7 ms·

At 100$/day (or 300 after the first 15 days), I wonder how large the app has to be before violating the GPL won’t bother them anymore? I can see a medium-sized

At 100$/day (or 300 after the first 15 days), I wonder how large the app has to be before violating the GPL won’t bother them anymore? I can see a medium-sized business just treating this as a rent/cost-of-business instead of a fine.

pietrovismara 5y ago
As always, if a fine is only a fixed amount it becomes just a regular transaction for the rich. Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  That violates the principle of equality before the law. What if instead, the fine started at $100 but grew at 5% per day? Then even the biggest companies wouldn't be able to afford to just keep paying it.
  - piaste 5y ago
    Equality before the law applies to citizens, not to bank accounts. Take a broader view.
  - vincnetas 5y ago
    Well, if you fine certain percent of income, so everyone will be treated equally by law. x% of income where x is same for tiny company or mega corp. So principle of equality is not violated.
    - usr1106 5y ago
      That's incorrect. If you fined some super rich with 90% of their income they could still live a comfortable life . If you fined normal mortals or poor with 90% of their income they would lose their apartment and could not buy enough food anymore.
      - vidarh 5y ago
        True, but as an illustration of why "equal" is not objective the above works. To talk about real equality we first need to define what we mean. And certainly, a percentage will also not deliver equal effect.
  - pietrovismara 5y ago
    > That violates the principle of equality before the law Quite the opposite. It would restore equality in the punishment, as it should hurt the same to the offender no matter how wealthy they are. As it is now, we're favoring the rich overwhelmingly.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      Which brings the wonderful quote by Anatole France that is worth keeping in mind and spreading far and wide: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Indeed, equality before the law really is not a straightforward thing.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      If anything, even a flat percentage does not create equality. If I was fined 30% of my annual income for something, it'd suck, but I'd just take it out of savings. But many lower earners who'd pay much less would struggle with the same. But fines as a percentage would at least be an improvement.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > That violates the principle of equality before the law. No, it doesn’t; a fine of N years income or N% of wealth is at least as much equal treatment as a fine of $N. And current law recognizes it, because even though fines are typically stated with a fixed upper limit, which in some cases is low enough to make them ignorable by the rich, within that upper limit, the law already recognizes that equality before the law doesn’t mean “same $ amount for everyone”. E.g., for federal fines, see 18 USC § 3572(a): “In determining whether to impose a fine, and the amount, time for payment, and method of payment of a fine, the court shall consider […] (1) the defendant’s income, earning capacity, and financial resources; (2) the burden that the fine will impose upon the defendant, any person who is financially dependent on the defendant, or any other person (including a government) that would be responsible for the welfare of any person financially dependent on the defendant, relative to the burden that alternative punishments would impose; […]”
  - kevinob11 5y ago
    I've been thinking about this a lot lately because I have a friend who always discusses equality when we talk about taxes. What makes numbers so equal in the minds of humans? Especially when it comes to fines, taxes, etc.? If we still punished people by cutting off their hands (THANKFULLY WE DON'T - but humor me) would be equal to just cut off any part of the arm longer than 24 inches? No, effect was what made it equal, cut off the hands so you can't use them anymore. The example is gruesome but makes it pleasantly obvious that raw numbers are only equal if we all make the same amount of money and have the same costs in our lives. Since we don't I don't think there is anything equal about fixed amounts of money.
- bdowling 5y ago
  > Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth. That would quickly lead to poor individuals and non-profit companies trying to transfer the benefits of their low-cost infractions to others.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  If you make sure the fine is some multiple of the damage, including the chance of being caught, then for most situations making it into a transaction would be acceptable.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > As always, if a fine is only a fixed amount it becomes just a regular transaction for the rich. Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth. That's a great rationale right up until the point that a court finds the company in contempt of the original judgement[1]. In this case you don't need the penalty to scale - you don't even need the penalty at all - the order most likely says something to the effect of "stop the infringement". [1] The order most probably read like "Pay the fine and stop the infringement". Simply paying the fine doesn't allow you to ignore the second part of the order, and the penalties for contempt of court are enough to sink the company. Just ask Gawker, who went under not because of what they published, but because they ignored a court order that ordered them to stop publishing it.
cbg0 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but based on the last paragraphs of the press release here: https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-of-free-software-in-italy/# https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-... it seems that they have been ordered to comply within 7 days, so going over that would probably mean that they would also be in violation of a court order, along with the fines.
seoaeu 5y ago
Seems like the amount was decided by the court. Presumably they would have just levied a larger fine if it was a business that might plausibly just ignore the order and keep infringing on the license
- monocasa 5y ago
  Yeah, the courts generally ramp up non-compliance damages like that with continued non-compliance.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  If they don't care about money, why not license the code from the author?
fguerraz 5y ago
Unlike in the US, in Europe we don't have the concept of punitive damages. Claimants will only ever get, at most, a compensation for the losses they can prove they have had and fines go to the state, not the claimant.
- phkahler 5y ago
  Somehow I dont believe that. So copyright infringement is just treated as lost revenue? I thought the music and film industries got you too.
  - futharkshill 5y ago
    maybe, maybe not. The EU is not a single country.
  - chottocharaii 5y ago
    what they said is likely misleading. punitive damages can come substantively in differing forms and guises
  - martin8412 5y ago
    Unless you sell/distribute pirated materials, yes. If you download pirated material from a random https mirror, then all they can come for you for is the lost revenue. If you use torrents it gets more difficult since you're seeding the material
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      As far as I understand that's how the US works too. Penalties only for distributing is quite different from no penalties at all.
- Retric 5y ago
  This is false. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/punitive-damages-for-ip-infringements-can-be-provided-for-by-eu-countries-rules-eu-court https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/punitive-damages-... Punitive damages in terms of IP are allowed in the EU, but up to individual member states. Ireland and Cyprus currently allow punitive damages as did the UK did when it was a member.
Hamuko 5y ago
Do you have evidence that the fine is fixed regardless of the company size? Because the company in question here is a single employee shop according to D&B Business Directory. https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.nerds_farm_srl.9e76b3eeeb212efd8b3d5769f6f6df8f.html https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.nerd...
snovv_crash 5y ago
Note, the degree of the infringement would be considered in any future case. A more serious usage, and more commercial leverage of it, would likely result in higher fines. Courts take a dim view of companies taking the fines as a "cost of business" rather than a deterrent.
14 5y ago
Back just before marijuana was made legal here in Canada a number of Pot shops opened up. The city and police mostly did nothing but decided they would make some by-laws to make sure certain things were in place and it wasn't just people running it out of their houses. One such requirement was that each shop had a front business window into the shop. A guy I knew who had leased a place and set up shop did not have such a window just a door. The city made the rules after he had set up shop so he was not happy and did not want to move his business. So he ignored the requirement until city by-law officers showed up to enforce it. They gave him a $150 a day fine for not complying. He just shrugged it off and counted it a part of doing business since he was making thousands a day.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Is the rule still in place? Is he still ignoring it? Code enforcement people aren't stupid. They can and likely would escalate in that sort of situation.
kergonath 5y ago
Depending on the jurisdiction you can sue later if they don’t comply. Then they would be in contempt, which involves much more severe sentences than a €100/day fine.

