how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to ThrowDemsOut
Re: Get rid of statutory damages! So, the legislators set high STATUTORY damages, so that a huge swat in the forehead of a selected few is used to scare off the majority. Think of it as the same way the IRS goes after a very small percentage of taxpayers in order to keep the rest in line thru fear and intimidation. Or the way the Mafia puts a few people who don't pay their protection money in the hospital. Or the way Al Queda knocks down a few buildings in a country whose people and government won't kowtow to them...
Yeah, I got it now. It's terrorism. | | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | said by russotto:So, the legislators set high STATUTORY damages, so that a huge swat in the forehead of a selected few is used to scare off the majority. Think of it as the same way the IRS goes after a very small percentage of taxpayers in order to keep the rest in line thru fear and intimidation. Or the way the Mafia puts a few people who don't pay their protection money in the hospital. Or the way Al Queda knocks down a few buildings in a country whose people and government won't kowtow to them... Yeah, I got it now. It's terrorism. It is also how law enforcement works, and has worked, for centuries. Unfortunately, left to their own consciences, a large percentage of the populace are pretty much amoral scum and would steal other people blind if there was no penalties for doing so.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
1 edit | It is also how law enforcement works, and has worked, for centuries. Unfortunately, left to their own consciences, a large percentage of the populace are pretty much amoral scum and would steal other people blind if there was no penalties for doing so. So there's no difference between law enforcement and protection rackets or terrorism? The Law is merely the biggest gang in town? A lot of people would agree with you but most of them are anarchists of some stripe...
In systems of _justice_, the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, or in civil cases the compensation should fit the injury. Simply ramping up the punishment or damages to the point to where it is ruinous to be caught doing the activity may be convenient for the beneficiaries of the law, but it is not justice. And it doesn't work, after a point; they can only ruin you once. Sue an average college student for $100,000 or $1,000,000 or $1,000,000,000; the judgement is equally uncollectible either way. | |
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut:It is also how law enforcement works, and has worked, for centuries. Unfortunately, left to their own consciences, a large percentage of the populace are pretty much amoral scum and would steal other people blind if there was no penalties for doing so. Actually, TK, I think that for once you've hit the nail squarely on the head. It's only the perpetrator that you've misidentified. Specifically, I think that we should all file a class action suit for the perpetration of massive fraud and theft against the RIAA/MPAA, and the organizations that back them.
Think about this. The original intent of copyright was to provide protection to authors for a limited time so that they could profit from their works. Beyond the initial time period (plus extensions), the works were to fall into the public domain so that others could create derivative works and enrich society as a whole. The system worked well, but now, after numerous rounds of copyright extension, we have ridiculous limits on copyright terms, and draconian punishments for even miniscule violations (a mix CD causing 1.5 million in damages? Please!).
My belief is that with each successive extension of copyright, the public has been deprived, unilaterally, of the good intended by the framers. This, to me, is theft by legal means, and should be prosecuted as such.
Beyond that, we have seen over and over again that when laws are passed that the public at large thinks are ridiculous, the laws will not be obeyed, generating scorn for the law in general, and weakening society in the process. That squandering of public good will is, to my mind, even worse that the outright greed. But that's just me. Thanks for giving me the intro...
--
"In every generation, there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be master."
--Daniel Webster
| |
|
