Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Answer me this:
I spend $5000 on ebooks.
My dishonest neighbour downloads those same books without paying for them.
How can you possibly say that my neighbour has not gained books that are worth $5000?
You're proposing that my neighbour should be fined $2500.
He ends up paying $2500 for the books that I've paid $5000 for. He's not being punished for his actions; he's being rewarded.
This is right in your view?
|
I'm not proposing any set number. That was a hypothetical number, and I think for the vast majority of people it would be punitive. You could make it $5,000 or $10,000, but IMO the amount should be based on what is necessary to prevent further infringement.
At this point we are not discussing what objectively would be a deterrent to illegal downloading, because the size of a fine has very little effect on illegal downloading. In the United States a person can be fined up to $150,000 per copyright violation. A couple years ago a woman was fined $1.9 million dollars for illegally sharing 24 files ($80,000 per file). It got pretty messy after that though, and the fine ended up at $222,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
I assume that most infringement cases are settled out of court, but still for sums greatly in excess of the retail price of the goods downloaded. As has already been pointed out, effective deterrence is based more on the probability of getting caught and punished than on the severity of the punishment itself.
But what's going on here is a clash of values. You want the government to punish people based on what you think is "fair," kind of a eye for an eye thing. Which is fine and it is the basis of most legal systems, the idea of "paying one's debt to society."
My view of justice is a mixture of pragmatism and humaneness. I think the government should focus on the most effective and humane means of minimizing illicit activity, whether that is through sufficient but not onerous or cruel punishments as deterrents, rehabilitation, effective policing, or the creation of more socially productive alternative opportunities.
In the case of copyright infringement, I don't see who benefits from massive fines. It greatly exceeds what is necessary to stop the infringers activity, the hardship it places on the infringer and his family is usually much greater than the benefits the fine has to the claimant, and it doesn't do anything to stop others from infringing. It is neither pragmantic nor humane.
But to go back to the idea of a "debt to society," I can't help but think that part of the reason we want to punish criminals beyond what is necessary for deterrence and rehabilitation is because society demands that we take a pound of flesh. People would balk at a legal system that did not make "evil-doers" suffer to some extent, to give them what is coming to them. So I think our system is a compromise between the pure revenge demanded by victims and humane pragmatism.