Quote :

"MUSKEGON, MI, United States (UPI) -- A Michigan appeals court has ruled that downloading child pornography from the Internet can be charged as 'making' the material. Making or manufacturing child pornography is a felony in Michigan with a potential sentence of 20 years in prison. The court upheld the position of the Muskegon County prosecutor in the case of former Egelston Township Treasurer Brian Hill, the Muskegon Chronicle reported. Hill is awaiting trial. The court ruling has put his case on the docket, although the issue is likely to be decided by the state Supreme Court. His lawyer argued that downloading pornography should be charged as possession, which carries a maximum penalty of four years. 'It`s groundbreaking law in the area of computers and pornography,' said prosecutor Tony Tague. 'This decision will provide a tool to prosecutors across the state, particularly in curbing and prosecuting child pornography.'"

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1089769.php/Mich._court_Downloading_porn_is_making_it

Now, of course I'm not here to defend pretty much anything having to do with child pornography. HOWEVER, how the fuck can you charge a person who downloaded something for creating it? If somebody downloads a bootleg movie, can you charge them for filming it? If somebody buys some meth, can you charge them with manufacture? This just doesn't make any sense.

1/28/2006 1:31:01 PM

Why is everyone so against kiddie porn?

1/28/2006 1:37:46 PM

i bet this verdict could be used against the miaa lawsuits

1/28/2006 2:35:04 PM

Downloading music is the same thing as recording music.

Therefore, the Beatles owe me my damn royalties.

1/28/2006 2:37:21 PM

yep damn straight... you made it..

1/28/2006 2:37:52 PM

Dude, if you create something, don't you have rights to it?

^^ ya rly



[Edited on January 28, 2006 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2006 2:38:15 PM

my guess is they had a bunch of old ass judges who've never touched a computer. the prosecutor came in with a laptop, accessed a file on the network, copied it, pasted it somewhere on his laptop and said "look, I manufactured a new one" and the judges bought it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=manufacture

and it would seem to fit a definition of manufacture: "To create, produce, or turn out in a mechanical manner"

so technically the process of copy/paste could be seen as a maufacturing process since something is created through a process.

That's the only explanation I can come up with for such an odd ruling and I think if this was the case, it's one helluva stretch.

I mean really, we all think people involved with child porn should be punished pretty damn severely but if you want to increase someone's punishment, then change the laws. Don't go making up crazy case law that'll just be overturned by a rational pannel of judges.

[Edited on January 28, 2006 at 3:16 PM. Reason : typo]

1/28/2006 3:15:45 PM

^given where they are, not too far of a stretch.

1/28/2006 4:02:25 PM

What if the MAKER of the child pornography is also the STAR of pornography?

1/28/2006 4:03:07 PM

I've always wondered that.

Like, if you're fifteen and take naked pics of 1)yourself, or 2) another underaged person, is that a crime?

1/28/2006 5:36:54 PM

hahahah kiddie porn for kiddies must be < 17 to enter.

1/28/2006 6:31:44 PM

damn, i guess I have made a lot of porno... non-kiddie, of course

1/29/2006 3:13:30 AM

so does this mean plagiarism is okay now?

1/29/2006 3:31:02 AM

Quote :

"Downloading music is the same thing as recording music. Therefore, the Beatles owe me my damn royalties."

Quote :

"Dude, if you create something, don't you have rights to it? "

Quote :

"so does this mean plagiarism is okay now?"

Nope, unfortunately not. There's still the matter of authorization. Unauthorized manufacture or publication of something would still be against the law. Bad ruling that if it sticks will very likely be used in worse ways in the future.

1/29/2006 12:19:30 PM

When you download porn you are making a new copy of it that did not exist before you downloaded it. So in one sense you are 'making' it.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 1:33 PM. Reason : s]

1/31/2006 1:32:15 PM

If by "one sense", you mean "a retarded sense", then, yes, you are right.

1/31/2006 1:33:49 PM

I don't understand why these sickos don't simply seek virtual child pornography (which is legal,) rather than real child pornography (which is illegal and immoral.)



---------------------------------------------

As for the whole copyright thing, this is just further proof that ideas aren't, in fact can't be, property. Property must have mass/dimension. "Intellectual property" is a misnomer--that term is an unfortunate shortened way of saying "intellectual property rights". IOW, the rights one is granted by law over ideas are similar to the rights associated with actual physical property, but ideas themselves were never meant to, and will ultimately never be, actual property. No one "owns" ideas. They simply have a government enforced temporary monopoly on the use of the ideas.

Quote :

"When you download porn you are making a new copy of it that did not exist before you downloaded it. So in one sense you are 'making' it."

You said it yourself. They aren't making the [original] porn--they're making a copy of the porn.

1/31/2006 2:23:00 PM

Quote :

"I've always wondered that. Like, if you're fifteen and take naked pics of 1)yourself, or 2) another underaged person, is that a crime? "

This came up in Canada somewhat recently.

A minor filmed sex act with another consenting minor.
Totally legal under Canadian law.
But then he sent the video to some of his friends. They were charged with possessing child pornography and he was charged with manufacturing and distributing.

1/31/2006 4:21:55 PM

Snewf, you make the law sound so sexy.

1/31/2006 6:02:53 PM

But if you're downloading porn, you're not making the copy... The uploader is making the copy. You're merely receiving the copy that is being "manufactured" by the source.

1/31/2006 6:18:32 PM

sweet, I've been making porn for years then!

time to update the old resume.

1/31/2006 6:35:26 PM

^^ technically, you're copying his copy...

the distributors should be hit with the making twist (if I put up a file on a website, im allowing copies to be taken)

1/31/2006 11:14:45 PM