Bush changes did was lower the burden of proof required for obtaining warrants or detaining as a material witness, it did not make it possible to simply arrest someone without cause or warrant, that would never be allowed under our constitution.

Erm no, I didn't say that and nor am I backpedalling. Read what I said, carefully. The second part was about the laws making it easier and easier to bust people (and you confirmed that already), the first part stated that it's the poor that get throw in jail for minor crimes while the rich get off for far larger crimes, and that's true as well. The US is the only one where certain parts have a "three strikes" system which is pretty nasty and deemed too primitive by most countries because it doesn't take into account the type nor severity of the crime. I've read plenty about the system and how a great many people in jail, are there for very small crimes which is ridiculous no matter how you twist it.

And the UN doesn't have reliable statistics because they use poor sources (i.e. the "official" sources which, as I showed before, are not comparable - not to mention that they rely on countries to be honest). That second link, for example, is hilariously wrong. At least it would be if it didn't show how unreliable statistics like that can be. Finland in third spot is as laughable as you can get - Scandinavia is known for its low crime and high standards of living. Seriously, ignore these - read the comments below those statistics if you don't just want my opinion.

Oh rep abuse, rep abuse is all i see.

That's a pretty horrible story, but you are comparing maximums to minimums - maximum of 5 years to minimum of 15 years. He almost certainly won't get 5 years for what he's done, but the law he's being charged under does the fit the crime he's being accused of committing. While indeed the number of sales affected is not 1:1, one can make the case that initial uploader is indeed affecting sales and the commerce of the product. The question is can one prove that in a criminal court? In a civil court all you need is a convincing argument that this is so and it is. Thus winning in civil court against the initial uploader should be pretty straightforward. For a criminal case it will be interesting to see what constitutes proof beyond all reasonable doubt against someone who has not profited from the illegal distribution.

If it is a person who has sold pirated copies, then one has an easier case. One has the sales. If the pirate has given the copies away for free and they've been given away undetermined number of times to undetermined number of people, it is indeed harder to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the affect of his actions on commerce. However, even if the prosecutors don't get him on criminal charges, he's probably and deservedly done for in civil court.

Again you also shouldn't compare possible punishments with actual punishments. It's true that in California you can indeed spend the rest of your life in jail for stealing a $5 DVD because of our insanely stupid 3 strikes law. God what a mess that is. That said, in this instance, if convicted, the judge has minimum as well as maximum sentences to guide him. The maximum sentence is for those people who are guilty of committing millions of dollars worth in lost commerce and profiting off of it. Given that the defendant hasn't profited, that will go into the judge's decision if he's found guilty. Further, the defendant can appeal not only the verdict but the sentence as well. Again, this will be a precedent setting case so jumping to conclusions that they're going to ream him is premature especially since he hasn't even been found guilty yet. This case is only just beginning.

Not going to argue much here as I have neither the time nor the desire at present, but for the sake of perspective:

Looking at the three films I recall from skimming the article:

From the Wikipedia entry about "The King's Speech": From the Wikipedia entry about "Black Swan": From the Wikipedia entry about "127 Hours": Also bear in mind that earnings will continue to increase as more DVDs/Blu-rays/downloads/etc are sold.

I won't pretend 100% faith in these numbers, nor will I deny that there are additional costs related to distribution not likely included in the budget figure. Even so, it should be clear that these films have been very profitable.

All else aside, do you honestly believe that the uploader deserves up to 5 years in prison per movie? That despite the high profits earned, the possible profits lost (and I say possible because not all who pirated the film would have been able or willing to pay for it) justify imprisoning a man for a significant portion of his life?

Please note the "up to" part (and btw it's three years not five). You are acting as though he is going to get the maximum punishment. That he can get the maximum doesn't mean he will. The reason we have the maximum sentence is to punish the worst offenders of that particular crime, but then we say that is the maximum they can be punished, no more than that. The up to part isn't what someone HAS to get. You almost always get lower than that unless you are considered the absolutely most heinous version of a perpetrator of that crime. The judge will make the decision if he deserves the maximum for what he did and that's even presuming he is found guilty.

Lastly, people can appeal sentences if they are deemed too harsh. He can also be jailed for time served or for x period of time concurrently - i.e. he serves all the time for each movie at once which could be months, again served concurrently. Again if he's found guilty the judge doesn't have to jail him for years with each movie adding consecutive time. Please don't assume that the uploader is suddenly going to a victim of a cruel unusual punishment and that I should feel sympathy for him before he's even found guilty (at the moment he is still innocent) or gotten his sentence or appealed either or both.

So no I don't think he deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail, nor do I think he will. At most he'll spend three years maximum and I doubt he'll get that.

Still floating that "there should be a cap on proft" socialism I see.

Indeed, brother, indeed. Tho I prefer to term it social justice. ;-) And it's not so much a "cap on profit" as it is a "point past which there is no longer a valid moral claim".

Not interested in repeating our previous outing, but your comment did make me smile, so thanks for that. :-)

I do admit making hundreds of millions off a relatively small investment is pretty crazy, but at the same time a lot of movies lose money. Similar to games actually the big successes fund the failures and risks (though Hollywood is much better at this than EA and Activision, which is sad since Hollywood ain't great at it either).

So there is a moral factor, if you want one.

Side note: I do agree the maximum amount of time he could serve is insane.

I deliberately stayed out of your thread (never even opened it up to read) not because I didn't think the topic wasn't a worthy of discussion, but rather precisely because I did in fact think it was a very worthwhile discussion and man do I not have the time for one of those. :)