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

[ZombieApocolypse]

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

How would you feal about a million dollar fine for doing that?

I dont see how fining someone for (lets even say he/she stole music) illegally downloading something worth a dollar gets fined over 750 THOUSAND!?!? There is no way stealing something worth under 20 dollars (an entire cd) should add up to close to a million dollars in fines.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

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.

That makes sense. Especially because they more than likely trespassed to steal your truck, they should do time for that (and the theft) and they should owe you the value of the truck brand new fully loaded and then some for your troubles with intrest tacked on

 

[eric001]

That makes sense. Especially because they more than likely trespassed to steal your truck, they should do time for that (and the theft) and they should owe you the value of the truck brand new fully loaded and then some for your troubles with intrest tacked on

Absolutely agree with the above. Repaying the replacement value of stolen stuff makes complete sense as part of the punishment for the crime.

However, applying the same rule of thumb that was mentioned earlier in the thread, adding on a fine of 15 million (assuming a base value of say 50,000 for a loaded new truck) would seem to be perfectly acceptable. Rational? No. Logical?? Not even. Realistic??? Only in dreams.

Honestly, I can't support pirating and redistributing material, as it is against the law... but does that mean that cruel and unusual financial punishment should become cruel and NORMAL punishment???

 

[Prometheus]

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.

Historically theft has always been viewed on a tiered system, comparative to the item and it's value.

Take a horse thief back in the day. It wasn't just the price of the horse but also the utility of the horse that made horse theft punishable by death, where as theft of the equivalent dollar cost of feed (for example) was NOT punishable by death.

Today we have similar laws, theft of sensitive state secrets (treason) punishable by death, grand theft, theft....

You can kill someone and spend more time in jail for lying to a federal agent than for the murder.

The system is screwed. Not to mention corrupt, but that's another topic.

 

[steveh_131]

Any of you who are tossing around the word "Thief" to describe someone who copies music needs to answer some of the tougher questions.

On an ethical level, what makes copying a song a "theft"? The original owner is not deprived of his ownership. What exactly makes it wrong?

Don't quote copyright law to me, because that's not my question. Why is it ethically wrong?

 

[eldirector]

Any of you who are tossing around the word "Thief" to describe someone who copies music needs to answer some of the tougher questions.

On an ethical level, what makes copying a song a "theft"? The original owner is not deprived of his ownership. What exactly makes it wrong?

Don't quote copyright law to me, because that's not my question. Why is it ethically wrong?

It is work product, not a tangible thing. Someone spent their own time, money, and effort producing that, and offered it for sale. You get to enjoy it, and they are out the cash. What is their incentive to keep working? Their love for music doesn't feed their kids - selling their recording does.

Let's put it in INGO terms. This site runs on software that has plenty of known hacks. Someone could pretty easily give themselves paid-member status, and stiff Fenway the $10. Is that wrong? You didn't really "take" anything, just failed to pay for the privilege. I suppose Fenway should just accept the loss. At least until enough folks do it, and he can't afford to keep the site going. But, hey, you got YOURS for free and no one really got hurt, right?

 

[Prometheus]

PLEASE DON'T HIJACK THIS THREAD

Any of you who are tossing around the word "Thief" to describe someone who copies music needs to answer some of the tougher questions.

On an ethical level, what makes copying a song a "theft"? The original owner is not deprived of his ownership. What exactly makes it wrong?

Don't quote copyright law to me, because that's not my question. Why is it ethically wrong?

It is work product, not a tangible thing. Someone spent their own time, money, and effort producing that, and offered it for sale. You get to enjoy it, and they are out the cash. What is their incentive to keep working? Their love for music doesn't feed their kids - selling their recording does.

Let's put it in INGO terms. This site runs on software that has plenty of known hacks. Someone could pretty easily give themselves paid-member status, and stiff Fenway the $10. Is that wrong? You didn't really "take" anything, just failed to pay for the privilege. I suppose Fenway should just accept the loss. At least until enough folks do it, and he can't afford to keep the site going. But, hey, you got YOURS for free and no one really got hurt, right?

PLEASE DON'T GET OFF TRACK.

Please start another thread about the morality of copying music. As it stands, it is prosecuted as a crime. It's worth exploring, especially when RIAA tried to make you buy a different copy for every single device you placed it on.

But please take it to a new thread.

Like this one: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2186944#post2186944

 

[steveh_131]

My bad.

 

[Prometheus]

My bad.

It;s ok, it's just things get derailed quickly when dealing with this sort of topic. It's easy to lose focus.

 

[eldirector]

I thought that was pretty on topic, for an INGO thread.

Hard to understand the penalty until you understand the loss. I suppose it is your thread, though!

 

[steveh_131]

To get the thread back on track:

I agree with you that the fines imposed are far in excess of any rhyme or reason.

A verdict of this size is enough to ruin your life, more than even physically robbing a CD store would.

 

[rambone]

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.

What if someone takes a pencil off of a coworker's desk? Is it equivalent to Grand Theft Auto?

Just throwin' that out there.

 

[88GT]

Historically theft has always been viewed on a tiered system, comparative to the item and it's value.

