Quote: "Its not corrupt, both people would serve the same sentence."
Of course it's corruptible. If a business can easily afford the fine, then what's to deter them from breaking the law again? Businesses sometimes take risks if they know it boosts their profits, what's to stop them from making risks within the law? If they can easily afford the fine then the business really doesn't suffer for its crime.
Quote: "This girl should already know that copyright infringement is a crime, if you commit a crime you should serve, if you dont serve then whats the point in laws?"
Then you've not really read my response. I didn't say 'don't serve her for her crimes', I said, 'don't punish her so severe'. I think she should get a harsh punishment, but not a punishment that could screw her for life, there's no way an average person could dream of paying $88million. Like I said, at least murderers get to walk free after so many years.
But since when was 'money' more important than quality of life? Some people are left far worse off than Blizzard by crimes that are considered by law 'lesser' than copyright infringement, and at the same time the culprit is still punished, but not as severely. There's something wrong with the law there.
I tend not to buy these "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" arguments when talking about the severity of a law, because for any crime and punishment, it could be 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime', so why not reintroduce the Bloody Code? I mean, nobody can afford to do the time then, unless they're feeling suicidal. This is why I say punishment ought to be proportionate. Plus it's completely the wrong attitude, because what if you
can do the time? Then does that mean they can do the crime? No, it shouldn't mean that at all. Businesses earning in the high millions or even in the billions can afford to get away with copyright infringement and clashes with patents. They might consider it a worthy risk at least.
Hence I think if the punishment is going to be a fine, it needs to be proportionate to how much a person suffers for it - is it fair that in one situation a person comes off screwed for life, yet in the next another they recover quickly?
Blizzard could easily recover from the damages, the woman won't likely to be able to recover from her crime. She shouldn't get away with it, I agree, as nobody should be able to get away with their crime, but I don't think punishment should be based on monetary value, but rather suffering proportionate to that of which they caused...well, obviously drawing the line at some point (I mean, we wouldn't torture a torturer).
Click!
