How much is a mp3 worth?

Originally Posted by txa1265
Because we know that politicians seeking money to buy votes wouldn't "lead to frivolous lawsuits and ambulance-chasing"

Reply deleted!

Originally Posted by txa1265
Because we know that politicians seeking money to buy votes wouldn't "lead to frivolous lawsuits and ambulance-chasing"

The people who imposed the fine weren't politicians.

As I understand it, a branch of the EU authority levied the fine and those funds went into the EU kitty. Same animal.

I notice you very carefully avoided addressing the $480k fine your system proposed. I was fully behind your logic, BTW, but I guess I'm just too soft-hearted to be as draconian as you.

Originally Posted by dteowner
As I understand it, a branch of the EU authority levied the fine and those funds went into the EU kitty. Same animal.

So, you don't believe the EU has an independent judiciary branch? What is your basis for this belief?

Originally Posted by dteowner
I notice you very carefully avoided addressing the $480k fine your system proposed. I was fully behind your logic, BTW, but I guess I'm just too soft-hearted to be as draconian as you.

If you'll re-read my post, you'll find that I did address it.

To spell it out in full, I believe that it's wrong that one of the people who profited from the infringement should pay for all of them. I believe that everyone who profited from the infringement should be punished to the same extent.

So I'm not disputing your figure. I'm stating that it's wrong to try to get all of it out of one person.

Is the Supreme Court an independent branch of our government? I seem to remember some accusations back in 2004 that they were nothing but Dubya's stoolies and in cahoots to hand him the election. Are you so arrogant to say that your court is different just because it's on your side of the pond? Either you buy into that "independent" thing or you don't. I'm just regurgitating that logic.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Is the Supreme Court an independent branch of our government? I seem to remember some accusations back in 2004 that they were nothing but Dubya's stoolies and in cahoots to hand him the election. Are you so arrogant to say that your court is different just because it's on your side of the pond? Either you buy into that "independent" thing or you don't. I'm just regurgitating that logic.

Just because the independence of the judiciary breaks down on your side of the pond doesn't necessarily mean that it breaks down on this one.

So you are that arrogant, then. OK.

What's my arrogance got to do with it? The failure of the independence of the judiciary in the US is not evidence of a similar failure in the EU. Politically motivated rulings are the exception in both countries; if you believe the EU made one this time, I believe the burden of proof is on you.

(For the record, I don't have an opinion about whether such a breakdown occurred after the 2000 elections in the US, and I wasn't even here at RPGWatch to comment on it at the time; I only joined in 2006.)

The Watch didn't exist in 2000

and 4. Can't be arsed arguing over out-of-touch judicial systems - not like it hasn't been that way for quite some years.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
What's my arrogance got to do with it? The failure of the independence of the judiciary in the US is not evidence of a similar failure in the EU. Politically motivated rulings are the exception in both countries; if you believe the EU made one this time, I believe the burden of proof is on you.

I think that the official statements talking about how proud they were of this ruling and how important it was in establishing the EU as the pre-eminent voice in software regulation speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by txa1265
I think that the official statements talking about how proud they were of this ruling and how important it was in establishing the EU as the pre-eminent voice in software regulation speaks volumes.

So, if a politician approves of a ruling, it must be corrupt? Hell, *I* approve of the ruling, and I assure you I haven't seen a single cent of the award money!

Let's walk through this one more time. Here are the propositions I believe:

1. Punishing anti-competitive practices is a good thing, because it keeps the market competitive and benefits the consumer.
2. To be effective as a deterrent, penalties have to be matched to a corporation's size.
3. Penalties can be awarded to either the plaintiff, or collected by the state.
4. Awarding penalties to the plaintiff creates incentives for frivolous lawsuits.
5. If a country/entity has an independent judiciary -- the courts do not see any of them money being collected -- collecting penalties as a fine does not create such incentives, and is therefore a better system.

So, again, txa, dte, and others -- what evidence do you have that these decisions were politically motivated, primarily -- or even largely -- motivated by the penalty money?

Or could it be that you're just experiencing an irrational wash of patriotic pique because the penalized companies happen to be headquartered in the USA, and because the rulings are based on a view of the role of government that you may not share?

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
So, again, txa, dte, and others -- what evidence do you have that these decisions were politically motivated, primarily -- or even largely -- motivated by the penalty money?

