6 ms·

In a real democracy the majority would actually make the laws. A fine of $100 sounds fair, it is still a punishment and would be much more acceptable to police

In a real democracy the majority would actually make the laws. A fine of $100 sounds fair, it is still a punishment and would be much more acceptable to police heavily (and with less lawyers involved). I would be fine with automated fines of $100 being handed out to people downloading a file illegally and I think that would be a more effective deterrent than the present lawsuit madness that rules copyright.

cynest 15y ago
> I would be fine with automated fines of $100 being handed out to people downloading a file illegally and I think that would be a more effective deterrent than the present lawsuit madness that rules copyright. And then enough people challenge the fines to break the system. You still have to guarantee some form of trial.
- barrkel 15y ago
  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.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    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.
    - barrkel 15y ago
      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.
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        First, AIUI the government doesn't get to appeal in criminal cases. If a trial goes against them, that's the end of it. Second, the right to a trial is enumerated in the US constitution. Anything that discourages people from exercising that right, such as a fine that increases as a result of choosing to have a fair trial rather than just paying after being accused, is an affront to that right.
nitrogen 15y ago
IMO one should never be okay with automated fines of any kind, especially on the Internet. There is far too much potential for false positives, and too much difficulty identifying when a particular download is illegal. Not to mention, there would be a very strong incentive for the hosts of pirated material to find ways of bypassing the fines and blocking their crawlers. Griefers will install malware on others' computers that downloads illegal songs just to incur $100 fines.
- Tsagadai 15y ago
  Think of a system that works much the same way as speed cameras work in some countries. You deter the majority of people from speeding in a particular area. You automate an amnesty into the system for certain types of vehicles (emergency services, military, diplomatic) but instead put a protection on publicly owned computers, libraries, schools and charities (which, IMO, should not have to pay for copyrighted works anyway and it is already too much effort to enforce). Create an independent arbiter to handle false-positives and exceptional circumstances without any direct connection to financial interests (a government, funded by the fines or industry funded). Send the remaining money to the copyright holder. There is the same incentive now for blocking MediaSentry and the like, why would the change escalate this? Griefers already do this too but usually with material far more illegal than music. The present system doesn't make sense. It should not be OK for a company to bankrupt someone over something that can be legally purchased for a minimal amount. Both enforcement and defence against enforcement are too expensive, time-consuming and economically pointless. Having an efficient system is better than having an inefficient system.
  - alex_c 15y ago
    There is no universal database of copyright information. The major copyright holders (major record labels, studios, etc.) are ridiculously complex to deal with already. Throw in minor publishers, and independent copyright holders, and what you describe isn't just difficult, it's impossible.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    You automate an amnesty into the system for certain types of vehicles (emergency services, military, diplomatic) but instead put a protection on publicly owned computers, libraries, schools and charities (which, IMO, should not have to pay for copyrighted works anyway and it is already too much effort to enforce). Simple workaround: set up an automated, anonymous service that pays all college students to run Tor endpoints in their dorms and libraries. Or, set up a charity that provides free Internet access to the poor, and use its spare bandwidth. Create an independent arbiter to handle false-positives and exceptional circumstances without any direct connection to financial interests (a government, funded by the fines or industry funded). You're talking about creating a huge bureaucracy with this system. That's not the kind of make-work job creation we need. Besides, we already have independent arbiters in the courts. Having an efficient system is better than having an inefficient system. Having an efficient system with false positives is far worse than an inefficient system with false negatives. I'm opposed to speed cameras for the same reason I'm opposed to automated punishment or automated surveillance of any kind: enforcement of laws should be person vs. person, as a matter of principle. Without the direct human connection, it is too easy for those with the power of enforcement to go significantly overboard.
Meai 15y ago
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 and with input from social workers. All walks of life.
- sp332 15y ago
  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.
  - lurker17 15y ago
    Why?
    - sp332 15y ago
      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.
      - Meai 15y ago
        No, that is exactly what punishment is for. Punishment is made to influence us humans, because we are the ones who do bad stuff. It is a fundamental principle of the universe that nothing changes unless pressure is applied, so we try to apply larger punishment than the damage done, hoping that it will prevent further wrongdoings from the same person.

