Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
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
|
Maybe damages isn't the right term, although i disagree that just because punishment is predefined doesn't mean that society (and really it is government doing the inflicting) doesn't inflict damages. Certainly, the United States legal system recognizes such possibility, which is why the bill of rights prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." The Supreme Court, in Furman v Georgia, defined four principles that constitute "cruel and unusual punishment"
1. "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," i.e. torture
2."A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
3. "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
4. "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
I think massive fines for copyright infringement falls under the fourth principle.