Actually, I agree with everything you wrote. At least in terms of what you just wrote …

Except that you are saying that the EU is crystal clean and a completely objective body in terms of judiciary … and that it is the fact that in the US and really pretty much everywhere else in the world there are politically tainted judicial things that colors our judgment. I just don't buy it.

What I am saying is that there is evidence enough to the contrary fact that non-politicians directly associated with the case coming out and discussing how it is a good thing based not on the merits but on how it positions the EU on the world stage.

But that is just because I believe that there are many things that motivate people in power. That is no different in the EU than the US, so assuming that the folks in the same role, from a largely similar cultural upbringing would wear halos in one country and pitchforks in another seems like grand naivete.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Except that you are saying that the EU is crystal clean and a completely objective body in terms of judiciary … and that it is the fact that in the US and really pretty much everywhere else in the world there are politically tainted judicial things that colors our judgment. I just don't buy it.

No, I'm not, txa. I am saying that *most of the time* the judiciary in the EU makes rulings independently of political authority or motivation, and, therefore, if you believe that this is not the case, you should be able to back it up with some evidence. I said the same thing about the judiciary in the US as well.

Specifically, the judges never saw a cent of the money. Since you were arguing that the case was decided as it was in order to let politicians buy votes, how would this work? Are the politicians paying the judges under the table?

What I am saying is that there is evidence enough to the contrary fact that non-politicians directly associated with the case coming out and discussing how it is a good thing based not on the merits but on how it positions the EU on the world stage.

But that's not what you were originally saying. You were originally saying quite clearly that you believed that the case was decided in order to let the EU line its collective pockets with corporate money. You even mentioned politicians buying votes.

Now you're saying that the case was decided in order to advance the EU's political position on the world stage. That's a different argument. I'm perfectly willing to pursue that line, too, but I would first like you to explicitly concede your original one, if that's what you intended to do.

But that is just because I believe that there are many things that motivate people in power. That is no different in the EU than the US, so assuming that the folks in the same role, from a largely similar cultural upbringing would wear halos in one country and pitchforks in another seems like grand naivete.

It would. Lucky nobody here is doing it then, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Specifically, the judges never saw a cent of the money. Since you were arguing that the case was decided as it was in order to let politicians buy votes, how would this work? Are the politicians paying the judges under the table?

Where do those particular judges get their paycheck from? If you say, the EU, then you get today's epic fail award.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Where do those particular judges get their paycheck from? If you say, the EU, then you get today's epic fail award.

Oh come on, dte -- that's pure sophistry and you know it. Judges everywhere (except Yemen) get their salaries from the state, yet there are plenty of countries where the courts are largely independent of political power. It's not like they're on commission or something -- they'd get the same salary no matter how they ruled!

That line of thought is no more silly than yours, claiming that court is more independent simply because it's European.

But, either way, you're going to have to go back and throw some heavy disclaimers on that rebuff you sent Mike's way. You even put it in italics…

Originally Posted by dteowner
That line of thought is no more silly than yours, claiming that court is more independent simply because it's European.

Let me get this straight, dte: are you saying that, as a general rule, European courts *aren't* relatively independent of political pressure?

If so, I'd very much like to hear your reasons for this belief.

But, either way, you're going to have to go back and throw some heavy disclaimers on that rebuff you sent Mike's way. You even put it in italics…

Are you sure you're not just arguing for argument's sake, dte?

Edit: Okay, I'll rephrase the question:

Other than their salaries, which they would have gotten anyway, no matter how they ruled, and which are paid the same way as in every other court in the civilized world, they never saw a cent of the money. So how does this work?

Obviously dteowner holds a grude against you from another thead and has decided to troll this one in retaliation. Why not take it in the original thread?

Follow up on the legal options for the defendant. Apparently, even the judge has pushed for revision of how to interpret P2P distribution. What a mess of a trail.

Originally Posted by hishadow
Obviously dteowner holds a grude against you from another thead and has decided to troll this one in retaliation. Why not take it in the original thread?

I hope not; generally speaking I and dte get along very well, despite the fact that he's a dirty rotten jackbooted running-dog redneck Fascist and I'm a cheese-eating bleeding-heart pinko Commie Arab-loving surrender monkey. There are certainly no hard feelings on my side.

I think it's more likely that he just feels duty-bound to fight the good fight here, since the place has mostly been overrun by us pinkos lately.