Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyBob
Because of what happens when you turn the issue around from the point of the consumer.
As others have pointed out, copyright infringement is not generally a criminal offense. So for practical purposes, the cost of the illegal behavior is exactly the payment of the fines specified by law.
If I park on the street and and don't pay the meter, I may get a ticket. The cost to me only extends to paying the fine, and then I can go on my merry way, from a legal perspective. I knew someone who never paid meters, and every month he would write a check for $100 or so to pay the fines. And he happily did so, knowing that he was saving about 25% on his meter fees.
So, now, as a consumer, suppose I buy two books a week at Amazon.com for $15 each (about $1500/year). Or I can torrent them for free, and risk a fine of (say) 25% of the MSRP.
From a financial standpoint, why would I ever choose to pay for books again? If I don't get caught, they are free. If I do get caught, it's still cheaper. And since it isn't a criminal offense, payment of the fine puts me right in the eyes of the law.
The only reason not to is "copyright infringement is wrong/illegal". And for people who are willing to infringe copyright to start with, that argument has zero weight.
|
Yes, but this is dependent on the risk to get caught and for the discussion in this thread it was assumed that the risk was "reasonable". Nobody have said that the fine should depend on the risk. Instead people have claimed it should anly depend on price or on value or depend on both price and value. For me this is a to simplistic view.