|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Off-Topic » How much is a mp3 worth?

Default How much is a mp3 worth?

June 20th, 2009, 09:21
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
And even though nobody likes Microsoft around here, it's pretty tough to say the insane penalties the EU quietly shuttled to their government coffers have any proportion to the actual damages.
IIRC the case was about Microsoft being anticompetitive and distorting the IT-industry. The court case was started by a complaint from Novell, another American corporation. And as many of us are aware, Microsoft has a whole history behind them being "fair and square" to their competitors.

The fine EU gave to MS was quite a large sum, 1.4 billion dollars. But on the top of my head I'm pretty sure Microsoft is capable of paying that over the upcoming years without a huge impact on their corporation otherwise. In my opinion that case was not "left wing vengeance".

I think the title case of this topic and those other ridiculous court cases dte pointed to are more critical examples towards the court system in US rather than piracy or politics. For the record the courts in EU, national and EU level, aren't perfect either but we don't see someone reaping huge compensations from companies or getting themselves ripped off on that level of magnitude. Or companies getting slammed with billion dollar fines either. The MS case was rare as far as I know.
Surlent is offline

Surlent

On ghost mode

#21

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 14:17
Originally Posted by Surlent View Post
The fine EU gave to MS was quite a large sum, 1.4 billion dollars. But on the top of my head I'm pretty sure Microsoft is capable of paying that over the upcoming years without a huge impact on their corporation otherwise. In my opinion that case was not "left wing vengeance".
But to what end - if the penalty is about MS being anti-competitive, why are states using it to bulk up their coffers?
--
-- Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

SasqWatch

#22

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,863
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 14:33
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
But to what end - if the penalty is about MS being anti-competitive, why are states using it to bulk up their coffers?
It's not Microsoft's software specifically, which have really helped making computers generally accesable, but their business practices.

Why are corporations compared with human beings btw?
hishadow is offline

hishadow

Level N+1

#23

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 14:35
Because legally they're people (at least in the US).
--
I'm sleepy.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

Rithrandil's Avatar
SasqWatch

#24

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 14:38
Originally Posted by Rithrandil View Post
Because legally they're people (at least in the US).
but do they have feelings?
hishadow is offline

hishadow

Level N+1

#25

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 14:42
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
But to what end - if the penalty is about MS being anti-competitive, why are states using it to bulk up their coffers?
In Europe, we don't have the concept of "punitive damages." I.e., we don't award punitive fines to the plaintiff, because we believe that that would lead to frivolous lawsuits and ambulance-chasing. Damages are only awarded in amounts sufficient to redress the damage caused; the principle is that you cannot profit from having been victimized.

So, when we're talking about punishing corporations for illegal activity, that means the fines go into national budgets.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#26

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 14:44
Originally Posted by hishadow View Post
but do they have feelings?
Shh! Be quiet! Do you want the lawyers to hear you!?
--
I'm sleepy.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

Rithrandil's Avatar
SasqWatch

#27

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 14:48
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
If someone wants to steal music/movies/games, that's fine with me. Walk into a store, stuff it down your pants, and take your chances. It's your decision. Hiding behind the anonymity of file sharing doesn't change what you're doing and shouldn't change the potential consequences. You break the law, you might get caught, and it might cost you $80k per song. Simple. Now you can make your own decision whether such theft is worth it, which is exactly how it should be.

I drive 5mph over the speed limit all the time. I'm breaking the law. I've made a risk/benefit decision, but if I ever get a ticket, I've got nobody to blame but myself.
The issue is proportionality. If you stuff a CD down your pants and try to walk out with it, you'll get fined, what, a few hundred bucks, tops. If you illegally download the same CD off the net, you suddenly get fined $80k per song. That's disproportionate.

Or, if you go 5 mph over the speed limit, you might get fined -- but you will most definitely get fined more if you go 100 mph over the speed limit.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#28

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 14:58
It's all a matter of establishing the price tag. The price tag for this offense is $80k per song. Make your choice.

