how-to block ads
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
3 edits | reply to Sammer
Re: Get rid of statutory damages!
said by Sammer  :except in criminal cases. Here's a radical idea, make the the RIAA prove actual damages in civil cases, otherwise known as justice! That won't happen. And here is why - it costs too much money, time, & effort to go after millions of malefactors individually when the ACTUAL damages are small in each INDIVIDUAL case. But the damages are significant when grouped over all the violators. Think of this as the reverse side of a class action suit where millions sue 1 company.
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.
Most law enforcement is based on the severity of consequences and the FEAR of getting caught - not on the likelihood of getting caught. If that wasn't the case, then we would need 1 cop for every 10 people instead of 1 for every 1000.
Here is the ACTUAL wording in the bill about statutory damages for copyright infringement:
SEC. 104. COMPUTATION OF STATUTORY DAMAGES IN COPYRIGHT CASES.
Section 504(c)(1) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the following: `A copyright owner is entitled to recover statutory damages for each copyrighted work sued upon that is found to be infringed. The court may make either one or multiple awards of statutory damages with respect to infringement of a compilation, or of works that were lawfully included in a compilation, or a derivative work and any preexisting works upon which it is based. In making a decision on the awarding of such damages, the court may consider any facts it finds relevant relating to the infringed works and the infringing conduct, including whether the infringed works are distinct works having independent economic value.'. Personally, I don't think they need this change in the statutory damages section. The statutory damages are already extremely high enough to achieve the objective of deterrence and intimidation.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | The problem with that is the burden of proof is too low in civil cases so our court system is abused and the results are unjust. Just because legislators are willing to be whores to corporations doesn't make laws the Nazis would be proud of right. Our Constitution is not based on the ends justify the means. | |
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to TKJunkMail
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. | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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 | |
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :... Think of this as the reverse side of a class action suit where millions sue 1 company. A class action, however, results in a portion of the award being given to each individual person. The sum, IOW, of all these portions, plus lawyer fees etc, equals the agreed upon figure.
A true reverse of a class action would have all responsible parties paying a fair share of the damages... not just a few people paying colossal amounts while everyone else pays nothing.
... a huge swat in the forehead of a selected few is used to scare off the majority. Deterrence, on its own, is not justification enough.
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. The IRS will not audit me and then require me to pay my own back taxes and penalties plus those of everyone else in my town.
Most law enforcement is based on the severity of consequences and the FEAR of getting caught - not on the likelihood of getting caught. If that wasn't the case, then we would need 1 cop for every 10 people instead of 1 for every 1000. Fear of getting caught is not independent of likelihood of getting caught, though. You can't run law enforcement, for eg, with a death penalty for jaywalking and 1 officer for 1,000,000 people... and, unfortunately, I think this not so far removed from what we have with the music industry and the general public.
The statutory damages are already extremely high enough to achieve the objective of deterrence and intimidation. The damages are insanely high and, I figure, were conceived in an era when the bad guys were professional counterfeiters and rip-off artists... NOT grandma firing up her computer and grabbing a few tracks.
--
My Site | |
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
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. | |
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :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
| |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | reply to TKJunkMail
Speaking of original compositions....
Who do you think composed the proposed statute?
NV | |
|
