5 ms·

Paying $3,000 for pirating a ~$30 book seems disproportionate.

by wmf 1y ago

robterrell 1y ago
With the per-item limit for "willful infringement" being $150,000, it's a bargain.
- gpm 1y ago
  And a low end of $750/item.
soks86 1y ago
Not if 100 companies did it and they all got away. This is to teach a lesson because you cannot prosecute all thieves. Yale Law Journal actually writes about this, the goal is to deter crime because in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place.
- vlovich123 1y ago
  If in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place, then what is the lesson being taught? Doesn't that just create a moral hazard where you "randomly" choose who to penalize?
  - jdkee 1y ago
    It's about sending a message.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      The message being you’ll likely get away with it?
      - npunt 1y ago
        They're setting up a pretty simple EV calc: (Probability of not getting away with it) 0.01 * (Cost if caught) 1000 = 10x (Expected Cost) = not worth it
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        The EV calculation completely goes away if you add a layer of limited liability corporation.
- tpmoney 1y ago
  Even if the goal is to deter crime, we still have a principle of proportionate punishment. We don't cut people's hands of for petty theft, and we don't execute people for exceeding the speed limit even though both should be pretty effective deterrents.
vineyardmike 1y ago
I feel like proportionality is related also to the scale. If a student pirates a textbook, I’d agree that 100x is excessive, but this is a corporation handsomely profiting off of mass piracy. It’s crazy to imagine, but there was surely a document or slack message thread discussing where to get thousands of books, and they just decided to pirate them and that was OK. This was entirely a decision based on ease or cost, not based on the assumption it was legal. Piracy can result in jail time IIRC, so honestly it’s lucky the employee who suggested this, or took the action avoided direct legal liability. Oh and I’m pretty sure other companies (meta) are in litigation over this issue, and the publishers knew that settlement below the full legal limit would limit future revenue.
- imron 1y ago
  > handsomely profiting Well actively generating revenue at least. Profits are still hard to come by.
  - griffzhowl 1y ago
    Operating profits certainly but if you include investments the big players are raking it in aren't they?
    - __loam 1y ago
      Investment is debt lol. Maybe you can make the argument that you're increasing the equity value but you do have to eventually prove you're able to make money right? Maybe you don't, this system is pretty messed up after all.
      - griffzhowl 1y ago
        As long as you have more money coming in than your costs, then it's technically a profit even if that money comes from investments. It's not the same as debt from a loan, because people are buying a percentage stake in the company. If the value of the company happens to go to zero there's nothing left to pay. But yeah, the amount of investment a company attracts should have something to do with the perception that it'll operate at a profit at some point
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Realistically it will be $30 per book and $2,970 for the lawyers
- gpm 1y ago
  That's not how class actions work. Ever. In this specific case the settlement caps the lawyer fees at 25%, and even that is subject to the courts approval. In addition they will ask for $250k total ($50k / plaintiff) for the lead plaintiffs, also subject to the courts approval.
  - ks2048 1y ago
    25% of 1.5B?
johnnyanmac 1y ago
Fines should be disproportionate at this scale. So it discourages other businesses from doing the same thing.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  So they’re creating monopolies? The existing players were allowed to do it, but anyone that tries to do it now will be hit with a 1.5B fine?
freejazz 1y ago
Well it's willful infringement so a court would be entitled to add a punitive multiplier anyway. But this is something Anthropic agreed to, if that wasn't clear.
_Algernon_ 1y ago
As long as they haven't been bullied into the corporate equivalent of suicide by the "justice" system it's not disproportionate considering what happened to Aaron Schwartz. If anything it's too little based on precedent.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
coryrc 1y ago
Were you not around when people were getting sued for running Napster?

Paying $3,000 for pirating a ~$30 book seems disproportionate.

by wmf 1y ago

Paying $3,000 for pirating a ~$30 book seems disproportionate.

robterrell 1y ago

With the per-item limit for "willful infringement" being $150,000, it's a bargain.

gpm 1y ago
And a low end of $750/item.

soks86 1y ago

Not if 100 companies did it and they all got away. This is to teach a lesson because you cannot prosecute all thieves. Yale Law Journal actually writes about this, the goal is to deter crime because in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place.

vlovich123 1y ago
If in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place, then what is the lesson being taught? Doesn't that just create a moral hazard where you "randomly" choose who to penalize?
- jdkee 1y ago
  It's about sending a message.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    The message being you’ll likely get away with it?
    - npunt 1y ago
      They're setting up a pretty simple EV calc: (Probability of not getting away with it) 0.01 * (Cost if caught) 1000 = 10x (Expected Cost) = not worth it
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        The EV calculation completely goes away if you add a layer of limited liability corporation.
tpmoney 1y ago
Even if the goal is to deter crime, we still have a principle of proportionate punishment. We don't cut people's hands of for petty theft, and we don't execute people for exceeding the speed limit even though both should be pretty effective deterrents.

vineyardmike 1y ago

I feel like proportionality is related also to the scale. If a student pirates a textbook, I’d agree that 100x is excessive, but this is a corporation handsomely profiting off of mass piracy. It’s crazy to imagine, but there was surely a document or slack message thread discussing where to get thousands of books, and they just decided to pirate them and that was OK. This was entirely a decision based on ease or cost, not based on the assumption it was legal. Piracy can result in jail time IIRC, so honestly it’s lucky the employee who suggested this, or took the action avoided direct legal liability. Oh and I’m pretty sure other companies (meta) are in litigation over this issue, and the publishers knew that settlement below the full legal limit would limit future revenue.

imron 1y ago
> handsomely profiting Well actively generating revenue at least. Profits are still hard to come by.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  Operating profits certainly but if you include investments the big players are raking it in aren't they?
  - __loam 1y ago
    Investment is debt lol. Maybe you can make the argument that you're increasing the equity value but you do have to eventually prove you're able to make money right? Maybe you don't, this system is pretty messed up after all.
    - griffzhowl 1y ago
      As long as you have more money coming in than your costs, then it's technically a profit even if that money comes from investments. It's not the same as debt from a loan, because people are buying a percentage stake in the company. If the value of the company happens to go to zero there's nothing left to pay. But yeah, the amount of investment a company attracts should have something to do with the perception that it'll operate at a profit at some point

IncreasePosts 1y ago

Realistically it will be $30 per book and $2,970 for the lawyers

gpm 1y ago
That's not how class actions work. Ever. In this specific case the settlement caps the lawyer fees at 25%, and even that is subject to the courts approval. In addition they will ask for $250k total ($50k / plaintiff) for the lead plaintiffs, also subject to the courts approval.
- ks2048 1y ago
  25% of 1.5B?

johnnyanmac 1y ago

Fines should be disproportionate at this scale. So it discourages other businesses from doing the same thing.

Aeolun 1y ago
So they’re creating monopolies? The existing players were allowed to do it, but anyone that tries to do it now will be hit with a 1.5B fine?

freejazz 1y ago

Well it's willful infringement so a court would be entitled to add a punitive multiplier anyway. But this is something Anthropic agreed to, if that wasn't clear.

_Algernon_ 1y ago

As long as they haven't been bullied into the corporate equivalent of suicide by the "justice" system it's not disproportionate considering what happened to Aaron Schwartz. If anything it's too little based on precedent.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

coryrc 1y ago

Were you not around when people were getting sued for running Napster?