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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
$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.
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
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.