That seems to be the general consensus. How do you feel about these fines, personally? (aka, not as a law student) It seems obvious to me that those fines weren't meant to exist in a world where copyright infringement is difficult to avoid; where an 8 year old can infringe on 1000's of works before breakfast for damn near no cost.
I think there needs to be an exception for personal use-- anywhere the infringing files aren't being sold directly. I know that idea makes a copyright maximalist's head explode, but it seems to be the only option that makes any sense. (Keeping in mind that you can legislate morality. See: US Prohibition)
If you want to make someone buy your non-scarce product instead of copying it from an unofficial source, you have to make them *want* to; you can't scare them into being a customer.
Right, but they're not asking for a hypothetical, are they? They're not saying "Well, if she was hit with the maximum, would it be constitutionally legal?" They're asking if there is a constitutional limit to the amount someone can be charged for copyright infringement. That's not hypothetical. They could very well say yes, but the amount be greater than what JT has to pay.
I think they now know that JT was a bad case to be a champion, so they're trying to get whatever they can out of it, so when the next case goes to court maybe a little more sanity can be used when figuring these amounts.
I think that's why they're asking their question, and not yours.
Says someone who arbitrarily made up the odds of being caught being 1/100,000.
Where did that number come from? Like speeding, you're odds of being caught are quite high, if the police bother to enforce the law 100% of the time. Since they selectively enforce the law, you're odds appear to go up, but that's not because you're hiding it better, it's because they don't have the manpower to catch everyone.
They can attempt to download everything on a torrent site and harvest every IP address, and then the odds of being caught go up dramatically.
Put another way, if they hired one guy with a 20 year old computer on a dialup modem and told him he was the only guy trying to catch people infringing on copyright-- the odds of getting caught would be astronomical, and they could sue the one in a billion person for eleventy gazillion dollars for downloading one $1.29 song.
Very well, since you expect me to believe you weren't mad or crazy when writing that mad, crazy post, I'll expect you to believe that I have never once met a psychology major that wasn't at least moderately bat-shit crazy. My theory is that deep down they know they're crazy, so they have a subconscious desire to know how "normal" people behave, so they can attempt to emulate it.
Don't get me wrong, people should be mad at them, too, but when it comes down to with who to be mad at, I assign more blame to the people who put the country up for sale to the highest bigger, than the people who placed bids.