Take a horse thief back in the day. It wasn't just the price of the horse but also the utility of the horse that made horse theft punishable by death, where as theft of the equivalent dollar cost of feed (for example) was NOT punishable by death.

Today we have similar laws, theft of sensitive state secrets (treason) punishable by death, grand theft, theft....

You can kill someone and spend more time in jail for lying to a federal agent than for the murder.

The system is screwed. Not to mention corrupt, but that's another topic.

Ah, so you agree the d-bag who stole my truck should die. It is, after all, our modern day version of the horse.

 

[jsharmon7]

When I read the part about $600k, I immediately thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf7uJDhVZIE

I agree there should be some punitive damages to make an example of the guy, but that's a comically high number.

 

[vitamink]

Just for a fresh perspective... I used to work for a record label and was in a band or two. When we would sign bands to the label the initial deal (most deals) were the band got a % of the cd sales where as the label got a smaller percentage of the cd sales however, they got the rights to the songs. The benefit was the label paid all the upfront costs for studio time, mixing time, pressing the cd, and street team advertising. The band paid nothing, got their music out there, and every time a cd sold they made a few bucks. The label also makes a couple of bucks on the cd, but can sell the use of songs for advertising etc (one of my bands songs was sold for use in a porno). Once napster hit people were able to download the one or 2 songs on your cd that they liked for free meaning that you made 0 money and the label was in the hole. THe label isn't able to make back their initial investment to cover the studio time and pressings and goes out of business. I had seen it happen many times over. Larger labels like geffin or sony could survive with selling songs for movie use etc but they all took a big hit, the biggest hit being the young artists only making money off cd sales with no rights to the music.

When you see millions of people online siphoning your intellectual property away and you can't get any of them, then you nail this one guy who in a deposition states that he was in fact sharing stolen files, you'd want to make an example. **** one teach 1000. I agree with most that the fine was extraordinary given that he only admitted to sharing a few files (his history said otherwise).



We used to check lime wire and you could see how many people had downloaded your songs. If you broke a cd down to about $2.00 a song you'd realize that if these people had paid for your cd you'd be $1,000 richer and more apt to put out another one...if your label still existed.

 

[jedi]

So what happens now? The guy in the article now has a debt of $675,000.
How does he re-pay that? Can he do say a monthly installment of $200 for the next 50 years? If he files bankrupty does this debt go away? What if he does not pay it? What then?

 

[Rob377]

So what happens now? The guy in the article now has a debt of $675,000.
How does he re-pay that? Can he do say a monthly installment of $200 for the next 50 years? If he files bankrupty does this debt go away? What if he does not pay it? What then?

He files bankruptcy and pays nothing. It says he's a student, so it'll likely be a no asset Ch. 7 and the whole judgment will probably end up discharged.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So what happens now? The guy in the article now has a debt of $675,000.
How does he re-pay that? Can he do say a monthly installment of $200 for the next 50 years? If he files bankrupty does this debt go away? What if he does not pay it? What then?

He declares bankrupcy. He keeps everything he owns. The judgement becomes uncollectable. The Lawyers for the RIAA get paid. Dues to the RIAA go up to pay the lawyers. The music labels raise the price of music to cover the cost of the dues. People steal more music.

 

[steveh_131]

Just for a fresh perspective... I used to work for a record label and was in a band or two. When we would sign bands to the label the initial deal (most deals) were the band got a % of the cd sales where as the label got a smaller percentage of the cd sales however, they got the rights to the songs. The benefit was the label paid all the upfront costs for studio time, mixing time, pressing the cd, and street team advertising. The band paid nothing, got their music out there, and every time a cd sold they made a few bucks. The label also makes a couple of bucks on the cd, but can sell the use of songs for advertising etc (one of my bands songs was sold for use in a porno). Once napster hit people were able to download the one or 2 songs on your cd that they liked for free meaning that you made 0 money and the label was in the hole. THe label isn't able to make back their initial investment to cover the studio time and pressings and goes out of business. I had seen it happen many times over. Larger labels like geffin or sony could survive with selling songs for movie use etc but they all took a big hit, the biggest hit being the young artists only making money off cd sales with no rights to the music.

I don't buy into the mentality that your end customer is to blame for your outdated business model.

It now costs nothing to distribute music. It costs next to nothing to advertise music. The internet has changed things.

Music existed before record labels and before copyrights. It will continue to exist even if we stop wrecking the lives of kids who are trying to be your fans.

Once napster hit people were able to download the one or 2 songs on your cd that they liked for free meaning that you made 0 money and the label was in the hole.

I, for one, am glad that you no longer have to spend $15 on an entire CD to get the 2 songs that aren't awful. iTunes is a wonderful thing. I consider this to be progress. Maybe this will encourage musicians to focus on quality instead of quantity.

My overall point is this: It's too bad for record companies that things have changed. People are no longer willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money for albums with 1 decent song. It's time to make some changes to your business model, not destroy someone's life to make an example of him.

 

[jedi]

He declares bankrupcy. He keeps everything he owns. The judgement becomes uncollectable. The Lawyers for the RIAA get paid. Dues to the RIAA go up to pay the lawyers. The music labels raise the price of music to cover the cost of the dues. People steal more music.

OK so lets say is is not a student. Say middle class Joe. Still the same process?