
Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100 - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/sweet-sanity-75-of-americans-say-infringement-fines-should-be-under-100.ars
======
JoshTriplett
Even better than the statistic quoted in the title, 48% of Americans don't
believe any fine or other punishment should exist at all. The quoted statistic
actually refers to 75% of the remaining 52%.

~~~
Egregore
Is in US possible a referendum on this matter?

~~~
krschultz
Unfortunately the US federal government does not have a mechanism for a
referendum. Some states do, but this would be a federal matter.

------
eli
Err, I wonder what percent of people think parking tickets should be under $5.
Not sure that means it's a good policy.

~~~
yardie
Depends on the infraction. Overrun a meter? just pay the difference. Double
parking on a one-lane or major artery? Hang them by the big toe.

~~~
jemfinch
You don't seem to understand that as long as enforcement isn't 100%, the cost
of punishment _must_ exceed the cost of compliance if it's going to deter
violation.

If the only cost of overrunning a meter were paying the amount of the overrun,
any economically rational actor would simply _never pay meters_. If he doesn't
get caught, he's parked for free; if he does get caught, he pays only what he
otherwise would have.

The civil penalty for laws like unpaid parking meters and illegal downloading
of copyright works should be slightly greater than the original cost times the
inverse enforcement rate. If we catch 1% of parking meter cheaters, they
should pay at least a hundred times their overrun to ensure that it's
economically rational to pay meters. Since we need only deter _humans_ , not
"economically rational actors", we can take risk aversion and incomplete
knowledge into account and probably decrease that fine somewhat.

The same principle that applies to parking meters applies to copyright
infringement.

~~~
radu_floricica
The "economically rational actor" thing has been debunked long ago (see
Kahneman and Tversky). There are much better ways to get people to behave the
way you want then appealing to their statistical skills.

~~~
eli
I assure you that if it's cheaper to pay parking tickets than to feed meters,
people will stop feeding meters.

Hey look, it actually happened in Mumbai:
[http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/03/26/how-to-cheat-the-
mumb...](http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/03/26/how-to-cheat-the-mumbai-train-
system/)

------
Tsagadai
In a real democracy the majority would actually make the laws. A fine of $100
sounds fair, it is still a punishment and would be much more acceptable to
police heavily (and with less lawyers involved). I would be fine with
automated fines of $100 being handed out to people downloading a file
illegally and I think that would be a more effective deterrent than the
present lawsuit madness that rules copyright.

~~~
nitrogen
IMO one should never be okay with automated fines of any kind, especially on
the Internet. There is far too much potential for false positives, and too
much difficulty identifying when a particular download is illegal.

Not to mention, there would be a very strong incentive for the hosts of
pirated material to find ways of bypassing the fines and blocking their
crawlers. Griefers will install malware on others' computers that downloads
illegal songs just to incur $100 fines.

~~~
Tsagadai
Think of a system that works much the same way as speed cameras work in some
countries. You deter the majority of people from speeding in a particular
area. You automate an amnesty into the system for certain types of vehicles
(emergency services, military, diplomatic) but instead put a protection on
publicly owned computers, libraries, schools and charities (which, IMO, should
not have to pay for copyrighted works anyway and it is already too much effort
to enforce). Create an independent arbiter to handle false-positives and
exceptional circumstances without any direct connection to financial interests
(a government, funded by the fines or industry funded). Send the remaining
money to the copyright holder.

There is the same incentive now for blocking MediaSentry and the like, why
would the change escalate this? Griefers already do this too but usually with
material far more illegal than music.

The present system doesn't make sense. It should not be OK for a company to
bankrupt someone over something that can be legally purchased for a minimal
amount. Both enforcement and defence against enforcement are too expensive,
time-consuming and economically pointless. Having an efficient system is
better than having an inefficient system.

~~~
nitrogen
_You automate an amnesty into the system for certain types of vehicles
(emergency services, military, diplomatic) but instead put a protection on
publicly owned computers, libraries, schools and charities (which, IMO, should
not have to pay for copyrighted works anyway and it is already too much effort
to enforce)._

Simple workaround: set up an automated, anonymous service that pays all
college students to run Tor endpoints in their dorms and libraries. Or, set up
a charity that provides free Internet access to the poor, and use its spare
bandwidth.

 _Create an independent arbiter to handle false-positives and exceptional
circumstances without any direct connection to financial interests (a
government, funded by the fines or industry funded)._

You're talking about creating a huge bureaucracy with this system. That's not
the kind of make-work job creation we need. Besides, we already have
independent arbiters in the courts.

 _Having an efficient system is better than having an inefficient system._

Having an efficient system with false positives is far worse than an
inefficient system with false negatives. I'm opposed to speed cameras for the
same reason I'm opposed to automated punishment or automated surveillance of
any kind: enforcement of laws should be person vs. person, as a matter of
principle. Without the direct human connection, it is too easy for those with
the power of enforcement to go significantly overboard.

------
brc
Surveying people on what fines anything should be is ridiculous.

I once made the mistake of surveying people what software product prices
should be. Surprise surprise the average was about $15, which I suspect was
just as much as they could say without actually asking for free.

