TorrentSpy ordered to pay $110m damages

[HarryT]

From the BBC News web site:

File-sharing site TorrentSpy has been ordered to pay $110m (£56m) in damages to the Motion Picture Association of America for copyright infringement.

The ruling from a court in the United States comes just weeks after the website shut down.

TorrentSpy facilitated the illegal sharing of copyright files by hosting a collection of links to films and music.

TorrentSpy parent company Valence Media and its owners Justin Bunnell and Wes Park have filed for bankruptcy.

For more information, see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7389485.stm

[Steve Jordan]

Wow... and another soul-crushing damages verdict is levied.

Although I do believe that copyright holders are deserving of protection, and damages paid for knowing violations--which means I have no argument over the verdict--even I have to admit that the size of these fines (enough to send a company into bankruptcy, or, for example, Jammie Thomas to face losing her home) is pretty excessive. The courts seem to be firmly in the "make an example out of 'em" mode of punishment over these issues.

And part of me thinks about some of the employees of Valence Media, who are now clearly out of work and forced to move on. (Understand, if "Valence Media" turns out to be 3 guys operating in a storefront, as opposed to a company of people who may or may not have had any idea that what they were doing was illegal--I could not manage to find out either way--my concerns are duly withdrawn.)

At any rate, I wonder how long it will be before this "maximum punishment" mode forces the hand of the ACLU or similar organizations, going to the courts and saying, "Okay, punishment is punishment, but this is extreme to the point of ludicrous."

[tompe]

Did they really show copyright infringement? Torrentspy does not have any copyrighted material.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

Did they really show copyright infringement? Torrentspy does not have any copyrighted material.

I suppose the court didn't agree with your assessment. (Anyway, I was only thinking about the fine.)

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I suppose the court didn't agree with your assessment. (Anyway, I was only thinking about the fine.)

Does the size of the fine matter?
Presumably the chances of anyone being able to pay it are so remote that the number of zeroes is pretty irrelevant - a bit like sentencing some to 340 years imprisonment.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Does the size of the fine matter?
Presumably the chances of anyone being able to pay it are so remote that the number of zeroes is pretty irrelevant - a bit like sentencing some to 340 years imprisonment.

I'd guess their logic is that such a huge fine completely negates the possibility of "getting out from under it" somehow, whether through dedicated payments, loans and donations, insurance, or anything else. In other words, you'll know you're well and totally screwed for life if you get caught, so you won't do it.

On its face, it sounds logical, I suppose... but I think that when the numbers are that high, it sort of breaks the personal "reality" barrier, and people stop thinking logically about astronomical numbers. IOW, let's do the crime... after all, I'll be irrevocably damned anyway, it's not like I'll really spend 500 years in jail...

But if the punishment meant you had a prayer of resuming a normal life after due "rehabilitation," that might be more of a real inducement to avoid the crime in the first place.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Did they really show copyright infringement? Torrentspy does not have any copyrighted material.

According to the news article, they were convicted of "facilitating copyright infringement" - ie aiding other people in infringing copyright. The judge imposed a fine of $30,000 for "each of the 3,699 infringements shown". That's a total fine of $110,970,000.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

According to the news article, they were convicted of "facilitating copyright infringement" - ie aiding other people in infringing copyright.

Yes, that was what I thought. That is what is going to be tested in Sweden in the upcoming pirate bay thingy if it ever starts. It has been dragged out so you can suspect that they do not want to have it tested...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Although I do believe that copyright holders are deserving of protection, and damages paid for knowing violations--which means I have no argument over the verdict--even I have to admit that the size of these fines (enough to send a company into bankruptcy, or, for example, Jammie Thomas to face losing her home) is pretty excessive. The courts seem to be firmly in the "make an example out of 'em" mode of punishment over these issues.

It may surprise some to hear that I agree with you, Steve. Punishment needs to be proportionate to the crime. This is clearly not a proportionate punishment.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It may surprise some to hear that I agree with you, Steve. Punishment needs to be proportionate to the crime. This is clearly not a proportionate punishment.

So your thumbs up symbol does not mean that you agree with the fine?

[Ervserver]

I'm guessing destroying records didn't help their cause any

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ervserver

I'm guessing destroying records didn't help their cause any

In fact, it sounds like the main reason they were so severely punished, i.e., caused the courts to invoke the maximum possible fines on them in lieu of hard data.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

So your thumbs up symbol does not mean that you agree with the fine?

I think that convictions like this send the right message to people who might be considering setting up such a site, and I thoroughly approve of the conviction. However, I believe that the actual fine is disproportionate.

[Darqref]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Wow... and another soul-crushing damages verdict is levied.

When I read about this story, what immediately comes to mind is the court case(s) against the Tobacco and cigarette industry a few years ago. At the time, the damages asked sounded astronomical but were actually quite small compared to the level of medical expenses incurred by all the addicts. However, I read several places that the court could NOT set the damages high enough to bankrupt the companies, or even seriously damage them.

Compare this to all the recent court cases against p2p companies, and you see a dramatic difference.

So, we're allowed to levy court fines large enough to bankrupt p2p companies that only cause some (possible) monetary damage to some copyright holders, but we get our fingers slapped if we try to do the same thing to companies that knowingly caused cancers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Darqref

So, we're allowed to levy court fines large enough to bankrupt p2p companies that only cause some (possible) monetary damage to some copyright holders, but we get our fingers slapped if we try to do the same thing to companies that knowingly caused cancers.

The link between cigarette smoking and cancer has been well-established for what? 40 years now? Sorry, but if you smoke, knowing that, you're doing so through your own free choice. Nobody's forcing you to do so. It's no use smoking for 20 years and then saying "oh, these evil cigarette companies - look what they've done to me!".