Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Fines need to be proportionate to the value of the property obtained, but I still maintain that to be a meaningful punishment, the fine needs to be a multiple of retail value of the goods, or else it's no deterrent at all.
|
Repeating the same point over and over doesn't make it true. By this logic, someone could lose their home, their car, their retirement, all their discretionary income, but would be "profiting" if the value of the fine didn't exceed the retail value of the information illegally obtained.
This kind of logic fails to grasp the concepts of elasticity and opportunity cost. Digital goods have highly elastic value. People download because the opportunity cost is virtually zero. A deterrent only needs to raise the opportunity cost of downloading to a point where downloading isn't worth it. In tangible terms, it means the fine would have to exceed the amount a person is willing and able to spend on digital goods.
So, for instance, if I was only willing and/or able to spend $100 a month on digital goods and a fine made me pay $200 a month over a one or two year period, that would force me to spend less on goods and services I value more than digital goods and therefore raise the opportunity cost of downloading above what I am willing to risk to get digital goods for free.
But even more realistically, as has also been pointed out, the effectiveness of the deterrent is less dependent on the severity of the punishment than on the probability of getting caught, prosecuted, and found guilty.
As for the "meaningfulness" of the punishment, that is entirely dependent on a system of values, but it has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the deterrent. Depending on your system of values, stoning an unruly child or cutting off a thief's hand can be a "meaningful punishment." The term is moralistic. Deterrence is objective. Either something prevents a behavior or it doesn't.