$125,000 in fines for D&D pirates? Help me do the math...

[haakon1]

in a free market economy, i have the absolute right to charge whatever the heck i want for whatever i'm selling. No matter what. If people will pay the price i am asking, it's the right price.

Price does not justify piracy. Nothing justifies piracy. It might not be theft or stealing, but that doesn't make it right either. The pirate is taking something that he or she has no right to. None. While it might not be depriving the original owner (and thus be called theft), it's most certainly not a legitimate action.

qft.

 

[pedr]

I never said anything about this being fair or just. But I'm not going to feel sorry for the person who committed the crime here. They placed themselves in a bad situation and paid for it. Being fair or just is an opinion so what one poster may consider fair another poster does not have to. The only opinions on this being fair though that really matter are the parties involved and neither is going to publicly say anything about this.

What crime? They have neither been convicted of nor charged with any crime. Until that point, they are innocent of any crime. This does not mean that they cannot be liable for the damages due from their actions (as with OJ being acquitted of murder and held liable for unlawful killing - the state cannot punish him but the family of his victim can recover money from him).

It's not clear to me from the US Copyright Code and the information we have whether the copyright infringement they have admitted/been held liable for would be covered by the criminal parts of the Code. It wasn't for personal financial gain, so I think that a prosecutor would have to do a lot of work to prove that the distribution was of copies worth over $1000 in a 6-month period, and that the distribution was wilful, as the Code (and the courts) would interpret it.

And this is my point above: this case is not, in any way, criminal. This makes me concerned about the extent to which punitive damages are considered appropriate. They're not entirely inappropriate, and neither are exemplary damages, but I think something of a closer connection between loss and damages would make far more sense.

 

[Ourph]

However, in my experience, a poor but motivated defendant can cause a great deal of expense and trouble through aggressive pleading and discovery practices. In other words, David can be a real pain in Goliath's ass, and Goliath is always advised to remember it.

Not to mention that a defendant looking at a $125,000 settlement is extremely motivated to fight the case if they actually have a chance of winning. Spending $50,000 on your defense and winning is a net gain in that situation.

If the defendants settled, it's likely because their own legal counsel advised them to do so. In other words, their own legal counsel believed the results of a trial would be worse for the defendants than the settlement.

 

[Cadfan]

4) Make an example by drawing and quartering random people plucked from the crowd (an option that seems popular here, but that I don't think the US constitution actually allows -- of course, it could be confused with #1, the difference really being only in the "cruel" v. "slap on the wrist" part).

I think you have a flawed understanding of both the Constitution and of the weighting of penalties to offset the inability to catch all those who commit an offense.

 

[Marshall]

Read your history. The legal system has ALWAYS been a tool for the rich or powerful. Legal systems are created by the rich and powerful and so reflect the necessary tools for them to use. This doesn't mean that the "common" man can't use the legal system to their advantage, just that they may have to work a little bit harder at it because they don't have attorneys on staff. However, the US has a huge availability for the common man to use the same tool, the legal system, to protect their own rights. (If it weren't so easy for just anyone to use, there wouldn't be so many stories of abusing the system.)

Easy to abuse <> Easy to Use. In fact, its more arguable that our system is so hard to use that its easier to abuse.

Secondly, the use of a lawyer is REQUIRED in a large percentage of courtrooms. Once you get out of small claims most courts wont let you in unless you've passed the bar.

The ONLY was to fix the system is to ban the lawyer(and fire ALL the judges) and start over.

 

[Cadfan]

Secondly, the use of a lawyer is REQUIRED in a large percentage of courtrooms. Once you get out of small claims most courts wont let you in unless you've passed the bar.

This is factually incorrect.

Anyone may represent themselves. The only time a lawyer is legally required is if a party is a business entity, which, not being a person, cannot represent itself without sending a lawyer to do the job.

 

[jbear]

Someonemay have already saidthis. I'd be surprised if that weren't the case... but reading 5 pages of a not-very-interesting-to-me conversation... well, I skipped.

Do you think Wotc will actually ever see that money,or is it just a moral victory?

Aren't those who have been fined more likely to file bankruptcy?

I can't imagine someone with over 100,000 dollars sitting around in their bank pirating anything. I may be wrong... but if that's the case they're probably slippery enough characters to try and squeeze through any technical loopholes to get out of paying a cent even if they have initially agreed to it.

