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

[ATOMonkey]

Legal is about about "reasonable" expectations.

What is reasonable? That's apparently the $675,000 question.

 

[Rob377]

Legal is about about "reasonable" expectations.

What is reasonable? That's apparently the $675,000 question.

there is no "reasonable expectations" clause/doctrine in copyright law.

 

[ATOMonkey]

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.

Yes, but it all comes down to scale in the end, and the advent of broadcast media was never properly addressed. Electronic media even less so.

If I lend it to one person, that's not a big deal. If I "lend" it to several million people, all of a sudden it's a really big deal.

 

[ATOMonkey]

there is no "reasonable expectations" clause/doctrine in copyright law.

All civil litigation involves "reasonable expectations".

For criminal prosecution, yes, you are right.

 

[Prometheus]

The point of this thread is the misapplication of laws, out of date laws and more specifically does the punishment fit the crime?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'.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Also, how do you define "copy?"

 

[Rob377]

All civil litigation involves "reasonable expectations".

For criminal prosecution, yes, you are right.

Not quite.
There's quite a few areas of civil litigation that have nothing to do with "reasonable expectations." Copyright is one of those areas.

 

[ATOMonkey]

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'.

What gets people is the number of users who have access to the songs, not so much the number of songs on one drive.

That multiplies things real quick.

All of the trials that I've read about usually involve the company going after someone for sharing more so than owning "illegal" copies.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Not quite.
There's quite a few areas of civil litigation that have nothing to do with "reasonable expectations." Copyright is one of those areas.

Not so. If you don't vigorously defend your copyright, then you'll lose the rights to it.

Now, define "vigorously defend."

 

[Rob377]

Not so. If you don't vigorously defend your copyright, then you'll lose the rights to it.

Now, define "vigorously defend."

That's not "reasonable expectations" for one, and secondly that's not even true as a matter of law. Maybe you're thinking of trademark, where that is the case.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The copyrighted material that comes to my mind is OEM reproduction. Several of the OEMs have lost their copyright of famous designs because they failed to prosecute the aftermarket manufacturer to a reasonable extent or charge them appropriately for use of the copyrighted material.

It's the broken window defense.

And yes, it applies to trademarks as well.

 

[Rob377]

The copyrighted material that comes to my mind is OEM reproduction. Several of the OEMs have lost their copyright of famous designs because they failed to prosecute the aftermarket manufacturer to a reasonable extent or charge them appropriately for use of the copyrighted material.

It's the broken window defense.

And yes, it applies to trademarks as well.

No, that's not copyright. There is no abandonment doctrine via failure to enforce for copyright. That's trademark/trade dress case law.

 

[88GT]

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'.

Define reasonable. I am not opposed to permanent bodily injury or death for a crime of theft. Is that unreasonable? I'm okay if you think it is. I'm not trying to justify it.

But damages from a legal standpoint is a laughable matter. In many cases, damages are calculated based on the current market value of the item and not the replacement cost. This is particularly annoying as a landlord. A 5 year old stove ain't worth much, but the prick who stole it didn't steal $50 worth of merchandise from me. They took $300+ because that's how much I'm out to replace it.

Criminal behavior should hurt. If it isn't a physical hurt, then I'm fine with a financial equivalent.

 

[RockofStrength]

Define reasonable. I am not opposed to permanent bodily injury or death for a crime of theft. Is that unreasonable? I'm okay if you think it is. I'm not trying to justify it.

But damages from a legal standpoint is a laughable matter. In many cases, damages are calculated based on the current market value of the item and not the replacement cost. This is particularly annoying as a landlord. A 5 year old stove ain't worth much, but the prick who stole it didn't steal $50 worth of merchandise from me. They took $300+ because that's how much I'm out to replace it.

Criminal behavior should hurt. If it isn't a physical hurt, then I'm fine with a financial equivalent.

But that is not the purpose of the justice system. It is strictly intended to protect your rights and force just compensation from an offender who violates them, not enact vengeance or "make it hurt".

