Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Your argument doesn't make any sense to me, I'm afraid.
Let's suppose someone illegally downloads items that have a retail value of $10,000. You're saying that, if caught, they should only have to pay $1,000? They get $10,000 of goods for $1,000, whereas the honest consumer pays $10,000?
Sorry, but that makes no sense. The dishonest person should be punished. Saying "you'll only have to pay 10% of what you've taken" isn't a punishment at all - it's more like a reward!
|
It's not a reward if the fine is in excess of what the offender would be willing and able to spend on digital goods if he could not download them illegally. You erroneously assume that the offender values the digital goods more than the $1,000 or what it could have bought otherwise. In other words, all that matters is that the fine is large enough that, given a choice between the amount of money fined or the digital goods, the offender would choose the money.
Anything more not only exceeds the sufficient level of deterrence, but inflicts greater damages on the offender than he inflicted on society.