Let us not forget, in our rush to turn the criminal into a victim, that it's safe to presume that each file was distributed more than once. Let's say 1000 people downloaded each of those files. That's probably a conservative estimate, but let's go with it. Now, you're looking at $8 per illegal event. So, go stuff a cd single down your pants, but check the price tag first. Bet $8 isn't too far off. I never cease to be amazed at the overwhleming sympathy for criminals around here.
--
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 13,273
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 15:06
It's not sympathy for criminals, dte, it's cruel and unusual punishment and a proportionality issue. It's like being sentenced to five months in prison for jay walking. Are any of us here arguing the person should be given a hug and set free with no adverse effects?

No, just that 80k a song is *excessive*. You own a home, right? Say your HMA decides on some new regulation about how high your grass can be. You violate it, and they charge you $20,000USD. Wouldn't you think that's a bit much?

I'm not arguing that she's a victim, I think the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and that these draconian measures will only give fuel to the anti-copyright movement. What happened when EA put insanely harsh DRM on Spore? A bazillion people downloaded it and refused to buy it.

I personally will *never* buy a game with Star force protection (I wouldn't pirate it either, though), but that's besides the point, I guess.
--
I'm sleepy.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

Rithrandil's Avatar
SasqWatch

#30

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 15:12
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
It's all a matter of establishing the price tag. The price tag for this offense is $80k per song. Make your choice.
Do you think it's a fair price tag that fits the gravity of the offense?

Let us not forget, in our rush to turn the criminal into a victim, that it's safe to presume that each file was distributed more than once. Let's say 1000 people downloaded each of those files.
Then shouldn't each of those 1000 be the ones who'd have to pay the price for it, rather than the one who got caught paying the price for all of them? We're talking P2P here -- each download is also an upload, remember?

That's probably a conservative estimate, but let's go with it. Now, you're looking at $8 per illegal event. So, go stuff a cd single down your pants, but check the price tag first. Bet $8 isn't too far off. I never cease to be amazed at the overwhleming sympathy for criminals around here.
Suppose we decided to almost stop enforcement of speed limits, so that we caught only, say, one out of 1,000,000 drivers who speed. Suppose we simultaneously decided to make speeding a capital offense. So, essentially, your odds of getting caught speeding would be very very small, but if you were caught, you'd get a lethal injection.

Would this approach to deterring speeding make sense to you?

To me it doesn't, because it's essentially random. This is the case with copyright infringement now -- very very few people get caught, but those that do, are punished completely disproportionately relative to the crime. In many cases, the punishment is far more unjust than the offense. Two wrongs don't make a right, and in this case, they don't even make it even.

So yes, I have sympathy for the people who get hit by these completely disproportionate and completely unjust punishments. Sure, they did something wrong, but what they did is in no shape or form proportionate to the punishment.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 15:20
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
To me it doesn't, because it's essentially random. This is the case with copyright infringement now -- very very few people get caught, but those that do, are punished completely disproportionately relative to the crime. In many cases, the punishment is far more unjust than the offense. Two wrongs don't make a right, and in this case, they don't even make it even.
It's basically a select few taking the combined punishment for the many. That's why I mentioned that P2P filesharing need special interpretation because of it's collaborative nature.

Also, I think dteowner is trying to live up to his avatar. Btw, have you checked it for copyright infringments?
Last edited by hishadow; June 20th, 2009 at 15:39.
hishadow is offline

hishadow

Level N+1

#32

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 16:05
Supplied by PopCap's Zombatar software, which was designed exactly for this purpose, thank you very much.

Tackling the dealer while largely ignoring the user isn't exactly an unusual law enforcement approach. In fact, I seem to remember several folks in this discussion being very supportive of that approach in another thread. Having second thoughts all of a sudden?

Suppose we decided to almost stop enforcement of speed limits, so that we caught only, say, one out of 1,000,000 drivers who speed. Suppose we simultaneously decided to make speeding a capital offense. So, essentially, your odds of getting caught speeding would be very very small, but if you were caught, you'd get a lethal injection.

