Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100 • Hacker News Board

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#111

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 4:50 PM UTC

jemfinch wrote: post #100

yardie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the infraction. Overrun a meter? just pay the difference. Double parking on a one-lane or major artery? Hang them by the big toe.

You don't seem to understand that as long as enforcement isn't 100%, the cost of punishment must exceed the cost of compliance if it's going to deter violation. If the only cost of overrunning a meter were paying the amount of the overrun, any economically rational actor would simply never pay meters . If he doesn't get caught, he's parked for free; if he does get caught, he pays only what he otherwise would have. Th…

If we catch 1% of parking meter cheaters, they should pay at least a hundred times their overrun

That's almost true, but you haven't accounted for marginal utility.

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#112

Post by joshAg » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 5:24 PM UTC

18pfsmt wrote: post #77

joshAg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that distributing is a different issue from producing. In the p2P case you used, I see the producer as the person who prepares the data and/or originally seeds it. Everyone else is just a distributor. "In P2P I think downloaders should have some responsibility since they request that copies be made." why do you just limit it to P2P? Are people who buy pirated movies or pirated books guilty of the same c…

Are people who buy pirated movies or pirated books guilty of the same crime? I think it's important to remember that non-commercial distribution is a civil matter, _not_ criminal. That is no small distinction as it determines who will bare the cost of enforcing these rights. Criminal matters are funded by the tax payer.

is non-commercial production civil or criminal? i assume commercial production would primarily be a criminal proceeding , though the victim is also able to sue for damages and reimbursement. Is it the same for non-commercial production?

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#113

Post by kevinkemp » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 5:30 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #58

joshAg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disincentive is having to pay for the thing you pirated. Not to mention attorney fees if you decide to fight the charge.

Case 1: you decide not to pirate. You pay retail price. Case 2: you decide to pirate. You pay 0 with above a 99% chance. If you do get caught, you can pay the minimal retail price over the last year. What exactly do you see as a disincentive for choosing #2, since case 2 beats case 1 in all cases?

Not that I agree with his proposal, but youre assuming that someone wouldn't pirate something that they weren't willing to pay money for. That almost certainly isn't true for a significant population.

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#114

Post by onemoreact » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 5:42 PM UTC

jemfinch wrote: post #100

yardie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the infraction. Overrun a meter? just pay the difference. Double parking on a one-lane or major artery? Hang them by the big toe.

You don't seem to understand that as long as enforcement isn't 100%, the cost of punishment must exceed the cost of compliance if it's going to deter violation. If the only cost of overrunning a meter were paying the amount of the overrun, any economically rational actor would simply never pay meters . If he doesn't get caught, he's parked for free; if he does get caught, he pays only what he otherwise would have. Th…

Your assuming you need to deter violation. Many organisations like the red cross operate just fine despite the free rider problem. Personalty, I don't support copyright for Music performances period end of story, and I doubt the vast majority of musicians would notice a difference.

However, more generally the final penalty needs to be adjusted by the penalty associated with being prosecuted. If the penalty is 1,000$ / song, but you need to go to court to defend yourself then the effort associated with that court case is also part of the penalty of enforcement. Also, because your fine can't drive you past bankruptcy ridiculous penalties have little meaning (this plays into the last banking bubble. I can sell a trillion dollars worth of insurance far below costs if I don't have a trillion dollars because my downside is limited to the value of my assets.)

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#115

Post by dasil003 » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 7:31 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #87

dasil003 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be blinded by the abuse of copyright by megacorps. The idea that if someone works hard on something, they ought to have some commercial control over it is sound. Imagine you wrote a 1000-page novel. Isn't it reasonable for the government to grant you exclusive publishing rights for 14 years? It certainly seems like a sensible incentive for you as a creator. It's hard to make the case that you deserve nothing si…

Most people who write novels never make any money of them, because they never get published. Most of the ones that do, makes a pittance. The percentage of authors that actually makes a living publishing novels is vanishingly small. If the possibility of making lots of money writing novels is a big incentive for you, presumably you're the type of person who also think they have a good shot at making it big in Vegas. I…

You have completely and utterly missed my point. Look at it this way:

Why should the only person rewarded for a digital good be the best salesman? Without copyright, anyone who writes a book will immediately have it taken by a big publishing company with the best distribution channels and be crushed in the market. The little guy will never be able to compete with that. Whatever small chance at financial reward from writing now will be replaced by the ability to get a contract in place with the dominant market leader before you even start writing. Sure some people will still write for the love of writing, but it will be the kind of thing that terrifies parents even more than does now, and it will be discouraged by popular opinion.

Honestly, what is the argument against giving someone limited exclusive rights to their own work? 14 years was the original term of copyright, and that doesn't seem like an unreasonable time to wait for something to enter the public domain, after which we all get the full public benefit. Again, just because Disney lobbied for and raped the law doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

I think the ridiculousness of software patents has caused a disproportionate number of hackers to go totally fundamental on the concept of intellectual property even though there is a very strong common sense legitimacy to certain forms of it.

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#116

Post by guard-of-terra » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 7:32 PM UTC

Confusion wrote: post #86

guard-of-terra wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are more annoyed by parking tickets than by people parked in the places where they prevent traffic and provoke accidents, then we should consider toning those down and/or making rules less strict. But I guess that if the problem really exists, people would be pro big parking ticket fines, because a minority who get those also annoys the whole population.

The trouble is that the parking tickets may have caused the decline of the number of people parked in places where they prevent traffic or provoke accidents. In that case, the major annoyance is gone and the parking tickets is only the new minor annoyance, but now the biggest, that took it's place. Reversing the amount or height of parking tickets will not cause a decline in annoyance then.

You actually get a negative feedback loop there which would circle around an optimal parking ticket fee.

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#117

Post by lurker17 » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 11:43 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #101

Meai wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People love getting hung up on definite numbers, it's weird. All fines should be a percentage of income. A parking ticket for a billionaire should be thousands of dollars. Again: the exact number doesn't matter in this discussion, what matters is that it should hurt appropriately. $100 hurts appropriately...for who knows who. Determining the algorithm should be the responsibility of mathematicians, economy professors…

The punishment should fit the crime, not the criminal. If parking for too long isn't that big a deal, then no one should be fined thousands of dollars for it.

Why?

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#118

Post by nazgulnarsil » Fri, Nov 18, 2011, 2:07 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #65

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're just saying I'm biased because you're biased against people who disagree with your biases.

hey, it was just a question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#119

Post by sp332 » Fri, Nov 18, 2011, 4:29 AM UTC

lurker17 wrote: post #117

sp332 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The punishment should fit the crime, not the criminal. If parking for too long isn't that big a deal, then no one should be fined thousands of dollars for it.

Why?

Well what's the bad thing about doing a crime? The damage done. So, the punishment should be in proportion to the damage. You don't punish someone for being "bad" inside, and the point of the punishment isn't to cause some emotional effect.

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#120

Post by barrkel » Fri, Nov 18, 2011, 12:18 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #103

barrkel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of precedents for fines that become much more expensive if you challenge them in court, because being found guilty by a court indicates a higher degree of confidence in the finding.

That seems (in the US) to violate one's constitutional right to a trial. That is, exercising one's right to a trial should not increase the potential punishment, as doing so is a deterrent against exercising that fundamental right.

I don't see how your second sentence follows from your first. I don't see how appealing a charge may not result, after findings of fact, in conviction of charges more serious than those initially charged.