They should just look at how many times the pirates listened to each song, and base the fine on the prevailing streaming rate to artists. Then the damages will calculate to like $5. Or if you really want to make them hurt look at how long they had the files and charge them the streaming subscription rate for like 3 years, then they may owe hundreds of dollars.
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
31 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54577 readers
182 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The problem with that is it doesn’t provide disincentive. If you catch 1% of pirates, the fine has to be more than 100x the loss to make it an economic disincentive.
You know, assuming these are tangible goods that cannot be copied without harming the creator. Reality is piracy does not correlate with sales very well.
When the fuck has economic disincentive ever been a priority for civil courts? Large corporations do billions of dollars of damage on a regular basis, and get fined for millions.
When corporations steal from their employees by wage theft, they are penalized “double damages” or twice what they stole. Seems that would be reasonable to apply to this.