Crimes and torts on the Internet.

[middleagedgamer]

The Internet is a terrific tool for communication, networking, and all that fun stuff.

But, it's also a breeding ground for various white-collar crimes and torts. Examples include identity theft, software piracy, copyright infringement, harassment, and unsolicited telemarketing via email (often referred to as "spam").

Criminals don't mind doing this because the odds of them getting caught are exponentially less if they download a song on Limewire than if they steal a CD from the music store. If they could get caught for a majority of their crimes, they couldn't make a profit off of it, but since their likelihood of getting caught goes from 80% to 2%, they can still make a profit, even on those 2% of stuff that they're caught on.

So, therefore, I think we should increase the penalties for this stuff. Simply being on the wrong end of an Internet-based judgment of verdict would constitute statutory and punitive damages of twenty-five times the amount if it were in person. For example, if you harass someone over email, the penalty goes from $1,000 (maximum fine for a Class A misdemeanor) to $25,000. The penalty for copyright infringement when malice is proven is currently $100,000 if the defendant is a business entity and not a natural person; up it to $2.5 million if it was over the Internet (e.g. if Youtube refused to take down an infringing video).

The justification for this is because the Internet makes it so easy to get away with stuff that we need some way to cancel out the risk of getting caught with the consequences of getting caught. We can't just monitor what everyone does on a regular basis; that would be big brother-ish. It's either that, or this.

By doing this, fewer people will take the risk of getting caught because the risk isn't worth it.

Thoughts?

 

[Tsunami]

This doesn't do any good. You can punish people for breaking the law, but you can't force them to care or to think about what they are doing. And thus penalties do not prevent illegal activities. People are going to go over the speeding limit no matter how high you make the fine, because they don't realize they are doing something wrong.

 

[middleagedgamer]

This doesn't do any good. You can punish people for breaking the law, but you can't force them to care or to think about what they are doing. And thus penalties do not prevent illegal activities.

So, what's the point of having penalties in the first place?

If penalties do not deter people from committing illegal activities, what is their purpose?

People are going to go over the speeding limit no matter how high you make the fine, because they don't realize they are doing something wrong.

So, they don't realize that it's wrong to steal someone's identity, to pirate software, to download songs without paying for them?

They don't realize that it's wrong to harass someone?

Give me a friggin' break!

 

[Tsunami]

So, what's the point of having penalties in the first place?

If penalties do not deter people from committing illegal activities, what is their purpose?

So, they don't realize that it's wrong to steal someone's identity, to pirate software, to download songs without paying for them?

They don't realize that it's wrong to harass someone?

Give me a friggin' break!

You're the second person to disagree with this. I suggest you put up a poll and ask them. No, people don't think it is wrong to download music. The difference between stealing a car and stealing a computer program is that the original owner gets to keep the program too. So people don't think it hurts anyone. It's like sneaking into a movie or stealing cable.

 

[middleagedgamer]

You're the second person to disagree with this. I suggest you put up a poll and ask them. No, people don't think it is wrong to download music. The difference between stealing a car and stealing a computer program is that the original owner gets to keep the program too. So people don't think it hurts anyone. It's like sneaking into a movie or stealing cable.

What about harassment, or identity theft?

What about embezzlement that you perform over the Internet by anonymously hacking into your employer's bank account?

The penalties for such malum in se crimes need to be increased to deter people from doing them.

 

[molten_dragon]

The Internet is a terrific tool for communication, networking, and all that fun stuff.

But, it's also a breeding ground for various white-collar crimes and torts. Examples include identity theft, software piracy, copyright infringement, harassment, and unsolicited telemarketing via email (often referred to as "spam").

Criminals don't mind doing this because the odds of them getting caught are exponentially less if they download a song on Limewire than if they steal a CD from the music store. If they could get caught for a majority of their crimes, they couldn't make a profit off of it, but since their likelihood of getting caught goes from 80% to 2%, they can still make a profit, even on those 2% of stuff that they're caught on.

