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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Considering that time and resources need to be expended to track down and capture the thief, it does not make sense that he gets away simply by returning your $500.

So anything else is just a processing fee?

But it's not like investigating how is responsible for the piracy comes free, either.

Yes, this is true. The moral thing to do is to go without, not to use unethical means to get the product. If I only have X dollars in my game budget, I can spend it on X or Y, I don't have a right to take Y because I feel Y is "overpriced". If something's overpriced, let the legitimate market forces play.

In fact I would say that it hurts the regular marketing business. People don't "care" or object to your high prices, because still can get your product. So now companies are focusing on trying to force you to pay their price, instead of finding a price that you are willing to pay while remaining profitable to them. And on the other hand, people that can acquire the material for free are never put into a position to honestly determine how much the product is _really_ worth to them. Of course they can get interested if the cost is 0 $. But what about 5 $? 10 $? 15 $?


Some people download games or other media to "check them out". If they like it enough, they might buy the product. That's great. But what is with the game they kinda liked but not enough to pay the price asked for it? These people basically can't have an effect on sales price. Without the option to pirate software, it basically looks like this:
- The game is brand new. It costs X $. A number A of people buys it because they like it that much that it's worth the price.
- The game is 1 year old. The price drops to X-Y $. A number B of people buys it because they liked it but found the original price a little too high.
The game is 3 years old. The price drops to X-Y-Z $. A number C of people buys it because they liked it but not enough to pay the previous prices.

The company might now figure out that they could have made more sales with a smaller initial price, because they could have captured A+B int he first year. They could have taken it off the market sooner and they could have financed any planned upgrades and bug fixes sooner, too, since the first year might have paid to keep the full or at least a larger development working on the upgrades, patches and expansions. Heck, they could even dare to invest more in the game in the first place since they would get their money back earlier.

But with piracy, only a subset of the audience is actually "caught" at the price schemes. Maybe someone would ahve bought the game for 10 $ less. But since he already played through it, he isn't really looking to buy a game he doesn't plan on playing again. He might not even remember it.

 

[Cadfan]

Those saying 'if we are calling it theft, the state should be prosecuting as a criminal offence' are entirely right. Although that shouldn't preclude a copyright owner seeking to recover compensation for actual loss from the wrongdoer it would remove the punitive aspect from the civil system.

Not precisely. I mean, to start, we probably shouldn't classify or reclassify our legal enforcement regimes based on whether people use the word "theft" inappropriately.

But more seriously, the civil system has always had punitive aspects. There's a lot of overlap between civil and criminal- after all, punitive damages are sometimes called quasi-criminal damages. It really just comes down to whether you want your rights privately or publically enforced, and what penalties you want to attach.

I'm sure I've posted this here before, but I doubt anyone would object to a legal regime which forced copyright infringers to pay compensation for lost earnings due to the infringement. What raises eyebrows - and questions about the proper use of the private law system - are awards which seem to pay no relation to the loss of profit or earnings from the infringement.

But that raises a lot of questions.

1. Calculating damages is really difficult in these cases. Some downloaders never would have bought this. Some perhaps bought it because of the preview from the download. Others may have uploaded this item to other filesharing, resulting in an ongoing downstream effect of infringement. Still others bought portions of the scribd file, such as DDI users who purchased certain portions of the text but not others.

2. Lost profits alone may not serve as an adequate deterrant, particularly given the low probability of ever getting caught.

3. Lost profits may not be sufficient to justify paying an attorney to pursue the case. This is a very real problem- if you have a right to $5,000, but it will take $10,000 to enforce that right, you have nothing.

Statutory and punitive damages, as well as statutory attorney fees, bypass these problems.

Now that doesn't mean that any old amount of statutory or punitive damages is a good amount. I personally think that the statutory damages per act of infringement are a bit high in the era of mass internet based file sharing. But I don't have a good alternative, and I do think that some degree of statutory damages makes sense. I'm just not sure exactly how much.

 

[Stoat]

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.

This is the way to look at it. Generally speaking, the amount that a civil lawsuit settles for is more a factor of how each party evaluates the risk and costs of trial than anything else. In other words, the $125,000 does not represent any actual loss suffered by WotC. It's just an amount that WotC and the plaintiff agreed was fair.

 

[haakon1]

Some acts do not have a "statute of limitations".

Yup, and the Italian supreme court just ruled that their act saying the prime minister can't be tried for any crimes while in office is unconstitutional, some crap about nobody being above the law. So there's another get out of jail free card that's been revoked!

Going on a crime spree but getting elected PM of Italy to say bwahahaha? -- that's another great super villain idea that reality has rejected.

 

[Alzrius]

This is the way to look at it. Generally speaking, the amount that a civil lawsuit settles for is more a factor of how each party evaluates the risk and costs of trial than anything else. In other words, the $125,000 does not represent any actual loss suffered by WotC. It's just an amount that WotC and the plaintiff agreed was fair.

This is not the way to look at it. See my previous post.

"Mutually agreed upon" does not mean that either party thinks the settlement is "fair." Just that it's less bad than their other options.

 

[Crothian]

No, we don't. However, I find it more believable that these individuals were pressured to compromise in WotC's favor, rather than the other way around.

I'm not a lawyer, but agreeing to a settlement doesn't mean that you're agreeing that the settlement is fair/just - just that it's better (or rather, less bad) than your other options.

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.

 

[haakon1]

Nevermind . . . deleting a reply to a comment the moderator called out as not allowed to discuss.

 

[Alzrius]

I never said anything about this being fair or just.

And I never said you said anything about this being fair or just, so tag, you're it.

 

[haakon1]

If it's theft, why is it not prosecuted by the authorities?

Same reason they don't enforce laws against fake ID's (which annoys me greatly after 9/11), illegal immigration, or speeding. That is, so many people are committing the crime, and so few people care about it, that there's not enough law enforcement resources to do anything about it.

So what can you do to stop "mass flouting of the law"?
1) Try half-hearted enforcement (like with illegal immigration and speeding).

2) Ignore the issue completely (like with fake IDs).

3) Let someone enforce it civilly (like with copyright piracy).

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).

5) Decide you actually don't care that much and amend the law to cover what you do care about (e.g., move the speed limit from 55 mph to 70 mph, and enforce the latter, or end prohibition on alcohol but keep it for heroin).

6) Make it a government monopoly (e.g., lotteries, state liquor stores).

7) Or do a combined program: amnesty + don't do it again public ad campaign + decrease the reasons for the crime + increase the punishment for any who do continue to do it + crack down on the few who continue to do it (e.g., treat fake ID as an anti-terrorist issue, lower the drinking age to 18, make the penalty for having one 10 years in the Federal pokey, and make mass arrests of the people dealing in them openly on Canal Street).

We'll see if the last one works in the current use of it, trying to get US tax cheats to bring back their money from Swiss bank accounts, with basically amnesty until October 15th, and the threat of a big stick afterwards.

 

[Stoat]

This is not the way to look at it. See my previous post.

"Mutually agreed upon" does not mean that either party thinks the settlement is "fair." Just that it's less bad than their other options.

I agree that neither party in a civil settlement is likely to believe that the settlement is "fair." In my experience, most settlements leave everybody feeling a little cheated.

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