dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
17
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson to your name

Member

to your name

Re: Public Flogging

Just what we need -- more government in our daily lives. The answer to all of this is to restrict damage settlements to 3x the value of whatever MSRP of the copyrighted item was. Stop using the ISP's as enforcement agents. Let the studios sue anybody they want but no more huge judgments on an individual. Some movie sells for $50-- you can't get any more than $150 for the infringement. The punishment would then again fit the crime.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Exactly. I'd even accept 10x the MSRP of the copyrighted item. If you find someone infringing on the copyright of a hundred songs, you'd fine them $990 ($0.99 * 10 * 100). If someone posted 20 movie DVD rips (assuming each DVD had a MSRP of $20), they would be on the hook for $4,000. It would be a financial hit to most people, but not one that would result in financial ruin.

The exception to this would be people who infringed copyright for profit. For example, if you took those DVD rips, burned them onto blank DVDs and sold them on a street corner, then you should get the $750 - $150,000 penalty per infringement. That's what those figures were originally intended for. The application to non-commercial "home" infringement came later.

xXDigitalXx
join:2014-01-22
Saint Petersburg, FL

xXDigitalXx

Member

you can not get blood from a turnip, america also has a nationanwide three strikes and you go to federal prison/pen, not jail, for a very long time. The three strike rule is nothing new to all crimes.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to TechyDad

Premium Member

to TechyDad
said by TechyDad:

(assuming each DVD had a MSRP of $20),

So they change the MSRP to $50k per song and then have them on sale at 99 cents.

The contention that those mis appropriating property should then only be liable for the retail value when later caught and prosecuted is silly.
The treble damages mentioned above is closer, but neglects to add "attorney's fees, court costs, and other expense of recovery" that are standard to the calculation of restitution.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to mlcarson

Member

to mlcarson
Agree with you in principle, but what about all the resources expended to enforce the law? Should there be some built in amount to take that into account, or do you believe that our taxes pay for that part of the process?
jjeffeory

jjeffeory to TechyDad

Member

to TechyDad
I'm pretty sure $4,000 would result in financial ruin for quite a few people. I know of one person who had to file for Bankruptcy when she owed $10k. I agree $4k is much less than $150k, but we have to remember that this is infringement, not murder or grand theft auto.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt
If the MSRP is set to $50,000 and every site is selling them for $0.99, then there could be a case to argue to a judge that the record labels are colluding to set the MSRP artificially high in order to collect higher copyright infringement fees.
TechyDad

TechyDad to jjeffeory

Premium Member

to jjeffeory
At least the $4,000 (for pirating 20 DVD movie rips) would be more in line with the "damages" (yes, I'm using the term loosely) than $750 - $150,000 per infringement.

$4,000 would definitely result in financial ruin for a lot of people, but courts could set up some sort of payment plan to account for the fact that the person can't just stop by the ATM and take out that much cash. A $4,000 payment plan is much less likely to cause financial ruin than a $150,000 payment plan.

Finally, reduced fines would mean people would be able to fight back. If you are facing the possibility of $150,000 in fines, you're likely to take the $2,000 settlement even if you are innocent. If the fine faced is $4,000, you might just fight back. And the more people who fight back for being wrongly accused, the less the recording industry (and other content providers) can use bullying people into settlements regardless of guilt as a side business.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to TechyDad

Premium Member

to TechyDad
You only need to offer it at full price for a while to set the retail MSRP even if no one buys it at that price.
As I said treble damage PLUS recovery costs is not unreasonable.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt
said by tshirt:

The contention that those mis appropriating property should then only be liable for the retail value when later caught and prosecuted is silly.

Actually, that is exactly how shoplifting is prosecuted.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

said by CXM_Splicer:

Actually, that is exactly how shoplifting is prosecuted.

This is not shoplifting.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

NormanS

MVM

said by tshirt:

This is not shoplifting.

What happened to, "Piracy is theft"?
NormanS

NormanS to TechyDad

MVM

to TechyDad
said by TechyDad:

Finally, reduced fines would mean people would be able to fight back. If you are facing the possibility of $150,000 in fines, you're likely to take the $2,000 settlement even if you are innocent.

Who, in the U.S., has ever been criminally prosecuted for digital piracy?

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
mis appropriating property , willful illegal conversion is that better?
most people know if it walks like a duck... no matter what you call it

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

1 recommendation

NormanS

MVM

I am just confused.

"Piracy is theft".
"Shoplifting is theft".
"Piracy is not shoplifting".

So which is it?

If piracy is not shoplifting, then piracy can't be theft.
54761437 (banned)
join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC

54761437 (banned)

Member

Don't bother arguing with him. He likes playing little semantics games. Don't get trapped in the matrix.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt
said by tshirt:

mis appropriating property , willful illegal conversion is that better?
most people know if it walks like a duck... no matter what you call it

Most people simply call it what it really is... Copying.

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

said by TechyDad:

Finally, reduced fines would mean people would be able to fight back. If you are facing the possibility of $150,000 in fines, you're likely to take the $2,000 settlement even if you are innocent.

Who, in the U.S., has ever been criminally prosecuted for digital piracy?

»music.yahoo.com/blogs/am ··· ngs.html

$1.5M for 24 songs... and im sure there are more in google.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by thedragonmas:

$1.5M for 24 songs... and im sure there are more in google.

Sorry ... but I requested information on a criminal prosecution. Would be, "U.S. v. Thomas", or "%State_of% v. Thomas". Your example is a civil tort; "Capitol v. Thomas"; not what I was seeking.

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA

thedragonmas

Premium Member

my bad, but i still think award limits should be put in place... oh and we forget that it is indeed a civil matter, the ISP's shouldnt be involved, instead there acting like net police at the whim of content makers

aqk
join:2006-07-17
Elgin, QC

1 recommendation

aqk to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
OK, then.. how about this:
»brevi.tk/gwtx

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Dateline: January 25, 2014

Article states:
quote:
It's the first time that the Justice Department has moved to prosecute individuals for illegally distributing mobile apps.

Cited source, US DoJ first released:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 24, 2014

Sorry, but my crystal ball went to the repair shop on January 23, so I had no knowledge of what was a future event at the time I posted.

Obviously, proof that, "There's a first time for everything".
trollscience
join:2013-12-14
Carrington, ND

trollscience to thedragonmas

Member

to thedragonmas
Some them are caused by copyright trolls.
dra6o0n
join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON

dra6o0n to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer

»youtu.be/up863eQKGUI


Dudes a troll then?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

said by dra6o0n:

Dudes a troll then?

No, I don't think so. I have had many dialogs with Tshirt and I don't believe he is a troll. I do think, however, that there is a small number of people who think that copying = theft. Personal investment, distorted definition of theft, industry propaganda like the video you posted is certainly a factor for some; there are many reasons.

The argument falls apart under the slightest logical scrutiny and is obviously a push by those that profit from intellectual property to try to increase those profits. To me there is no difference between borrowing a DVD from your friend or the library or downloading it from the net. The claimed loss in both cases is exactly the same.