pietrovismara 5y ago

As always, if a fine is only a fixed amount it becomes just a regular transaction for the rich. Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth.

josephcsible 5y ago
That violates the principle of equality before the law. What if instead, the fine started at $100 but grew at 5% per day? Then even the biggest companies wouldn't be able to afford to just keep paying it.
- piaste 5y ago
  Equality before the law applies to citizens, not to bank accounts. Take a broader view.
- vincnetas 5y ago
  Well, if you fine certain percent of income, so everyone will be treated equally by law. x% of income where x is same for tiny company or mega corp. So principle of equality is not violated.
  - usr1106 5y ago
    That's incorrect. If you fined some super rich with 90% of their income they could still live a comfortable life . If you fined normal mortals or poor with 90% of their income they would lose their apartment and could not buy enough food anymore.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      True, but as an illustration of why "equal" is not objective the above works. To talk about real equality we first need to define what we mean. And certainly, a percentage will also not deliver equal effect.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  > That violates the principle of equality before the law Quite the opposite. It would restore equality in the punishment, as it should hurt the same to the offender no matter how wealthy they are. As it is now, we're favoring the rich overwhelmingly.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Which brings the wonderful quote by Anatole France that is worth keeping in mind and spreading far and wide: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Indeed, equality before the law really is not a straightforward thing.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    If anything, even a flat percentage does not create equality. If I was fined 30% of my annual income for something, it'd suck, but I'd just take it out of savings. But many lower earners who'd pay much less would struggle with the same. But fines as a percentage would at least be an improvement.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > That violates the principle of equality before the law. No, it doesn’t; a fine of N years income or N% of wealth is at least as much equal treatment as a fine of $N. And current law recognizes it, because even though fines are typically stated with a fixed upper limit, which in some cases is low enough to make them ignorable by the rich, within that upper limit, the law already recognizes that equality before the law doesn’t mean “same $ amount for everyone”. E.g., for federal fines, see 18 USC § 3572(a): “In determining whether to impose a fine, and the amount, time for payment, and method of payment of a fine, the court shall consider […] (1) the defendant’s income, earning capacity, and financial resources; (2) the burden that the fine will impose upon the defendant, any person who is financially dependent on the defendant, or any other person (including a government) that would be responsible for the welfare of any person financially dependent on the defendant, relative to the burden that alternative punishments would impose; […]”
- kevinob11 5y ago
  I've been thinking about this a lot lately because I have a friend who always discusses equality when we talk about taxes. What makes numbers so equal in the minds of humans? Especially when it comes to fines, taxes, etc.? If we still punished people by cutting off their hands (THANKFULLY WE DON'T - but humor me) would be equal to just cut off any part of the arm longer than 24 inches? No, effect was what made it equal, cut off the hands so you can't use them anymore. The example is gruesome but makes it pleasantly obvious that raw numbers are only equal if we all make the same amount of money and have the same costs in our lives. Since we don't I don't think there is anything equal about fixed amounts of money.
bdowling 5y ago
> Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth. That would quickly lead to poor individuals and non-profit companies trying to transfer the benefits of their low-cost infractions to others.
Dylan16807 5y ago
If you make sure the fine is some multiple of the damage, including the chance of being caught, then for most situations making it into a transaction would be acceptable.
lelanthran 5y ago
> As always, if a fine is only a fixed amount it becomes just a regular transaction for the rich. Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth. That's a great rationale right up until the point that a court finds the company in contempt of the original judgement[1]. In this case you don't need the penalty to scale - you don't even need the penalty at all - the order most likely says something to the effect of "stop the infringement". [1] The order most probably read like "Pay the fine and stop the infringement". Simply paying the fine doesn't allow you to ignore the second part of the order, and the penalties for contempt of court are enough to sink the company. Just ask Gawker, who went under not because of what they published, but because they ignored a court order that ordered them to stop publishing it.