Would this approach to deterring speeding make sense to you?
As a deterrent, it's worthless. We haven't begun to discuss deterrence, though. The title of this thread is about price, not about effectiveness. The price is $80k. Make your choice. Although I don't think it's nearly as outlandish as everyone else here seems to, $80k really is a pretty silly price tag, but it is what is it is. Same to the capital speeding ticket--stupid price, but that's largely irrelevant. The rules are set and the price for breaking them is set. Following the law is a choice--there's no innate obligation there.

OK, I hereby promote all you abetters to the bench. What's the proper price tag? And since we've now brought deterrence into the picture, I expect you'll all be mindful of the impact of setting the bar too low.
--
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#33

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 13,273
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 16:38
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Tackling the dealer while largely ignoring the user isn't exactly an unusual law enforcement approach. In fact, I seem to remember several folks in this discussion being very supportive of that approach in another thread. Having second thoughts all of a sudden?
Except that P2P isn't like that. Pirate Bay is the functional equivalent of the dealer, but individual filesharers aren't. They derive no profit from it beyond the songs/games/whatever they download for themselves.

As a deterrent, it's worthless. We haven't begun to discuss deterrence, though. The title of this thread is about price, not about effectiveness.
Okay, forget deterrence. Would you think it's a fair system?

The price is $80k. Make your choice. Although I don't think it's nearly as outlandish as everyone else here seems to, $80k really is a pretty silly price tag, but it is what is it is.
So you do agree that it's a silly price tag -- which is exactly what the rest of us are saying. So where, then, are we disagreeing?

Same to the capital speeding ticket--stupid price, but that's largely irrelevant. The rules are set and the price for breaking them is set. Following the law is a choice--there's no innate obligation there.
It's also entirely permissible to protest against unjust laws. You just agreed that $80k is an unjust price tag for P2P'ing a song. Why are you so riled up when people protest against the injustice that you, yourself, just admitted?

OK, I hereby promote all you abetters to the bench. What's the proper price tag? And since we've now brought deterrence into the picture, I expect you'll all be mindful of the impact of setting the bar too low.
The proper price tag would be the same one you'd get for shoplifting it from a store. I don't know what the price tag for that is, but I'd say that about 10 times the value of the good would sound about right -- say, $200 for a $20 buck album containing 10 songs, or $20 per song.

Re deterrence, the problem is that so few copyright infringers get caught. If you want to deter it through punishment, the right approach is to find ways to catch more offenders, not to slap outrageous fines on the random few who do get caught. If the risk of getting caught was 10%, the above formula would redress the damage, and I believe it would also be a pretty good deterrent.

If it proves impossible to do this, IMO that means that our concept of copyright is wrong, and should be rethought in such a way that it fits with what people are actually doing. Gutenberg's press put scribes and copyists out of business; desktop publishing put typesetters out of business; IMO it's entirely conceivable that the Internet will eventually kill business models based on royalties and artificially restricting the availability of information artifacts.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#34

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 16:39
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
OK, I hereby promote all you abetters to the bench. What's the proper price tag? And since we've now brought deterrence into the picture, I expect you'll all be mindful of the impact of setting the bar too low.
Atleast two order of magnitudes smaller, but a more interesting factor would be how long was the content shared (or long-term contributed upload bandwidth), instead of focusing on the number of people participating in the sharing.
hishadow is offline

