Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by Morgan
Thread beginning with comment 487235
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: I just don't get it Thom
by Neolander on Sat 27th Aug 2011 11:07
in reply to "RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom"
If you have virtually no income, then you can't afford a server to put Photoshop on and its internet connection, I think.
The idea of proportional punishment is to make wrongdoers suffer in a similar way for a similar issue, regardless or how rich their are. You're right that it's not the only way to achieve this result. Prison sentences are another way. And as much as I hate this methodology, cutting home internet connections is "fair" too. It's a big loss for pretty much everyone nowadays.
RE[5]: I just don't get it Thom
by Radio on Sat 27th Aug 2011 13:00
in reply to "RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom"
"Actually, I think that part of this could be addressed if the fines were defined as a percentage of each person or entity's revenue, just like some taxes are.
That would be crazy. "Well, europeans are crazy then:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-11/news/17823924_1_mph-limit-spe...




Member since:
2005-11-18
That would be crazy. Suppose I have virtually no income, and distribute Photoshop with license keys on my server. It would suddenly be very interesting for people to put copies of photoshop on their servers.
I agree there is something wrong in how the system treats individuals and small parties. But I am not sure that this is the solution.
It would, maybe, be more interesting to look at the actual loss. What is the loss if a million people download Photoshop, who could not afford to buy it in the first place?
What is the loss when somebody downloads twenty albums per month, when he only has the budget to buy five (and does so)?