Does the punishment fit the 'crime'? Out of touch laws

[Prometheus]

If you want to discuss the morality of copying music, please use another thread, like this one: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2186944#post2186944

Thanks for not hijacking this thread.

Music Fan Owes $675,000 For Illegal Downloads, Court Rules | Fox News

Appeals court rules overturns reduction in fines by lower court of $67,500 fine and rules $675,000 in fines will stand and be reinstated.

Keep in mind this student only downloaded the music for personal use and they were unable to prove he ever re-shared any of the music he downloaded.

The American "justice" system hard at work protecting you and I.

edited to add----
The point of this thread is the misapplication of laws, out of date laws and more specifically does the punishment fit the crime?

In a civil suit, the 'injured party' could claim actual loss of revenue as well recover damages for court costs and perhaps try and claim some punitive damages.

I'm throwing out an arbitrary number here, but lets say he downloaded 4,000 songs. Someone said they go for $1.00 on Itunes (or similar), true BUT it wasn't Itunes who was selling it, when you take away Itunes cut, the actual damages to the party was not more than 50 cents per song.

$2,000 in actual damages for the 4,000 songs plus legal fees and perhaps punitive damages.

$2,000 in damages + $73,000 in legal fees (wild guess but the RIAA has put up some big high priced names/firms) = $75,000.

Does $600,000 'punitive' seem reasonable based on $2,000 in actual damages?

That certainly sounds like "unreasonable" to me.

Again, I'm basing the damages on 4,000 songs as that's about the max anyone has been pinched for. Even if it was 10,000 songs, we'd still be at $5,000 in damages and then have $597,000 as the 'fine'.

 

[Love the 1911]

I fail to see the lack of justice here. This is theft and we've all seen how members of this forum would like to treat thieves. Solution for this "unconstitutional" punishment? Don't steal!!!

 

[ATOMonkey]

If the music and movie industries don't want anyone to copy and hand out their product for free, then they need to quite broadcasting it, and selling copies of it that are easily copied and distributed.

Just my opinion. If I go spouting my mouth off to everyone about all of our engineering work, I have no reasonable expectation for that information to remain mine.

 

[Gabriel]

The American "justice" system hard at work protecting you and I.

This is theft. Music was stolen. Punishment ensued. End of story.

Your comments above make me beleive that you wouldn't have a problem with someone breaking into your home and stealing all of your belongings as long as the theif didn't share your belongings with others.

As far as the monetary amount for damages, sometimes you have to make an example of a few do deter the many from doing the same crime. That being said, I have no love for the RIAA. They know their time has past and they are grasping at straws to survive.

 

[Gabriel]

If the music and movie industries don't want anyone to copy and hand out their product for free, then they need to quite broadcasting it, and selling copies of it that are easily copied and distributed.

So, if you leave your car unlocked in your driveway you won't mind if I steal the stereo out of it?

 

[Rob377]

This is theft. Music was stolen. Punishment ensued. End of story.

Your comments above make me beleive that you wouldn't have a problem with someone breaking into your home and stealing all of your belongings as long as the theif didn't share your belongings with others.

As far as the monetary amount for damages, sometimes you have to make an example of a few do deter the many from doing the same crime. That being said, I have no love for the RIAA. They know their time has past and they are grasping at straws to survive.

It wasn't even a criminal case. It was a civil suit.

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, if you leave your car unlocked in your driveway you won't mind if I steal the stereo out of it?

Intel property and physical property are two seperate things. No way to compare them.

The only way you can make the comparison, is if I give everyone a radio to "borrow" and some people end up keeping the radios or make copies and distribute them.

 

[RockofStrength]

My only issue with cases like these is the amount the thief is fined for. What happened to "nor excessive fines imposed"?

 

[eldirector]

If the music and movie industries don't want anyone to copy and hand out their product for free, then they need to quite broadcasting it, and selling copies of it that are easily copied and distributed.

Wait, what?

So, if you can copy the software easily, it should be free?

If you can scan/copy/print artwork it should be free?

If books can be copied/duplicated, then the authors should write them for free?

Really? It's not like we are recording crappy audio off of the radio any more.We are quite literally stealing the songs. Same as swiping the CD off of the store shelves.

Granted, the judgements in these cases are cruel and unusual. If someone "steals" a recording, make them pay for the recording. At iTunes rates, that $675K would be about 675K songs. I'm guessing he stole fewer than that, though.

 

[ATOMonkey]

My only issue with cases like these is the amount the thief is fined for. What happened to "nor excessive fines imposed"?

They determine the amount of people he could have given the files to times the number of files and assume that all of that would be lost revenue.

If I have 10 CDs and 100 people have access to them, and the CDs are worth $10 a piece, then you can assume a lost revenue of 10 * 100 * 10 = $10,000.

