Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
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.
|
I agree that too large a fine is worse than no fine. If it is too large it is not even that scary for many as it is beyond the realm of realism for them.
But by inflicting damages on the offender I am not to sure what you mean. I don't think that society is inflicting damages by responding in a predefined way to an offence. The offender generally knows the possibility of a penalty and thus is doing the inflicting even on themselves.
As you imply, many people who download software do not do it to save a few bucks, they do it because it is there. A few will even buy the software if they find it useful.
I think a standard fine large enough to make people say ouch, $1000 is at least a big owee for most people and confiscation of computers etc. would deter many although at this stage most would not worry until they got caught. That is what I believe they do for small time cross border smuggling between Canada and the States I think, a fine and confiscate goods and the vehicle and it stops a lot of it.
Helen