4 ms·

You set rules for society and harshly punish people who break them. Look at Singapore.

by fipple 8y ago

mc32 8y ago
For better or for worse, we are not like Singapore. Exorbitatly heavy fines, in these cases, barr the RIAA, and caning are not acceptable punishment in the US. I’m certain most people would not want Singaporean-style justice in the US.
- tzs 8y ago
  RIAA asks for around $3/song when they catch someone pirating a large number of songs. The small handful of people who ended up higher got that way by being idiots. E.g., the most famous case, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was caught sharing 1700 songs. The RIAA asked for $5000. She refused, so they sued. They sued over 24 of the songs. Why not sue over all 1700? Probably a couple reasons. First, if they sued over 1700 and won, the minimum damages they would receive would be $1 275 000 (statutory damages of $750 [1] per infringed work x 1700 works). Only suing over 24 cuts the minimum to $18 000. They were willing to settle for $5 000, but having to go to trial adds some expenses and so $18 000 is pretty reasonable. Second, for each song they do have to file some paperwork proving that they have standing to sue on behalf of the copyright owner. Every bit of paperwork they have to file is time and money, and every bit of paperwork offers the defense something to challenge to further take their time and increase their cost. Any non-moron looking at the above math would beg to accept that $5 000 settlement as soon as they found out that they were in fact being sued. But not Thomas-Rasset. Worse for her, she was a very unsympathetic defendant. She tried to pin the blame on her kids, she tried to destroy evidence, and she lied about that under oath and was caught at it. The jury gets to pick the damages and instead of going for the low end of statutory damages they went for something higher up, and she got hit with a large fine (around $200k). And then what did the RIAA do? They offered again to settle for some reasonably low amount. She refused, got another trial, lost again (because of course nothing had changed) and that jury went high, going an order of magnitude higher than the first jury. The RIAA again offered to settle, although now they were asking $25. Eventually she got an appeals court to lower the damages back down to around the first trial's amount. Again the RIAA offered a much lower settlement, if she would agree to make a video about copyright infringement. She refused. If you are going to pirate, fine, but be an honest and honorable pirate. If you get caught and are offered a reasonable settlement (and 3x what it would have cost you to buy the works without pirating them is reasonable [2]) take it. Don't waste the court's time with going to a trial you have pretty much no change of winning and that when you lose the minimal damages will be more than the settlement offer. [1] It can go down to something like $200 or $250 per work if the alleged infringer can prove they were an "innocent infringer", which means that they did not know the works were copyrighted and had no reason to know this. That would be very hard to prove. [2] It has to be more than the retail cost because if the worst that happens to you when you are caught is that you pay what it would have cost to buy retail, there is no incentive not to pirate.
  - mc32 8y ago
    That’s an intetsting aspect i had not been aware of, altho i recall hers was not the only case involving outsized verdicts. But illuminating for sure. Thank you.
mark_l_watson 8y ago
+1 great example. I only worked in Singapore for a few weeks, but really loved the place, how it is run, lack of obvious homelessness or extreme poverty (so different than parts of SF, Chicago, NYC, etc.)
komali2 8y ago
Or you make healthcare and education free-or-nearly-so and set up fantastic social welfare safety nets. Look at swaths of Europe, Taiwan, etc. Kind of hard to fine someone that doesn't have the money to pay for it. Kind of hard to put a person in jail when the jail is already full of kids with marijuana sentences. I don't think this "Singapore Solution" would work in the USA.
- colemannugent 8y ago
  >...make healthcare and education free-or-nearly-so... Free for who?
  - komali2 8y ago
    Literally everyone. Imagine the tax income down the line if every citizen that wanted a high-training-required career could get that career. Imagine the burden reduction on welfare.
    - colemannugent 8y ago
      >Literally everyone. and >Imagine the tax income down the line... are contradictory. A better argument would be: "Increased education and welfare spending leads to more productivity and the added cost is offset by the increase in taxes due to the productivity gain". Or more simply: "Education and welfare are good investments". Now we can have a serious conversation about the economic impacts of this kind of investment. But to market it as free is irresponsible. It it not free. At best we get more out than we put in, but by definition we must put in something. That was the point of my original comment. Everything has a cost. Even an investment with a nearly guaranteed return comes at a cost and has a certain amount of risk associated with it.
      - komali2 8y ago
        It can be "free" if budgets are rearranged out of the insanity they are in now. Imagine slashing DoD funding in half. I don't think taxes would have to go up a penny to provide free education then. Other than that, yes, I agree with you in using investment terminology.
umeshunni 8y ago
>> set rules for society and harshly punish people who break them That's the opposite direction of where the SF Bay Area is going. The San Francisco District Attorney, for e.g., has been at loggerheads withe police department because the former has been eager to let even violent criminals go scott free. Of course, you add the rampant social justice warriors in the area and you get accused of racism for arresting 11-time felons (e.g https://stopcrimesf.com/blog/2018/8/10/second-chances-how-about-11-sf-judge-takes-property-crime-leniency-to-new-level https://stopcrimesf.com/blog/2018/8/10/second-chances-how-ab... vs https://48hills.org/2018/08/judge-soft-on-crime/ https://48hills.org/2018/08/judge-soft-on-crime/)
zanmat0 8y ago
Well said, and a brave reply at that. However, people in the US are too sensitive to even consider it.