~~~
guard-of-terra
And guess what? Apple proved that cheap and abundant software is really the
way to go.

People were right but the industry took a while to catch up.

------
wmf
While that is just plain common sense, there are still problems. If the fine
is no great hardship and your chance of getting caught is less than 1%, it's
rational to always infringe rather than pay. Raising the rate of enforcement
would be hard since $100 doesn't cover the court costs and thus the industry
would be losing money on every case — even ones they win.

~~~
redthrowaway
As we know, however, people simply aren't the rational economic agents that
the economic giants of yore held them to be. Most people would be happy to pay
if the legitimate product was better and more convenient than the pirated
version. It isn't.

See Gabe Newell's take on piracy. Valve's certainly done well in that respect.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLC_zZ5fqFk> (piracy bit @1:05, whole
interview is worth watching)

[http://www.gamesradar.com/gabe-newell-piracy-issue-
service-n...](http://www.gamesradar.com/gabe-newell-piracy-issue-service-not-
price/)

~~~
brc
I'm not sure I get your point. If someone finds the legitimate product is not
better or more convenient than the pirated product, isn't the rational choice
to go for the pirated one?

------
qjz
_Only 52 precent of American adults support punishment at all_

It seems the real story is that _48 percent support no penalty at all._ Why
the misleading (and inaccurate) headline?

~~~
sophacles
Because no penalty is functionally the same as a $0 fine, which is well under
$100. (if there are _nth-time_ offender bumps to the fine price, then they
become different, but that is not studied here).

~~~
div
No penalty implies a moral / ethical stance that is different from even a $1
penalty.

The underlying argument being that the majority of the population finds the
current laws to be unjust not in measure, but on principle.

------
pagekalisedown
In other news, bank robbers say bank robberies should be punished by fines
under $100.

~~~
MaxGabriel
First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large
number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable
for hundreds of thousands in damages.

Second, wouldn't it be reasonable for the bank robbers to request that they're
not sentenced to death for robbing banks? Can't they argue the punishment
doesn't match the crime?

~~~
masterzora
_First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large
number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable
for hundreds of thousands in damages._

While I agree with your conclusions, the logic here is flawed. If everyone
started shoplifting, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with the laws
that people are now criminals.

(Sidenote: Only a small number of people are felons on account of copyright.
Under US law, to be a felon you have to have been convicted of a felony.)

~~~
nextparadigms
Copyright infringement is not shoplifting.

~~~
masterzora
Goddammit, I knew someone was going to trot that line out.

You see, I never said copyright infringement was shoplifting, or related to
shoplifting, in any way. Just because someone uses the words "copyright" and
"shoplifting" in the same post doesn't mean that they are saying copyright
infringement is shoplifting.

In my above post shoplifting was only an example. My post makes just as much
as sense if I replace shoplifting with murder and copyright infringement with
cannabis possession. Or shoplifting with arson and copyright infringement with
being left handed.

The underlying logic I quoted is what was wrong, not the categorisation, so
stop jerking your knee.

~~~
wvenable
Your argument demands an obviously _immoral crime_ in order to work. You used
shoplifting because everyone agrees that is immoral. You are begging the
question.

If you replaced _shoplifting_ with _cannabis possession_ then the line "If
everyone started smoking pot, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with
the laws that people are now criminals" isn't nearly true. In fact, you could
argue that alcohol is legal, while cannabis is not, is entirely because
everyone does it.

~~~
masterzora
I disagree, for a number of reasons.

1\. I don't agree with the statement "shoplifting is necessarily immoral" so
it makes no sense for my own argument to hinge on such a fact. 2\. My argument
does not only work for an immoral crime; it is merely illustrated by an
example of a law people think is not wrong. Shoplifting is merely a
counterexample to the logic "If X is a law that a lot of people break then X
is a bad law". I do not take this on to conclude that X is not a bad law which
would be begging the question. 3\. The original logic was begging the
question, not I. The statement "If X is a law that a lot of people break then
X is a bad law" only holds if X is already a priori a bad law (and, even then,
it requires a few more statements to actually work).

~~~
wvenable
> Shoplifting is merely a counterexample to the logic "If X is a law that a
> lot of people break then X is a bad law"

Perhaps if 90% of the population shoplifted, then any law against shoplifting
would be bad. What is missing from the question is why the majority of the
population would shoplift.

~~~
masterzora
That is a very valid line of reasoning and one that I would implore everyone
to explore in such a situation. But, as you said, "perhaps". It does not
directly follow that it is necessarily a bad law.