 

[88GT]

But that is not the purpose of the justice system. It is strictly intended to protect your rights and force just compensation from an offender who violates them, not enact vengeance or "make it hurt".

What the hell is a justice system? We have a penal system. And it does not protect our rights, it punishes people for violating them. If it protected our rights, it would prevent crime, not punish it.

I'm going to ask it again: define just. It's perfectly just in my mind to have the ****tard that stole my truck to do hard time on a chain gang and then pay me the value of the truck plus some.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Here is another way to think of it. A guy breaks into your house to steal your music and software cd's. Do you shoot him or just let him take them?

 

[Prometheus]

Here is another way to think of it. A guy breaks into your house to steal your music and software cd's. Do you shoot him or just let him take them?

A person who has broken into my house is going to die. Unless they get lucky and have a handful of cds/dvds and are already booking it out the door when I discover them. Not really a good example as it's impossible to know if he is just going to take those items unless he is already headed out the door.

Here is a better example:

You left 5 CD's on your front porch, no gate, no fence and some guy stole them off of that front porch.

The CRIMINAL portion is over. He is already thru with his simple trespass and theft penalties.

You sue him in civil court and get full replacement value of the CD's AND legal fees... How much should the court award you in addition to that? Loss of enjoyment of the music contained to the tune of what? The value of the stolen CDs? Times 2? Times 3? Times 300,000?

It's absurd.

The guy didn't rape or murder anyone. He didn't take anything either. He made illegal copies. Yes it is pirating. No I am not condoning it.

Imposing Three HUNDRED THOUSAND times the value of the items copied is categorically ABSURD!

 

[Bunnykid68]

A person who has broken into my house is going to die. Unless they get lucky and have a handful of cds/dvds and are already booking it out the door when I discover them. Not really a good example as it's impossible to know if he is just going to take those items unless he is already headed out the door.

Here is a better example:

You left 5 CD's on your front porch, no gate, no fence and some guy stole them off of that front porch.

The CRIMINAL portion is over. He is already thru with his simple trespass and theft penalties.

You sue him in civil court and get full replacement value of the CD's AND legal fees... How much should the court award you in addition to that? Loss of enjoyment of the music contained to the tune of what? The value of the stolen CDs? Times 2? Times 3? Times 300,000?

It's absurd.

The guy didn't rape or murder anyone. He didn't take anything either. He made illegal copies. Yes it is pirating. No I am not condoning it.

Imposing Three HUNDRED THOUSAND times the value of the items copied is categorically ABSURD!

Point taken and accepted. What you have stated makes perfect sense.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Tried to rep ya, all out.

 

[88GT]

A person who has broken into my house is going to die. Unless they get lucky and have a handful of cds/dvds and are already booking it out the door when I discover them. Not really a good example as it's impossible to know if he is just going to take those items unless he is already headed out the door.

Here is a better example:

You left 5 CD's on your front porch, no gate, no fence and some guy stole them off of that front porch.

The CRIMINAL portion is over. He is already thru with his simple trespass and theft penalties.

You sue him in civil court and get full replacement value of the CD's AND legal fees... How much should the court award you in addition to that? Loss of enjoyment of the music contained to the tune of what? The value of the stolen CDs? Times 2? Times 3? Times 300,000?

It's absurd.

The guy didn't rape or murder anyone. He didn't take anything either. He made illegal copies. Yes it is pirating. No I am not condoning it.

Imposing Three HUNDRED THOUSAND times the value of the items copied is categorically ABSURD!

Why? I'm not trying to be an ass, but why? Why is the guy who steals a couple hundred dollars worth of stuff less of a criminal than the one who steals, say, a $30,000 truck? Why isn't all theft treated equally, at least in terms of the value of the stolen goods? Intent, circumstances, etc, are open for discussion, but I fail to have sympathy for the d-bag who takes a child's tricycle or a widow's life savings. Both are equally guilty of the same crime in my eyes.