 

[Starfox]

Go WotC! This is the settlement, so both parties agreed to this. I see nothing wrong with that. We have no idea how the number was reached one side could have compromised to the other.

it is quite possible that the defendant agreed to this settlement, with the hidden condition that they would not actually have to pay anything. This seems to make an example while being a deal the defendant could easily agree with. Sadly, it might also stand as a model for later court cases, so in giving up their own cases, these defendants could blow the case for others in their wake.

If this applies to that Polish guy who posted here about being sued by WotC, I feel it is a manifestation of a bigger problem; how the Internet suddenly makes us subject to the national laws and courts of other countries, without ever visiting them. In several European countries, punitive damage for cases like this are much, much lower than in the US - yet persecuting the case in US court suddenly makes a Polish person in Poland subject to the US legal system.

Another case: eBay was successfully persecuted in France for auctioning Nazi paraphernalia (WWII trophies), an act which is unlawful in France but legal in the seller's country (I believe the seller was from the US). Because eBay had offices in France, all their auctions, even the purely English-language ones, are suddenly subject to French law.

 

[Alzrius]

My point was more that the amount of the settlement, $125K, represents an amount negotiated between the parties.

I don't understand why people keep bringing up the point that a settlement is "negotiated between the parties." As near as I can tell, that point is raised to try and somehow assert that because the defendant(s) signed off on it, they must agree that it is an appropriate amount for them to pay in response to their actions.

I don't think this is true. If your only options are "bad" (a high settlement) and "worse" (an even higher figure as a result of losing a civil case), you take the "bad" option, but that doesn't mean you agree it's what should happen.

If it is clear to both WotC and the defendants that WotC will win the case, and there's a good estimate of what the damages will be, then WotC can effectively set any settlement figure they want that's less than the estimated damages, and there's little negotiation that the defendants can do; when the other guy has all the cards, you can bargain exactly as much as the other guy wants to bargain, and that's it.

It is not a "fine" because it was not imposed as a penalty by the government. Further, because it was a negotiated settlement, it probably isn't possible to use it to reverse-engineer WotC's actual damages. It's just a number.

I'm honestly not sure why you're bringing these points up. I haven't called this a fine, nor tried to use it to reverse-engineer WotC's lost profits. Others have, and others have responded to those points.

I disagree with your mugger analogy.

I said it wasn't the best analogy.

WotC is entitled to use the process of the law to enforce its rights. The defendants are entitled to the same. WotC may seem to have a great deal of leverage, because it can presumably outspend the defendants. However, in my experience, a poor but motivated defendant can cause a great deal of expense and trouble through aggressive pleading and discovery practices. In other words, David can be a real pain in Goliath's ass, and Goliath is always advised to remember it.

I think this is an overestimation of the position these defendants found themselves in. If you're too poor to afford a lawyer, then you likely won't even know you have these options, let alone know how to pursue them.

And even if you have a lawyer, I doubt it makes much of a difference if the plaintiff has that much leverage. Yes, you can slow the process down, but a speed bump is still just a speed bump, and doesn't seriously impact the plaintiff - for example, the settlements here include the defendants paying WotC's legal fees, in addition to paying damages.

That means that even if they dragged the civil suit out, it doesn't cost WotC more money, since they're just passing the cost on as part of the settlement (or, had they taken it to its conclusion, as part of the judgment in WotC's favor). Moreover, the defendants then increase the amount of money they have to pay their own lawyer for the time used pursuing these stalling tactics. In other words, the "great deal of trouble" they can dredge up amounts to little more than cutting off their nose to spite their face. If they can't win the case, there's little good that a delaying tactic will do when the opposition knows it will win, and can make you pay its costs.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't understand why people keep bringing up the point that a settlement is "negotiated between the parties." As near as I can tell, that point is raised to try and somehow assert that because the defendant(s) signed off on it, they must agree that it is an appropriate amount for them to pay in response to their actions.

I originally brought it up because people were discussing whether or not the settlement amounts reflected a decision to punish or send a message to other infringers. I pointed out that the settlement didn't reflect any decision at all, because there was no decision maker- it was a negotiated outcome, and reflected what the parties expected at trial.

The point seems to have taken on a life of its own, though.