1/4 million dollar fine for bootlegging d+d books?

[kenjib]

However, if you're really intersted in a better way to reward artists, check out the following /. journal. I still stand by what I say there, and as soon as I can figure out a good way to implement the system, I'll do it.

http://slashdot.org/~Planesdragon/journal/21368

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it could be effectively implemented without creating a problem regarding right to privacy even more serious than current problems with copyright law.

 

[jasamcarl]

Unfortunately, that's not how our legal system is supposed to work. I shouldn't pay the penalty for crimes that other people have committed, nor for the crimes that other people speculate that I may, on average, have committed. I pay the penalty for the crimes that I have been proven to have committed. Anything else is a gross and unconstitutional miscarriage of justice.

Actually, you are not being punished for something someone else is doing. The penalty is laid down as a form of deterrence for each individual. This is not based upon what other people are doing, its based on your chances of getting caught.

Justice deals with the process of determining your guilt, it doesn't go to what penalty lawmakers have decided upon, with the possible exception of the death penalty. The penalty is a matter of pragmatic public policy. If you are not deterred by the penalty, then it is not doing its job. What specific right do you think is being violated by this action?

 

[Li Shenron]

Such a fine is really huge, how many people would have so much money and not just buy the books? What happens in US if you can't pay a fine? I know that in US you can get arrested just by driving over the speed limit, which to an Italian looks just ridiculous (none of us would be free ).

With such a law, I suppose it is much more comfortable for a pirate to break into a shop and steal the books.

 

[Numion]

Actually, you are not being punished for something someone else is doing. The penalty is laid down as a form of deterrence for each individual. This is not based upon what other people are doing, its based on your chances of getting caught.

I don't know. The punishment should be relative to the crime, not on the chances of getting caught. Punishing more just because it's unlikely to get caught just punishes the file sharers for the authorities inability to solve crimes. Should we punish walking on red light with tens of thousands of dollars just because it's easy to avoid getting caught?

Justice deals with the process of determining your guilt, it doesn't go to what penalty lawmakers have decided upon, with the possible exception of the death penalty. The penalty is a matter of pragmatic public policy. If you are not deterred by the penalty, then it is not doing its job. What specific right do you think is being violated by this action?

Should we then charge more (like ten times more) for speeding because obviously the current fines aren't deterrent enough? Punishment according to crime is a fine principle I think. Statistics can't be applied to individual people, especially in when dispensing justice. Otherwise we could always just grab the nearest black male aged 20-25 when we are looking for a murderer. Because that's statistically the most likely candidate.

 

[kenjib]

Actually, you are not being punished for something someone else is doing. The penalty is laid down as a form of deterrence for each individual. This is not based upon what other people are doing, its based on your chances of getting caught.

To me, this is a semantical pirouette: Punishing someone for someone else's future crime versus punishing someone for someone else's past crime.

Justice deals with the process of determining your guilt, it doesn't go to what penalty lawmakers have decided upon, with the possible exception of the death penalty. The penalty is a matter of pragmatic public policy. If you are not deterred by the penalty, then it is not doing its job. What specific right do you think is being violated by this action?

8th Ammendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"Making an example of someone" by inflicting egregious punishment not matching the crime is one of the precise reasons why this ammendment was created. This kind of unjust intimidation is a tool of pre-enlightenment tyrants and despots.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I expect everyone who has something to say to both follow the ground rules in the FAQ, and to handle it with the decorum that is characteristic of our fellow posters. We don't shut down copyright threads, as long as they stay on topic, civil, and don't include pirate-links.

screw you hippy I'll put in pirate links if I want to see pirate

 

[totoro]

This doesn't happen often, but I 100% agree with The Sigil on this matter.

Copyright was originally intended to protect *artists.* It wasn't designed to protect multinational conglomerates who exploit said artists. It certainly wasn't designed so that Mickey Mouse could stay out of the public domain for the next seven hundred years.

Actually, the origins of copyright are in the protection of printing houses, not the artists. Copyright was originally quite similar to trade franchises (monopolies that were sanctioned by the various kingdoms of Europe in exchange for kick-backs from the trade houses). It is interesting to note that no historian has ever suggested that these laws in any way encouraged artists to develop art.

From an American perspective, copyright seems to be endorsed by our Constitution. However, the Constitution simply supports protection the "useful arts" (i.e. technological arts). No specific mention was ever made of copyrights to encourage artistic innovation. And most recent laws with which I am familiar (such as the Disney effort to extend copyrights for longer periods) do not encourage innovation since artists rarely live to reap the benefits of their art for 100 years.

In short, I think you are incorrect that copyrights were intended to protect artists. While they may not have been designed to protect multinational conglomerations, they were most certainly designed to protect national conglomerations. Of course, protecting multinational conglomerations is simply a natural evolution since the moneyed countries such as the US can now do so. That's why we are forcing IP protection down the throats of so many poor countries right now. They have to dish out money to protect copyrights and patents, none of which belong to any of their own people.

Don't kid yourself. There were never good old days when the government protected artists. Soon after the great ones (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc.) were out of the picture, it went back to business as usual.

 

[totoro]

The most disturbing thing about this bill is really the same thing that was disturbing about the Digital Millenium Act. It is criminalizing what used to not be a crime. Copyright was an affirmative right. That means if you want to enforce your right, you can, but it was not a *crime* to copy information. That's just a shame. It is perfectly natural for human beings, who share information at a rate that is unparalleled in the natural world, cannot continue to do so. Before the DMA, we were allowed to share files and books with our friends. That was considered getting full enjoyment out of your purchase.

The reason for the criminalization of copyright infringement is that it is too easy to do. It's a shame that simply because the sharing of information has become so efficient that we have to punish more severely for punishing what has been labeled someone else's intellectual property. IMO, the corporations sponsoring these bills should come up with novel ways to protect their copyrights. They have the money for R&D. It's pretty sad that every one of us is now a criminal for some reason or another. Makes you wonder why everyone isn't apathetic toward our government and law enforcement machinery.

And anyway, why make it a CRIME? They could have provided civil remedies. Non-profit pirates aren't going to give away $50,000 worth of books if they have to pay for it. True profiteers who actually make profit are going to have to pay it all back plus penalties if they get caught. Now we just lump everyone together as a bad guy, mark up their permanent records with permanent ink, and take away their right to vote for more reasonable legislators!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

How would you know? Blown up any good neighborhoods lately?

Of course not. Because I actually bought 3.5, I had not enough money left for the explosives (maybe that's what they want to achieve: to punish those who pirate stuff so they can spend their money on guns and explosives and really hurt people. The ways of God are unfathomable, but our own can be really twisted, too)

I know that in US you can get arrested just by driving over the speed limit, which to an Italian looks just ridiculous (none of us would be free ).

If they did that here and would somehow be able to prove every single time when I was driving to fast, I'd go to prison, and some 200 generations after me, too

The worst that can happen is that you lose your licence - and that only if you drive way over limit, press people or drive drunk (or doing something worse). Everything below that will just cost you money.

But the problem's there: if you commit a crime concerning money, you'll get punished worse than if you hurt or kill people. That just can't be right.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Having skimmed through the article, I have one question. How is this different from the $250k fine/5yr prison term that's been at the beginning of every movie you've rented or purchased (in the U.S. at least) for the last 20 or so years?

Of course, I can't recall hearing of an instance where that was enforced. I remember a guy I went to high school with figured he'd do about 600 years if it was. That's a lot of movies.