Warp wrote:
>   You mean robbery is not "willful infringement" unless the shop owner
> specifically tells the robber to not to do that?

"Infringement" isn't "robbery."  The same thing hold in patents, too.

>   I don't think that argument makes any sense. I have never heard that
> a fine is grown several orders of magnitude just because the property
> owner told the criminal to stop. I can't even believe there's such a law
> in the US or anywhere.

Usually not several orders of magnitude, but several-fold isn't uncommon. 
And it's usually for things wherein you're told you're doing something wrong 
that you might not have known was wrong. For example, distributing that 
music is only illegal if you know it's copyrighted. Infringing a patent is 
only wrong if you know it's patented.

Now, of course it's easy to guess that some modern music is copyrighted, but 
that isn't really the point. The legal system gives higher penalties for IP 
infringement if you know you're infringing than if you don't. If you don't, 
it's reasonable to charge lost income and no more.

>   And again, the punishment was in no way proportional to the crime, no
> matter how "willfully" the criminal did it.

I'm just sayin'. I agree with you.

The fines have a wide range, because copyright infringement can have a wide 
range of values. Distributing a copy of a song is a small thing compared to 
distributing a copy of (say) Windows 7 source code repository. It wouldn't 
seem unreasonable to attach a million-dollar fine to the latter, given its 
value.

So talk to the jury and ask them why they approved such a big fine?  And 
yes, it'll probably get reduced on appeal.

 > What do we need a sense of proportion in criminal law?

Well, it sounded like a civil case to me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

> The CNN got the story all wrong, the trial was not for 
> stealing/downloading
> but for sharing. Read the second link posted, which does a much better job
> explaining the case.

The second link is dead.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   And again, the punishment was in no way proportional to the crime, no
> matter how "willfully" the criminal did it.

BTW, the RIAA according to some reports is *still* willing to settle for 
some $3000 to $5000.  That seems entirely reasonable to me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   And again, the punishment was in no way proportional to the crime, no
> > matter how "willfully" the criminal did it.

> BTW, the RIAA according to some reports is *still* willing to settle for 
> some $3000 to $5000.  That seems entirely reasonable to me.

  It sounds a bit like the typical scare tactics: "Either you pay us $5000,
or we will sue you for $1 million. You decide." The $5000 all in itself is
an exorbitant sum, but when it's being contrasted with the astronomical sum
of 1 million, suddenly it starts being "reasonable".

  Of course this particular case is rather exceptional in that it's not only
a threat, but they got the judiciary system to back them up. Somehow I get
the feeling the judiciary system is being manipulated for the classic
extortion scheme.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> So talk to the jury and ask them why they approved such a big fine?

  Because lawyers are masters at choosing and manipulating juries?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It sounds a bit like the typical scare tactics: "Either you pay us $5000,

I've also read that it was several hundred files, 24 of which they actually 
presented in detail enough to prove. Granted, the jury shouldn't be 
considering the files they didn't prove. And, I dunno, I don't think $5000 
is that large a sum for intentionally and repeatedly breaking the law. It's 
a lot more than the files cost, but on the other hand, if you get caught 
shoplifting $20 of stuff and go to jail 90 days, it's also a lot longer than 
it would take you to earn $20.

None of it's good, and the copyright laws really need to be rewritten, but I 
can't really fault the RIAA on this *particular* case, if they're willing to 
settle for $5K and they have enough proof to win repeatedly in court.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

Bwaa ha ha ha!

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4965154

A torrent of $1.9 million worth of songs! ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

The price of piracy:

http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=4474

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=4474

  RIAA executive: "Yes, so?"

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=4474
> 
>   RIAA executive: "Yes, so?"

Would be funny if it wasn't true. *sigh*

Post a reply to this message