------
duairc
Oh come on, where are there so many copyright apologists here? Even if you're
a capitalist the concept of intellectual property doesn't make any sense.

~~~
dasil003
Don't be blinded by the abuse of copyright by megacorps. The idea that if
someone works hard on something, they ought to have some commercial control
over it is sound. Imagine you wrote a 1000-page novel. Isn't it reasonable for
the government to grant you exclusive publishing rights for 14 years? It
certainly seems like a sensible incentive for you as a creator. It's hard to
make the case that you deserve nothing simply because copying bits is easy.

~~~
vidarh
Most people who write novels never make any money of them, because they never
get published.

Most of the ones that do, makes a pittance.

The percentage of authors that actually makes a living publishing novels is
vanishingly small.

If the possibility of making lots of money writing novels is a big incentive
for you, presumably you're the type of person who also think they have a good
shot at making it big in Vegas.

I'm not necessarily dead set against copyright, but _if_ these people are
largely incentivized by money, then society could solve _that_ issue far
cheaper and with far fewer restrictions than what copyright provides for, and
still pay these people more money than they get today, by creating grants
awarded based on some measure of popularity.

~~~
geebee
Even if a novel is unlikely to have great commercial value, I see a great
benefit to short term copyright that provides meaningful but limited control
over the work to the creator. It's difficult to know what will be valuable in
advance.

Now, the current copyright of "life of the author plus seventy years, and oh,
wait, is that expiring? on second thought, let's go ahead and add another
fifty years unless we decide to go ahead and tack on another fifty years at
some point in the future"... that is utterly unjustifiable.

But keep in mind, even the EFF put out a comic satirizing both extremes IP
protection ("information, like, _wants_ to be free").

------
christiangenco
Let's figure out what the fine should be with math! :D

    
    
      (10+0)/2*0.32 + (100+11)/2*0.43 + (1000+101)/2*0.14 + (5000 + 1001)/2 * 0.03 + (100000+5001)/2*0.01 + (250000+100001)/2*0.01 
      = $2467.56

~~~
Natsu
You're not properly representing the large fraction of people who think the
fine should be zero. It's kind of confusing unless you read it carefully, but
49% of people do not support fines at all. That pie chart you're copying only
represents the other 51% of the population.

I mention that not to quibble with your formula, but because people seem to be
seeing that chart and missing that part of the explanation.

~~~
christiangenco
In that case, it would be:

    
    
      0.51 * ((10+0)/2*0.32 + (100+11)/2*0.43 + (1000+101)/2*0.14 + (5000 + 1001)/2 * 0.03 + (100000+5001)/2*0.01 + (250000+100001)/2*0.01) 
      = $1,258.46

------
joshAg
personally, i think that anyone caught infringing should pay a fine equal to
the cheapest retail price (over say, the past year) of the thing
infringed(like for like, if you pirated the hd version of a movie, you have to
buy the blu ray or hd dvd version. if you took a cam'ed version, you have to
buy a movie ticket), iff they do not already own it.

yeah, there's a whole bunch of issues that would have to be ironed out and
yes, there's no proof you would have even bought whatever you infringed on in
the first place, but i feel like its a much saner starting point than what we
have now.

~~~
tzs
I must be misunderstanding your proposal, because on the face of it that seems
to be so colossally ridiculous that I can't believe it is what you intended.
Did you misstate your proposal?

There would be virtually no disincentive to infringement under that proposal.
Why not just propose eliminating copyright?

~~~
joshAg
The disincentive is having to pay for the thing you pirated. Not to mention
attorney fees if you decide to fight the charge.

~~~
tzs
Case 1: you decide not to pirate. You pay retail price.

Case 2: you decide to pirate. You pay 0 with above a 99% chance. If you do get
caught, you can pay the minimal retail price over the last year.

What exactly do you see as a disincentive for choosing #2, since case 2 beats
case 1 in all cases?

~~~
kevinkemp
Not that I agree with his proposal, but youre assuming that someone wouldn't
pirate something that they weren't willing to pay money for. That almost
certainly isn't true for a significant population.

------
lurchpop
Here's a place where tort reform could be applied sanely.

------
anigbrowl
Those darn social science majors and their worthless degrees. If only they
would get real jobs! [http://piracy.ssrc.org/the-copy-culture-survey-
infringement-...](http://piracy.ssrc.org/the-copy-culture-survey-infringement-
and-enforcement-in-the-us/)

~~~
ugh
?

~~~
anigbrowl
I am lampooning a widespread bias that exists on HN against 'soft' sciences.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
bias implies people are unfairly disparaging the soft sciences. most of what I
see seems pretty fair.

~~~
dasil003
maybe you're biased?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
I think you're just saying I'm biased because you're biased against people who
disagree with your biases.

~~~
dasil003
hey, it was just a question.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias>

