3 ms·

We all know that most of these people really are ripping off the illegal content just as they are accused of doing, and trying to weasel out of the consequences

We all know that most of these people really are ripping off the illegal content just as they are accused of doing, and trying to weasel out of the consequences when they get caught. And this is precisely the way our legal system is designed to work. Underlying it is the idea that it's better for 100 people to go unpunished, then to have used the state's monopoly on force to injure one innocent person. It's through this philosophy that we can all sleep at night, without guilt from the blood of innocents on our hands. Of course, this is all a tangent, if the bit about this being a contractual arrangement between Google and UMG. But if that's true, then UMG's argument that the court doesn't have authority under DMCA to impose an injunction is a red herring. If this is a straight matter of consumer and contract law between Google and UMG, and Google's users, then the judge may very well be able to intervene (depending on the details of those relationships).

Silhouette 15y ago
> And this is precisely the way our legal system is designed to work. Underlying it is the idea that it's better for 100 people to go unpunished, then to have used the state's monopoly on force to injure one innocent person. It's not really that simple, though, is it? Different kinds of law require a different burden of proof to be met before the legal system will punish or compensate. In criminal cases, the standard in many places is "beyond reasonable doubt" or something roughly equivalent. This echoes the sentiment you described. However, in civil cases, where we are talking about damages being assessed if and only if the case is lost, the burden is typically much lower, often something resembling "on the balance of probabilities". And on the balance of probabilities, anyone trying to weasel their way out of being punished for infringing copyright who has no case stronger than the form arguments I mentioned before is guilty as sin.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  Yes, I agree with everything you just said. Maybe I'm reading too much into your previous statement. But what I got out of it was the idea that because in aggregate so much of the activity is infringing, that it would make moral sense to shut down everything. I don't think it's correct to use the standards of proof necessary in individual cases to draw conclusions about entire classes of people. (and let me apologize in advance if I was indeed finding meanings that you hadn't intended)

Silhouette 15y ago

> And this is precisely the way our legal system is designed to work. Underlying it is the idea that it's better for 100 people to go unpunished, then to have used the state's monopoly on force to injure one innocent person. It's not really that simple, though, is it? Different kinds of law require a different burden of proof to be met before the legal system will punish or compensate. In criminal cases, the standard in many places is "beyond reasonable doubt" or something roughly equivalent. This echoes the sentiment you described. However, in civil cases, where we are talking about damages being assessed if and only if the case is lost, the burden is typically much lower, often something resembling "on the balance of probabilities". And on the balance of probabilities, anyone trying to weasel their way out of being punished for infringing copyright who has no case stronger than the form arguments I mentioned before is guilty as sin.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
Yes, I agree with everything you just said. Maybe I'm reading too much into your previous statement. But what I got out of it was the idea that because in aggregate so much of the activity is infringing, that it would make moral sense to shut down everything. I don't think it's correct to use the standards of proof necessary in individual cases to draw conclusions about entire classes of people. (and let me apologize in advance if I was indeed finding meanings that you hadn't intended)