So, therefore, I think we should increase the penalties for this stuff. Simply being on the wrong end of an Internet-based judgment of verdict would constitute statutory and punitive damages of twenty-five times the amount if it were in person. For example, if you harass someone over email, the penalty goes from $1,000 (maximum fine for a Class A misdemeanor) to $25,000. The penalty for copyright infringement when malice is proven is currently $100,000 if the defendant is a business entity and not a natural person; up it to $2.5 million if it was over the Internet (e.g. if Youtube refused to take down an infringing video).

The justification for this is because the Internet makes it so easy to get away with stuff that we need some way to cancel out the risk of getting caught with the consequences of getting caught. We can't just monitor what everyone does on a regular basis; that would be big brother-ish. It's either that, or this.

By doing this, fewer people will take the risk of getting caught because the risk isn't worth it.

Thoughts?

Not only no, but HELL no. Penalties for a lot of this sort of thing are already beyond ridiculous.

Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty

 

[middleagedgamer]

Not only no, but HELL no. Penalties for a lot of this sort of thing are already beyond ridiculous.

Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty

Normally, I would say "good."

However, there is an 80% chance that that award will be significantly toned down on appeal. That happens with all kinds of frivolous lawsuits, including the infamous McDonalds coffee case (yes, on appeal, it was reduced from $640,000 to $32,000; the news didn't cover that because it wasn't as sensational, but it did happen).

 

[rathi]

Making outrageous punishments for minor crimes simply because its hard to catch them is a terrible idea. You manage to screw a few rabdin people over, and it still doesn't noticeable deter anyone. Those 5000 dollar fines you see for littering don't do squat. If somebody thinks they won't be caught, its quite unlikely that any amount of punishment is going to matter.

Spamming, identity theft, and copyright infringement all have better solutions. Spamming simply needs a low per-email fine, so people sending hundreds of thousands of messages can be suitably punished, but regular joes aren't. Identity theft is already a fairly serious crime, and is more easily prevented by better technology and users who aren't completely ignorant. Copyright infringement first needs to create sane laws that aren't written by Disney, then work of figuring out the best way to enforce them.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Making outrageous punishments for minor crimes simply because its hard to catch them is a terrible idea. You manage to screw a few rabdin people over, and it still doesn't noticeable deter anyone.

A few high-profile cases is enough to scare some people.

Cases in point:
Pedophilia
Needles in the Halloween candy
No longer taking "I'll kill you" as a joke.

Those 5000 dollar fines you see for littering don't do squat. If somebody thinks they won't be caught, its quite unlikely that any amount of punishment is going to matter.

All it takes is a few high profile cases of people who didn't think they'd get caught for half the people to think "What if I do get caught? I think no one's looking, but how can I make sure of that?"

Spamming, identity theft, and copyright infringement all have better solutions. Spamming simply needs a low per-email fine, so people sending hundreds of thousands of messages can be suitably punished, but regular joes aren't.

At this point, you are merely making creative changes to my own proposal, while still keeping to the core ideal.

Identity theft is already a fairly serious crime, and is more easily prevented by better technology and users who aren't completely ignorant.

Completely impractical. No one is going to fire up a computer for the first time and instantly know exactly what to do. Information technology is a dance you learn as you go. Identity thieves prey on those who are relatively new to computers, yet you need to put yourself in that position in order to learn about computers.

Copyright infringement first needs to create sane laws that aren't written by Disney, then work of figuring out the best way to enforce them.

How do you propose we do that?

Either crank up the enforcement abilities, or crank up the punishments.

 

[molten_dragon]

Normally, I would say "good."

Why exactly is that 'good'? Because a greedy organization is trying to squeeze money out of her in massive disproportion to the actual harm (if any) she might have caused them?

However, there is an 80% chance that that award will be significantly toned down on appeal. That happens with all kinds of frivolous lawsuits, including the infamous McDonalds coffee case (yes, on appeal, it was reduced from $640,000 to $32,000; the news didn't cover that because it wasn't as sensational, but it did happen).

