Rapidshare loses court battle against German booksellers

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, that is the price. But I asked about the definition of "value" which is not the same as the stated price.

While the stated price often doesn't not reflect true value, neither does what one person is willing to pay. Especially if they are willing to pay nothing and take the item anyway. If you are willing to pay nothing than why steal it? And in Canada taking something without the owners consent is called stealing. Value can determined by what people are prepared to pay in many cases as almost no-one would pay $50 dollars for an empty paper bag for example. So paper bag manufacturers charge less. But in a free capitalistic society people can charge what they want if they own the product and the fact that they charge more than an individual thinks it is worth does not usually justify stealing it in the eyes of the law or the eyes of society. Maybe different where you live.

Helen

[MikeB1972]

Fines for criminal cases are normally based on a combination of how serious the crime and the offenders ability to pay, not a fixed amount, you wouldn't get a different sentence for B&E if you stole a 50" HD TV or a 17" Portable.

I can't see any reason why civil cases shouldn't be worked the same way instead of a multiple of the retail value of the goods. Many book torrents, I believe, are x thousand books, so if someone downloads a 20,000 book torrent it is unreasonable to fine someone £1 million (20,000 books x £5 per book x 10 for penalty) as pretty much no one will be able to pay the fine anyway. For 1 book charge them £50, no problem, but when it is silly amounts, take away the stuff they downloaded, and have a maximum fine as some % of their annual income.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I can't see any reason why civil cases shouldn't be worked the same way instead of a multiple of the retail value of the goods. Many book torrents, I believe, are x thousand books, so if someone downloads a 20,000 book torrent it is unreasonable to fine someone £1 million (20,000 books x £5 per book x 10 for penalty) as pretty much no one will be able to pay the fine anyway.

If you fine the dishonest downloader less than the retail value of the goods, then it's not a punishment: they still end up paying less than the honest purchaser, and that's just plain wrong. If you fine someone £50,000 then they've still got their 20,000 books at half price. Do you think that's fair to the person who's bought those same books honestly and at full price?

How are you going to "take away the stuff they downloaded"? Trust them? These are dishonest people - someone who takes a book without paying for it in the first place is going to have no qualms about lying if you ask them if they've deleted it.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you fine the dishonest downloader less than the retail value of the goods, then it's not a punishment: they still end up paying less than the honest purchaser, and that's just plain wrong. If you fine someone £50,000 then they've still got their 20,000 books at half price. Do you think that's fair to the person who's bought those same books honestly and at full price?

How are you going to "take away the stuff they downloaded"? Trust them? These are dishonest people - someone who takes a book without paying for it in the first place is going to have no qualms about lying if you ask them if they've deleted it.

So you fine the person a million dollars (or pounds, or euros, or whatever the native currency is) What are you going to do if they can't/won't pay it? Are you going to throw them in a debtor's prison? If my child illegally downloads something using my internet connection, I am responsible whether I knew about it or not. Should I lose my house and be in debt for the rest of my life because I'm clueless about technology?

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

So you fine the person a million dollars (or pounds, or euros, or whatever the native currency is) What are you going to do if they can't/won't pay it? Are you going to throw them in a debtor's prison? If my child illegally downloads something using my internet connection, I am responsible whether I knew about it or not. Should I lose my house and be in debt for the rest of my life because I'm clueless about technology?

Shari

My fundamental point is that any system of fines which ends up in the dishonest downloader being able to get items for a lower price than the honest purchaser is not actually a punishment at all. You would accept that as being true, I hope?

[Cyberman tM]

I still don't understand why the downloader would be allowed to KEEP the books?

Unless you're fining him without actually knowing that he has the books (i.e. saying "We're quite sure you downloaded and kept the books, but we don't have any evidence aside from some server logs that say your IP downloaded them, so please pay this fine!").

How is it done when it's not about Internet and Computers? I wouldn't really consider server logs to be hard evidence.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

I still don't understand why the downloader would be allowed to KEEP the books?

