Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
You're acting as if copyright laws, and the ability to enforce them, didn't exist until Hadopi...
|
I made no such claim. Government does in many instances get involved in copyright enforcement; e.g. the NYPD occasionally cracks down on counterfeit goods, which falls under copyright laws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
All those new laws did was introduce the presumption of guilt upon accusation...
|
Incorrect, a hearing with a judge is required before fines or sanctions can be levied.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
You said high fines for people guilty of unauthorised downloading, as if that would be a bad thing. At least that would make these laws self-financing, so ordinary tax payers wouldn't be hurt by them.
|
People have complained for
years about how awful the RIAA is when they sued individuals for copyright infringement, with penalties up to $20,000 per download.
And again, this "laws must pay for themselves" is not a valid position. I've never heard of any requirement that the fees generated by a law must pay for enforcement.
Should the costs of maintaining traffic lights be paid back by tickets for running a red light? Should the fines for DUI cover the costs of police overtime and breathalyzers? Should the penalties for cheating on your taxes pay for the hours of the IRS auditors? If my neighbor is making too much noise, should the police hand my neighbor a bill every time they show up? No, no, no, no.
The purpose of levying a fine is to penalize the individual and discourage them from performing or repeating that behavior. As such, the typical standard is to determine a fair penalty for the offense, not pay back the costs of enforcement.
I.e. this is a patently absurd standard to apply to an enforcement issue, and it's based on emotion rather than an understanding of how laws are devised.