The case is still ongoing, but she's already had one retrial. The $1.92 million was from her second trial, up from $220,000 in the first one.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Why exactly is that 'good'? Because a greedy organization is trying to squeeze money out of her in massive disproportion to the actual harm (if any) she might have caused them?

What do you mean "if any?" She stole songs from them.

Most of those damages are punitive.

The case is still ongoing, but she's already had one retrial. The $1.92 million was from her second trial, up from $220,000 in the first one.

Jurors are not near as familiar with the standards of the eighth amendment as appellate courts are. If she has a retrial, that means that there was an error in the judicial process (e.g. the Judge neglected to strike something from the record that should have been inadmissible). However, when a judge, or jury, blatantly disregards the established law (whether that law be common, statutory, or constitutional), an appellate court will typically just overrule it. This is what is called a "Judgment NOV," or "Judgment Notwithstanding the Original Verdict."

 

[Coronado]

However, when a judge, or jury, blatantly disregards the established law (whether that law be common, statutory, or constitutional), an appellate court will typically just overrule it. This is what is called a "Judgment NOV," or "Judgment Notwithstanding the Original Verdict."

:rofl

No, that is not what a JNOV is. Not even close.

 

[rathi]

A few high-profile cases is enough to scare some people.

But not enough. Remember the high profile case of the 18 year old who goes to prison because he gets a blow job from a 15 year old? Think teenagers give a damn?

All it takes is a few high profile cases of people who didn't think they'd get caught for half the people to think "What if I do get caught? I think no one's looking, but how can I make sure of that?"

That is why nobody deals drugs after all the high profile cases about people going to prison for it. Not to mention the fact that you'd need unconstituionally draconian charges to become high profile in the first place.

At this point, you are merely making creative changes to my own proposal, while still keeping to the core ideal.

No, I am making reasonable ones. The damages are proportional to severity of the crime.

Completely impractical. No one is going to fire up a computer for the first time and instantly know exactly what to do. Information technology is a dance you learn as you go. Identity thieves prey on those who are relatively new to computers, yet you need to put yourself in that position in order to learn about computers.

If you grow with computers, you learn to use them before you have any credit cards to be stolen. Its only a problem when you have huge numbers of ignorant people on the internet throwing around money. Newer generations won't have the same problem.

How do you propose we do that?

Work on such catchy slogans to drive populist appeal, run some television advertisements and find the business interests who stand to make money from revamping the system to fund it. Option B is get a case in the supreme court attacking current law on constitutional grounds.

Either crank up the enforcement abilities, or crank up the punishments.

There are constitutional barriers to excessive punishments. The cost of a free society is that crime often can use freedom to hide from the law.

 

[Travelsonic]

What do you mean "if any?" She stole songs from them.

Stole songs FROM them? :doh

That doesn't make sense, IMO.

 

[molten_dragon]

What do you mean "if any?" She stole songs from them.

She's not being sued for downloading the songs herself, she's being sued for distributing them, so any harm she might have done is directly proportional to how many people (if any) downloaded them from her.

I understand the concept of punitive damages, but $80,000/song is ridiculous. Especially since they'll never get it, and it's getting the RIAA a TON of bad press.

 

[Travelsonic]

I understand the concept of punitive damages, but $80,000/song is ridiculous. Especially since they'll never get it, and it's getting the RIAA a TON of bad press.

I've been following the RIAA shinannigans for about a decade now [damn, I feel old], and I can safely say they have a thing for PR suicide.

 

[molten_dragon]

I've been following the RIAA shinannigans for about a decade now [damn, I feel old], and I can safely say they have a thing for PR suicide.

Oh absolutely. I understand that companies need to protect their intellectual property, but the RIAA needs to seriously re-evaluate how to go about doing it.

It's good to see some artists are cutting the recording industry out of the equation and releasing material directly to the internet themselves.