4 ms·

I upvoted you even though I disagree with you. Ultimately, it's still not the same thing as one is a physical object that cost actual money for actual material

I upvoted you even though I disagree with you. Ultimately, it's still not the same thing as one is a physical object that cost actual money for actual materials to produce, and the other is simply a computer process that duplicates bits. I apologize for starting this conversation. That being said, I haven't seen it on HN before (though I'm sure it has happened). I'd be curious to see where the readership lands on this issue.

tptacek 17y ago
The marginal cost of a single compact disc is very low. It is clearly not the physical cost of goods sold that is driving the damage estimates.
- tjic 17y ago
  And why should it be? Nothing in tort law says that damages are limited to the physical cost of goods - all sorts of other damages exist.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Right. That's my point.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  At the same time, theft isn't wrong because of marginal costs. Theft and infringement are fundamentally different activities.
lallysingh 17y ago
I have to agree with the gp on this one. It's still software theft (at least in my book) to copy a CD/DVD instead of shoplifting one from the store. I can't really find a logical distinction between that and stealing music. The verdict amount, however, is ridiculous. But so far, it's just been debate. I'd love to see a study on how many actual copies of music are made through a given file share, and how many of the downloaders avoided a purchase they would've made otherwise.
- Gormo 17y ago
  In my consideration, theft and copyright infringement seem fundamentally different in every detail. What similarities lead you not to distinguish them?
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Copyright infringement and kidnapping are also fundamentally different. The comparison to theft is an inept rhetorical device, nothing more and nothing less. It has no bearing on whether a publisher can claim damages.
    - Gormo 17y ago
      The comparison to theft might be an inept rhetorical device, but it seems to influence perceptions of this issue very often. So what is the claim of damages ultimately based on? In a case of theft, there is an objective loss that can be quantified and compensated; but in copyright infringement cases, it seems like publishers most often talk about unrealized revenues. Is it appropriate for the courts to award damages based on the plaintiff's predictions of the future? What do you suppose Atari would have sued for if they discovered someone distributing unlicensed copies of the "ET" 2600 game back in the '80s - the same game they eventually buried thousands of unpurchased copies of in a landfill? Would they have based their damages claim on the same sales projections that made launching the game look like a good idea?
      - tptacek 17y ago
        You're attacking a straw man. It doesn't matter how unlike theft coypright infringement actually is. What's being claimed is damages under tort law. However outrages you think those damages are, courts have repeatedly affirmed them.
        lutorm 17y ago
        You're attacking a straw man, too. The whole argument here is not whether the law and courts justifies the $600k judgment, that's a tautology, but whether that outcome is "just". It's not a credible argument to argue that because the law is the law, it's right. For example: "If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death." That's from the code of Hammurabi. According to your arguments, because the legal system of the time affirmed it, it must be right. I'd wager most people would assume you are clinically insane if you tried that argument. Laws are attempts to codify what society thinks is right. But the attitudes of society shifts, and so do laws. This discussion is about whether society thinks the outcome of applying copyright law is just, not about whether those who interpret the law are doing so correctly.

tptacek 17y ago

The marginal cost of a single compact disc is very low. It is clearly not the physical cost of goods sold that is driving the damage estimates.

tjic 17y ago
And why should it be? Nothing in tort law says that damages are limited to the physical cost of goods - all sorts of other damages exist.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Right. That's my point.
steveklabnik 17y ago
At the same time, theft isn't wrong because of marginal costs. Theft and infringement are fundamentally different activities.

lallysingh 17y ago

I have to agree with the gp on this one. It's still software theft (at least in my book) to copy a CD/DVD instead of shoplifting one from the store. I can't really find a logical distinction between that and stealing music. The verdict amount, however, is ridiculous. But so far, it's just been debate. I'd love to see a study on how many actual copies of music are made through a given file share, and how many of the downloaders avoided a purchase they would've made otherwise.

Gormo 17y ago
In my consideration, theft and copyright infringement seem fundamentally different in every detail. What similarities lead you not to distinguish them?
- tptacek 17y ago
  Copyright infringement and kidnapping are also fundamentally different. The comparison to theft is an inept rhetorical device, nothing more and nothing less. It has no bearing on whether a publisher can claim damages.
  - Gormo 17y ago
    The comparison to theft might be an inept rhetorical device, but it seems to influence perceptions of this issue very often. So what is the claim of damages ultimately based on? In a case of theft, there is an objective loss that can be quantified and compensated; but in copyright infringement cases, it seems like publishers most often talk about unrealized revenues. Is it appropriate for the courts to award damages based on the plaintiff's predictions of the future? What do you suppose Atari would have sued for if they discovered someone distributing unlicensed copies of the "ET" 2600 game back in the '80s - the same game they eventually buried thousands of unpurchased copies of in a landfill? Would they have based their damages claim on the same sales projections that made launching the game look like a good idea?
    - tptacek 17y ago
      You're attacking a straw man. It doesn't matter how unlike theft coypright infringement actually is. What's being claimed is damages under tort law. However outrages you think those damages are, courts have repeatedly affirmed them.
      - lutorm 17y ago
        You're attacking a straw man, too. The whole argument here is not whether the law and courts justifies the $600k judgment, that's a tautology, but whether that outcome is "just". It's not a credible argument to argue that because the law is the law, it's right. For example: "If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death." That's from the code of Hammurabi. According to your arguments, because the legal system of the time affirmed it, it must be right. I'd wager most people would assume you are clinically insane if you tried that argument. Laws are attempts to codify what society thinks is right. But the attitudes of society shifts, and so do laws. This discussion is about whether society thinks the outcome of applying copyright law is just, not about whether those who interpret the law are doing so correctly.