cbg0 5y ago

Not a lawyer, but based on the last paragraphs of the press release here: https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-of-free-software-in-italy/# https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-... it seems that they have been ordered to comply within 7 days, so going over that would probably mean that they would also be in violation of a court order, along with the fines.

seoaeu 5y ago

Seems like the amount was decided by the court. Presumably they would have just levied a larger fine if it was a business that might plausibly just ignore the order and keep infringing on the license

monocasa 5y ago
Yeah, the courts generally ramp up non-compliance damages like that with continued non-compliance.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
If they don't care about money, why not license the code from the author?

fguerraz 5y ago

Unlike in the US, in Europe we don't have the concept of punitive damages. Claimants will only ever get, at most, a compensation for the losses they can prove they have had and fines go to the state, not the claimant.

phkahler 5y ago
Somehow I dont believe that. So copyright infringement is just treated as lost revenue? I thought the music and film industries got you too.
- futharkshill 5y ago
  maybe, maybe not. The EU is not a single country.
- chottocharaii 5y ago
  what they said is likely misleading. punitive damages can come substantively in differing forms and guises
- martin8412 5y ago
  Unless you sell/distribute pirated materials, yes. If you download pirated material from a random https mirror, then all they can come for you for is the lost revenue. If you use torrents it gets more difficult since you're seeding the material
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    As far as I understand that's how the US works too. Penalties only for distributing is quite different from no penalties at all.
Retric 5y ago
This is false. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/punitive-damages-for-ip-infringements-can-be-provided-for-by-eu-countries-rules-eu-court https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/punitive-damages-... Punitive damages in terms of IP are allowed in the EU, but up to individual member states. Ireland and Cyprus currently allow punitive damages as did the UK did when it was a member.

Hamuko 5y ago

Do you have evidence that the fine is fixed regardless of the company size? Because the company in question here is a single employee shop according to D&B Business Directory. https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.nerds_farm_srl.9e76b3eeeb212efd8b3d5769f6f6df8f.html https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.nerd...

snovv_crash 5y ago

Note, the degree of the infringement would be considered in any future case. A more serious usage, and more commercial leverage of it, would likely result in higher fines. Courts take a dim view of companies taking the fines as a "cost of business" rather than a deterrent.

14 5y ago

Back just before marijuana was made legal here in Canada a number of Pot shops opened up. The city and police mostly did nothing but decided they would make some by-laws to make sure certain things were in place and it wasn't just people running it out of their houses. One such requirement was that each shop had a front business window into the shop. A guy I knew who had leased a place and set up shop did not have such a window just a door. The city made the rules after he had set up shop so he was not happy and did not want to move his business. So he ignored the requirement until city by-law officers showed up to enforce it. They gave him a $150 a day fine for not complying. He just shrugged it off and counted it a part of doing business since he was making thousands a day.

mcguire 5y ago
Is the rule still in place? Is he still ignoring it? Code enforcement people aren't stupid. They can and likely would escalate in that sort of situation.

kergonath 5y ago

Depending on the jurisdiction you can sue later if they don’t comply. Then they would be in contempt, which involves much more severe sentences than a €100/day fine.