You set rules for society and harshly punish people who break them. Look at Singapore.

by fipple 8y ago

You set rules for society and harshly punish people who break them. Look at Singapore.

mc32 8y ago

For better or for worse, we are not like Singapore. Exorbitatly heavy fines, in these cases, barr the RIAA, and caning are not acceptable punishment in the US. I’m certain most people would not want Singaporean-style justice in the US.

tzs 8y ago
RIAA asks for around $3/song when they catch someone pirating a large number of songs. The small handful of people who ended up higher got that way by being idiots. E.g., the most famous case, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was caught sharing 1700 songs. The RIAA asked for $5000. She refused, so they sued. They sued over 24 of the songs. Why not sue over all 1700? Probably a couple reasons. First, if they sued over 1700 and won, the minimum damages they would receive would be $1 275 000 (statutory damages of $750 [1] per infringed work x 1700 works). Only suing over 24 cuts the minimum to $18 000. They were willing to settle for $5 000, but having to go to trial adds some expenses and so $18 000 is pretty reasonable. Second, for each song they do have to file some paperwork proving that they have standing to sue on behalf of the copyright owner. Every bit of paperwork they have to file is time and money, and every bit of paperwork offers the defense something to challenge to further take their time and increase their cost. Any non-moron looking at the above math would beg to accept that $5 000 settlement as soon as they found out that they were in fact being sued. But not Thomas-Rasset. Worse for her, she was a very unsympathetic defendant. She tried to pin the blame on her kids, she tried to destroy evidence, and she lied about that under oath and was caught at it. The jury gets to pick the damages and instead of going for the low end of statutory damages they went for something higher up, and she got hit with a large fine (around $200k). And then what did the RIAA do? They offered again to settle for some reasonably low amount. She refused, got another trial, lost again (because of course nothing had changed) and that jury went high, going an order of magnitude higher than the first jury. The RIAA again offered to settle, although now they were asking $25. Eventually she got an appeals court to lower the damages back down to around the first trial's amount. Again the RIAA offered a much lower settlement, if she would agree to make a video about copyright infringement. She refused. If you are going to pirate, fine, but be an honest and honorable pirate. If you get caught and are offered a reasonable settlement (and 3x what it would have cost you to buy the works without pirating them is reasonable [2]) take it. Don't waste the court's time with going to a trial you have pretty much no change of winning and that when you lose the minimal damages will be more than the settlement offer. [1] It can go down to something like $200 or $250 per work if the alleged infringer can prove they were an "innocent infringer", which means that they did not know the works were copyrighted and had no reason to know this. That would be very hard to prove. [2] It has to be more than the retail cost because if the worst that happens to you when you are caught is that you pay what it would have cost to buy retail, there is no incentive not to pirate.
- mc32 8y ago
  That’s an intetsting aspect i had not been aware of, altho i recall hers was not the only case involving outsized verdicts. But illuminating for sure. Thank you.

mark_l_watson 8y ago

+1 great example. I only worked in Singapore for a few weeks, but really loved the place, how it is run, lack of obvious homelessness or extreme poverty (so different than parts of SF, Chicago, NYC, etc.)

komali2 8y ago

Or you make healthcare and education free-or-nearly-so and set up fantastic social welfare safety nets. Look at swaths of Europe, Taiwan, etc. Kind of hard to fine someone that doesn't have the money to pay for it. Kind of hard to put a person in jail when the jail is already full of kids with marijuana sentences. I don't think this "Singapore Solution" would work in the USA.

colemannugent 8y ago
>...make healthcare and education free-or-nearly-so... Free for who?
- komali2 8y ago
  Literally everyone. Imagine the tax income down the line if every citizen that wanted a high-training-required career could get that career. Imagine the burden reduction on welfare.
  - colemannugent 8y ago
    >Literally everyone. and >Imagine the tax income down the line... are contradictory. A better argument would be: "Increased education and welfare spending leads to more productivity and the added cost is offset by the increase in taxes due to the productivity gain". Or more simply: "Education and welfare are good investments". Now we can have a serious conversation about the economic impacts of this kind of investment. But to market it as free is irresponsible. It it not free. At best we get more out than we put in, but by definition we must put in something. That was the point of my original comment. Everything has a cost. Even an investment with a nearly guaranteed return comes at a cost and has a certain amount of risk associated with it.
    - komali2 8y ago
      It can be "free" if budgets are rearranged out of the insanity they are in now. Imagine slashing DoD funding in half. I don't think taxes would have to go up a penny to provide free education then. Other than that, yes, I agree with you in using investment terminology.

umeshunni 8y ago

>> set rules for society and harshly punish people who break them That's the opposite direction of where the SF Bay Area is going. The San Francisco District Attorney, for e.g., has been at loggerheads withe police department because the former has been eager to let even violent criminals go scott free. Of course, you add the rampant social justice warriors in the area and you get accused of racism for arresting 11-time felons (e.g https://stopcrimesf.com/blog/2018/8/10/second-chances-how-about-11-sf-judge-takes-property-crime-leniency-to-new-level https://stopcrimesf.com/blog/2018/8/10/second-chances-how-ab... vs https://48hills.org/2018/08/judge-soft-on-crime/ https://48hills.org/2018/08/judge-soft-on-crime/)

zanmat0 8y ago

Well said, and a brave reply at that. However, people in the US are too sensitive to even consider it.