Slashdot Mirror
$616.57 Three Strikes Verdict Cost RIANZ $250,000
Dangerous_Minds writes "On Wednesday, we discussed news that RIANZ convicted its first file-sharer under the New Zealand three strikes law. While the fine totaled $616.57, a New Zealand Herald report points out that in order to get that fine, RIANZ had to spend $250,000. Freezenet makes an interesting point that HADOPI (France's version of the three strikes law) faced similar problems when the Socialist party commented that 12 million euros was a lot of money to pay 60 agents to send out 1 million e-mails. The question raised is whether or not this money pit trend will continue when the Copyright Alert System starts processing strike notices in the United States."
The problem is, it's worth $250K to MAFIAA. Every head publicly displayed on a pike serves a purpose: "pour encourager les autres". It's an advertising expense. Pay up, or this could happen to you, too.
Citizens see the cost situation like this:
Cost to pursue and prosecute these cases -(is greater than)- The return in fines + the benefit to society.
Politicians see it like this:
Donations to my campaign from the media industries + Future support from my party -(is greater than)- Any backlash from voters about the cost
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
This works both ways. If it cost $250,000 to prosecute in NZ, it will probably cost $250,000 to defend against in the US. Any interaction with the justice system in the US is likely to ruin one, financially if not emotionally.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
But is it? What if someone set up a fund? Every $1 you contribute costs them roughly $400
I am not a lawyer, but I now feel a strange urge to become one.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
It seems to me that RIANZ is doing better than the HADOPI as they charge the media companies $25 per warning while the cost of the French notices is only 10 euros.
Both of these are ridiculously low. Legal notices should cost at least $100.
These cushy arrangements are the result of blatant political corruption. "Fund my campaign, and we'll see to it that you get these bullshit unfair laws to prop up for decaying business model and undermine the free market"
Lobbying == legalized political corruption.
The American disease is spreading, first to the Anglo countries, and developing countries with weak governments, then Europe, then everyone else.
Too bad the anti-corruption movement, e.g. Lawrence Lessig's Rootstrikers can't getting any critical mass.
Red light traffic cameras
Ahh, but that's already happened.
If you look at what the man was accused of, you'll see that he's asked to prove a negative.
He was accused of downloading one file twice, and another file. What's interesting is that he admits to downloading the first file once, but he used bittorrent with default settings. So apparently, restarting your client now counts as a second download. What's also interesting is that he flat out denies downloading the Second file.
So, a man comes to this thing and flat out apologizes for downloading a file. This apparently means he's lying about everything else, and bam give us money or we'll violate your rights.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
RIANZ will be weighing $250,000 against the deterrent effect this will have on filesharers. NOT the return they get in fines.
Perhaps that's money well spent from their point of view. It doesn't seem like it, but I'm in no position to judge.
You can't spell "Pyrrhic victory" without "victory"! Yay!
I really believe that.
I also believe that some government is a lot better than no government. The current U.S. problem is WAY too much government.
Government is at it's best when it provides for the lightest possible framework for us to live and work together.
Sensible people can debate where to draw that line, but now in the U.S. at least, the only argument going is how much parasitic government we can have without immediately killing the host.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Did you read the New Zealand case? They already did away with "innocent until proven guilty". In particular
[14] There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues,. That is the nature of the decision being made on the papers. On the basis of the information available to it, however, together with the statutory presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work,, the Tribunal is satisfied that file sharing took place via the Respondent's internet account as alleged.
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/20135/RAINZ%20v%20Teleom.pdf
then later:
that's $150k right there, plus $100k to employ people to hunt/send stuff and lawyers is hardly unreasonable .. how the hell is this "insightful" when it's contradicted by the summary
Actually, file sharing is not in of itself a crime - file sharing is simply a transfer of date, what is being trnasferred could constitute a crime.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
> as in "Gee, that's my third ka-ching this year, and it's only February!"
I'm wondering how many ka-chings before "I was just watching these myself, but now I have to sell pirated DVDs to recoup costs."
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Then hold your government accountable for it, rather than just ignoring the laws you don't like. Your argument is an excuse, not a justification. And it's not even a good one.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".