hishadow

Level N+1

#35

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 17:26
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
It's also entirely permissible to protest against unjust laws. You just agreed that $80k is an unjust price tag for P2P'ing a song. Why are you so riled up when people protest against the injustice that you, yourself, just admitted?
Actually, you put it in words perfectly, although you didn't mean to. I did not say $80k was unjust in any way and that's the key to the whole thing. The amount is a bit silly because it will not have the desired impact (deterrence), as evidenced by the sympathetic reaction here. That says nothing to unjust. Justice is rules and consequences. If you choose to violate the rules, you might suffer the consequence. You might not, if you're lucky, but's just another factor in the decision you have to make. Copyright is not an unjust law in any way, so the whole tyranny argument is bogus.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
The proper price tag would be the same one you'd get for shoplifting it from a store. I don't know what the price tag for that is, but I'd say that about 10 times the value of the good would sound about right -- say, $200 for a $20 buck album containing 10 songs, or $20 per song.
Ah, but let's dig a little deeper into our analogy. In this case, you're stealing for somebody else. So functionally, our little victim went into the store 1000 times, stuffed the cd down her pants, and then handed it to her friend after the coast was clear. So using the Honorable Judge PJ's ruling, we get $20 bucks per cd, times 1000 thefts (a conservative estimate), times 24 different titles…$480,000. Shit, she got off light!!! A travesty of justice. She must have been stinkin republican rich and used expensive lawyers!

Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
If it proves impossible to do this, IMO that means that our concept of copyright is wrong, and should be rethought in such a way that it fits with what people are actually doing. Gutenberg's press put scribes and copyists out of business; desktop publishing put typesetters out of business; IMO it's entirely conceivable that the Internet will eventually kill business models based on royalties and artificially restricting the availability of information artifacts.
Entirely possible, but until that evolution comes around, you've got to work with the laws that are on the books. This criminal might become symbol of the revolution, but the downside of martyrdom is that whole martyr thing…
--
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#36

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 13,273
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 17:56
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Actually, you put it in words perfectly, although you didn't mean to. I did not say $80k was unjust in any way and that's the key to the whole thing. The amount is a bit silly because it will not have the desired impact (deterrence), as evidenced by the sympathetic reaction here. That says nothing to unjust. Justice is rules and consequences. If you choose to violate the rules, you might suffer the consequence. You might not, if you're lucky, but's just another factor in the decision you have to make. Copyright is not an unjust law in any way, so the whole tyranny argument is bogus.
Are you saying that *any* punishment for *any* crime is just, only because it's so codified in law? For example, take my speeding analogy: if the law and its enforcement were changed as in my thought experiment, would it be just?

If so, our conceptions of justice are profoundly different.

Ah, but let's dig a little deeper into our analogy. In this case, you're stealing for somebody else. So functionally, our little victim went into the store 1000 times, stuffed the cd down her pants, and then handed it to her friend after the coast was clear. So using the Honorable Judge PJ's ruling, we get $20 bucks per cd, times 1000 thefts (a conservative estimate), times 24 different titles…$480,000. Shit, she got off light!!! A travesty of justice. She must have been stinkin republican rich and used expensive lawyers!
Interesting analogy. In that situation -- with 1000 people who decide to shoplift a CD, but arrange it so that only one of them does the actual shoplifting -- do you believe only the original shoplifter should be punished, and the 1000 people who get it from her second-hand should not? That sounds a bit strange to me.

Entirely possible, but until that evolution comes around, you've got to work with the laws that are on the books. This criminal might become symbol of the revolution, but the downside of martyrdom is that whole martyr thing…
You can also fight the law -- make an effort to change it, by highlighting the people unjustly victimized by it. Which is what we're doing.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#37

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 18:31
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Are you saying that *any* punishment for *any* crime is just, only because it's so codified in law? For example, take my speeding analogy: if the law and its enforcement were changed as in my thought experiment, would it be just?

If so, our conceptions of justice are profoundly different.
Justice is the consistent application of the rules, whatever they happen to be. I don't hear you railing against the inconsistency that is progressive taxation. You readily endorse it, so your railing on this one rings a bit hypocritical. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this criminal could have avoided the whole situation by not breaking the law in the first place, and she also had numerous opportunities to settle for a much smaller amount which she chose to ignore. She picked a fight and she got her ass beat. Evidently, she's got some real problems with making good choices.