How would you STOP the downloader from keeping them? Take his word that he's deleted them? How do you know how many backups he's made, and where he's put them?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My fundamental point is that any system of fines which ends up in the dishonest downloader being able to get items for a lower price than the honest purchaser is not actually a punishment at all. You would accept that as being true, I hope?

Actually, I don't. Now if you could PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person who downloaded the item was using it, then MAYBE your system would apply. In your bus analogy, there is no doubt that the person actually used the bus ride. For downloads, I would bet that a large majority of the people who are downloading don't end up using the actual files--they are just storing them on their computer.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Actually, I don't. Now if you could PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person who downloaded the item was using it, then MAYBE your system would apply. In your bus analogy, there is no doubt that the person actually used the bus ride. For downloads, I would bet that a large majority of the people who are downloading don't end up using the actual files--they are just storing them on their computer.

Shari

That's totally irrevelant. I haven't read many of the ebooks that I've legally bought. Do I only pay for them when I read them? Copyright infringement occurs at the time you download the unauthorised copy. Whether or not you use the file doesn't change the offence in the slightest.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's totally irrevelant. I haven't read many of the ebooks that I've legally bought. Do I only pay for them when I read them? Copyright infringement occurs at the time you download the unauthorised copy. Whether or not you use the file doesn't change the offence in the slightest.

Hmm...does it, actually? Is it infringement just to have the item in your possession, or does the infringement occur because of the distribution? If somebody gives me a copy of a book on a thumb drive or dvd, it's in my possession, but I didn't copy it in any way. However, by your definition, I can be liable for a life-crippling fine just because I have it in my possession.

What about people who buy unauthorized copies without realizing that they aren't legitimate? Are they subject to fines? They have the unauthorized copies in their possession, don't they? My point is that you are seeing this in black and white, and it's not a black and white issue.

Shari

[simon89]

I don't get it either. Who really wants to have the book finds a way to download it. It rather lacks appreciation..

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmm...does it, actually? Is it infringement just to have the item in your possession, or does the infringement occur because of the distribution? If somebody gives me a copy of a book on a thumb drive or dvd, it's in my possession, but I didn't copy it in any way. However, by your definition, I can be liable for a life-crippling fine just because I have it in my possession.

What about people who buy unauthorized copies without realizing that they aren't legitimate? Are they subject to fines? They have the unauthorized copies in their possession, don't they? My point is that you are seeing this in black and white, and it's not a black and white issue.

Shari

Of course it's not a black and white issue, and I'm not saying that it is. That's why we have "due process", and court cases, to allow those who have a valid defence to have their day in court and present their arguments. I'm certainly not proposing any weakening of anyone's legal rights - simply that those who deliberately download copyrighted material knowing damned well what they are doing should pay a reasonable penalty for their actions. Being fined $100 for downloading $1000 of books is not a reasonable penalty; in fact it's not a penalty at all.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

actions. Being fined $100 for downloading $1000 of books is not a reasonable penalty; in fact it's not a penalty at all.

Why is it not reasonable? You do not know what happened after downloading. For example the file could have been thrown away directly. Ot the file is just placed on a hard disk and never used. And so on.

And according to you what is a reasonable fine for downloading a book that cannot be bought or a book that is free in certain countries but not available in other countries?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why is it not reasonable? You do not know what happened after downloading. For example the file could have been thrown away directly. Ot the file is just placed on a hard disk and never used. And so on.

Neither of those actions change the act of copyright infringement, but if the person being accused can convince the court that they do, then let them try.

And according to you what is a reasonable fine for downloading a book that cannot be bought or a book that is free in certain countries but not available in other countries?

I do have sympathy with that situation, but I'm not sure that it legally changes anything.

[OtterBooks]

Copyright infringement is not about what you take, it's about what you make. The problem with basing compensation on sale value, at least in the context of an illicit download, is that the infringement is not wrongful appropriation of quantifiable property. There is no book/music/movie squeezed through cables to your home. Essentially what happens with a download is that one is communicated instructions they use to reproduce media using their own manufacturing equipment. Unlike typical wrongfully appropriated goods, the stuff also represents no real potential monetary value for the procurer (well, distribution is another matter I suppose). Frankly it makes everything rather confusing for me.