cynest 15y ago

> I would be fine with automated fines of $100 being handed out to people downloading a file illegally and I think that would be a more effective deterrent than the present lawsuit madness that rules copyright. And then enough people challenge the fines to break the system. You still have to guarantee some form of trial.

barrkel 15y ago
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.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  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.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    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.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      First, AIUI the government doesn't get to appeal in criminal cases. If a trial goes against them, that's the end of it. Second, the right to a trial is enumerated in the US constitution. Anything that discourages people from exercising that right, such as a fine that increases as a result of choosing to have a fair trial rather than just paying after being accused, is an affront to that right.

nitrogen 15y ago

IMO one should never be okay with automated fines of any kind, especially on the Internet. There is far too much potential for false positives, and too much difficulty identifying when a particular download is illegal. Not to mention, there would be a very strong incentive for the hosts of pirated material to find ways of bypassing the fines and blocking their crawlers. Griefers will install malware on others' computers that downloads illegal songs just to incur $100 fines.

Tsagadai 15y ago
Think of a system that works much the same way as speed cameras work in some countries. You deter the majority of people from speeding in a particular area. You automate an amnesty into the system for certain types of vehicles (emergency services, military, diplomatic) but instead put a protection on publicly owned computers, libraries, schools and charities (which, IMO, should not have to pay for copyrighted works anyway and it is already too much effort to enforce). Create an independent arbiter to handle false-positives and exceptional circumstances without any direct connection to financial interests (a government, funded by the fines or industry funded). Send the remaining money to the copyright holder. There is the same incentive now for blocking MediaSentry and the like, why would the change escalate this? Griefers already do this too but usually with material far more illegal than music. The present system doesn't make sense. It should not be OK for a company to bankrupt someone over something that can be legally purchased for a minimal amount. Both enforcement and defence against enforcement are too expensive, time-consuming and economically pointless. Having an efficient system is better than having an inefficient system.
- alex_c 15y ago
  There is no universal database of copyright information. The major copyright holders (major record labels, studios, etc.) are ridiculously complex to deal with already. Throw in minor publishers, and independent copyright holders, and what you describe isn't just difficult, it's impossible.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  You automate an amnesty into the system for certain types of vehicles (emergency services, military, diplomatic) but instead put a protection on publicly owned computers, libraries, schools and charities (which, IMO, should not have to pay for copyrighted works anyway and it is already too much effort to enforce). Simple workaround: set up an automated, anonymous service that pays all college students to run Tor endpoints in their dorms and libraries. Or, set up a charity that provides free Internet access to the poor, and use its spare bandwidth. Create an independent arbiter to handle false-positives and exceptional circumstances without any direct connection to financial interests (a government, funded by the fines or industry funded). You're talking about creating a huge bureaucracy with this system. That's not the kind of make-work job creation we need. Besides, we already have independent arbiters in the courts. Having an efficient system is better than having an inefficient system. Having an efficient system with false positives is far worse than an inefficient system with false negatives. I'm opposed to speed cameras for the same reason I'm opposed to automated punishment or automated surveillance of any kind: enforcement of laws should be person vs. person, as a matter of principle. Without the direct human connection, it is too easy for those with the power of enforcement to go significantly overboard.

Meai 15y ago

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 and with input from social workers. All walks of life.

sp332 15y ago
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.
- lurker17 15y ago
  Why?
  - sp332 15y ago
    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.
    - Meai 15y ago
      No, that is exactly what punishment is for. Punishment is made to influence us humans, because we are the ones who do bad stuff. It is a fundamental principle of the universe that nothing changes unless pressure is applied, so we try to apply larger punishment than the damage done, hoping that it will prevent further wrongdoings from the same person.