You might argue that this particular consequence is ineffective as a method to encourage lawful behavior, but that has nothing to do with justice. Y'all should be arguing that this judgment is ineffective, rather than waving the tyranny flag.
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Interesting analogy. In that situation -- with 1000 people who decide to shoplift a CD, but arrange it so that only one of them does the actual shoplifting -- do you believe only the original shoplifter should be punished, and the 1000 people who get it from her second-hand should not? That sounds a bit strange to me.
And yet, I'm pretty sure you were one of the many endorsing "personal use" drugs while planning to go after the dealers with a vengence. Such inconsistency sounds a bit strange to me.
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
You can also fight the law -- make an effort to change it, by highlighting the people unjustly victimized by it. Which is what we're doing.
What's unjust is that she broke the law. End of story. Where's the tears for the real victims here, the copyright holders? Oh that's right, they're evil corporations so they don't count. Your "victim" gave up her right to that tag by violating the rights of copyright holders. You shouldn't make a saint out of a sinner, as it were.
--
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#38

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 13,273
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 18:52
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Justice is the consistent application of the rules, whatever they happen to be. I don't hear you railing against the inconsistency that is progressive taxation. You readily endorse it, so your railing on this one rings a bit hypocritical.
Funny, I was just about to bring it up myself. If your line is "that's the law, deal with it," then how come you're railing against progressive taxation? After all, nobody has to pay those higher rates -- they can just choose to earn less.

You bring up another point here: consistent application of the rules. That's one of my main beefs with punishments for copyright infringement: they're anything but consistently applied. The odds of getting caught and punished are perhaps one in a million, but the consequences for getting caught can be absurdly draconian. If that's not inconsistent application of the rules, then what is?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this criminal could have avoided the whole situation by not breaking the law in the first place, and she also had numerous opportunities to settle for a much smaller amount which she chose to ignore. She picked a fight and she got her ass beat. Evidently, she's got some real problems with making good choices.
All true. But that doesn't make the punishment any less unjust.

You might argue that this particular consequence is ineffective as a method to encourage lawful behavior, but that has nothing to do with justice.
I might, but I'm not. I'm arguing that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime, and therefore it is unjust.

What is your definition of justice, by the way?

Y'all should be arguing that this judgment is ineffective, rather than waving the tyranny flag.
I might, but I'm not.

And yet, I'm pretty sure you were one of the many endorsing "personal use" drugs while planning to go after the dealers with a vengence. Such inconsistency sounds a bit strange to me.
Actually, I think recreational drugs should be legalized and taxed. Dealers should be treated the same way as bootleggers (of alcohol or tobacco).

What's unjust is that she broke the law. End of story.
She did break the law, but that's not the end of the story. The end of the story is that she was slapped with a disproportionate -- and therefore unjust -- punishment. What she did was wrong, but what the law did to her was far more wrong.

Where's the tears for the real victims here, the copyright holders? Oh that's right, they're evil corporations so they don't count. Your "victim" gave up her right to that tag by violating the rights of copyright holders. You shouldn't make a saint out of a sinner, as it were.
I'm not. However, I am calling the punishment -- and therefore the law -- unjust. She should not have broken the law, but her punishment does not fit the magnitude of her crime.

As to the copyright holders, I do have sympathy for their losses. However, I do not condone the way they are defending their rights -- by lobbying for (and getting) legislation that imposes unjust punishments on people infringing copyrights. I believe that if they can't find ways of deterring copyright infringement that do not involve disproportionate and therefore unjust punishments for it, then they should find new business models.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#39

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Default 

June 20th, 2009, 19:03
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
So, when we're talking about punishing corporations for illegal activity, that means the fines go into national budgets.
Because we know that politicians seeking money to buy votes wouldn't "lead to frivolous lawsuits and ambulance-chasing"
--
-- Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

SasqWatch

#40

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,863
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Off-Topic » How much is a mp3 worth?

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:55.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by DragonByte Security (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright by RPGWatch