Or figure it per song. When you're on a huge network with file sharing you get boned real quick. That is why you never ever ever set up your machine to share.

 

[steveh_131]

Really? It's not like we are recording crappy audio off of the radio any more.We are quite literally stealing the songs. Same as swiping the CD off of the store shelves.

So as long as I encode the songs so that they don't sound that good, that makes it ok?

 

[rambone]

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[eldirector]

So as long as I encode the songs so that they don't sound that good, that makes it ok?

Well, if you record them off of a public broadcast, complete with commercials and the announcer, for your own personal use, then sure.

If you rip a CD rather than buy it, then how is that not theft?

Here is a great example:
Our own esteemed friend/colleague/online-acquaintance LONGBOW is publishing his first novel. Would it be OK for one, single INGO member to purchase it, scan the entire thing to PDF, and then freely distribute to everyone else? Would it be OK for you to BORROW the one purchased print copy, scan it for yourself, and return it to the owner? In either case, LONGBOW would be out of cash for his hard work and creativity. But, because he made something that was easy to copy, it is fair game and he should expect to not be paid?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Wait, what?

So, if you can copy the software easily, it should be free?

If you can scan/copy/print artwork it should be free?

If books can be copied/duplicated, then the authors should write them for free?

Really? It's not like we are recording crappy audio off of the radio any more.We are quite literally stealing the songs. Same as swiping the CD off of the store shelves.

Granted, the judgements in these cases are cruel and unusual. If someone "steals" a recording, make them pay for the recording. At iTunes rates, that $675K would be about 675K songs. I'm guessing he stole fewer than that, though.

I never said it should be free. I'm saying that when you make your intel property easy to duplicate, and then make it easy to aquire or even free in a lot of cases, you take a risk that you'll lose some projected revenue to the secondary markets.

It's not like taking it off the shelf. It's more like the music industry dropped CDs out of airplanes, but if you pick one up you have to pay for it.

Having said that, I always buy my music and movies and software, because I think it's the right thing to do.

I just don't think the music industry has a reasonable expectation of property rights, when they distribute it in such a manner.

 

[steveh_131]

Well, if you record them off of a public broadcast, complete with commercials and the announcer, for your own personal use, then sure.

Oh, so you have to listen to the commercials for it to be ok? What if the commercial becomes out of date? What if the company in the commercial is out of business? Then do you have to record a new copy with a new commercial?

Can I play a CD for my friend? If he didn't buy the CD then him listening to it is stealing, right?

 

[steveh_131]

Would it be OK for you to BORROW the one purchased print copy, scan it for yourself, and return it to the owner? In either case, LONGBOW would be out of cash for his hard work and creativity.

This rules out borrowing entirely. Why should I be allowed to borrow his book and read it without paying him for his hard work and creativity?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Well, if you record them off of a public broadcast, complete with commercials and the announcer, for your own personal use, then sure.

If you rip a CD rather than buy it, then how is that not theft?

Here is a great example:
Our own esteemed friend/colleague/online-acquaintance LONGBOW is publishing his first novel. Would it be OK for one, single INGO member to purchase it, scan the entire thing to PDF, and then freely distribute to everyone else? Would it be OK for you to BORROW the one purchased print copy, scan it for yourself, and return it to the owner? In either case, LONGBOW would be out of cash for his hard work and creativity. But, because he made something that was easy to copy, it is fair game and he should expect to not be paid?

What if I just lend a purchased copy to someone to read and they give it back?

 

[eldirector]

Well, that does explain the cost of music today. They have to jack the price because they know there will be theft. Leaves you and I to pay for the bootleg copies.

I still don't believe it is the victims fault when a crime is committed. Regardless of the crime or victim. Just because the threshold is low, doesn't make it right or legal.

 

[Rob377]

What if I just lend a purchased copy to someone to read and they give it back?

Its called the first sale doctrine. Once you buy the copy, you can do with that copy what you like, short of making more copies and giving those to your friends. Sell it, trade it, lend it, whatever.

Like the name suggests, copyright is the right to make copies, but just because you own a copy doesn't mean you have a copyright.

 

[steveh_131]

Its called the first sale doctrine. Once you buy the copy, you can do with that copy what you like, short of making more copies and giving it to your friends. Sell it, trade it, lend it, whatever.

Like the name suggests, copyright is the right to make copies, but just because you own a copy doesn't mean you have a copyright.

I don't know about him, but I wasn't asking for a breakdown of the already arbitrary laws in place.

I'm more asking what makes it "right" or "wrong".

If I make a friend a copy of the book and he reads it once, or if I just loan him the book and he reads it once...it is the same outcome. What makes one wrong and the other ok?

Edit: Let me clarify. What makes one "Stealing" and the other "Not Stealing"?