Comment Re:It was just $6.37 for the actual infringement (Score 1) 102
That's the idea behind a deterrent. If the fine is so low that people are willing to pay it and go on their merry way if they get caught, there's no point in it. The deterrent needs to be high enough to make people think twice before doing it and $120 per infringement, plus covering reasonable overhead costs is right about what it should be, otherwise why bother having copyright law at all?
I think the argument is what you define as "per infringement".
It is just as easy to share a whole library as it is to share a single song. Does that mean each sharing of a song is a single act of infringement? If so, someone's kid could still create a life-destroying event quite quickly. (5,000 songs x $120, plus other fees.)
However, if that is a single act of infringement, it's $120 plus other fees, which would still be double the cost of all the songs according to this panel.
One is a stiff fee and one is life-destroying amount for most people. Both results can come from a kid messing around on my computer for 10 minutes.
Maybe if you don't think $120 is enough of a deterrent, you could raise it to $500 or something, but I have a hard time believing each shared song should be considered a separate act. They certainly don't need a separate physical action to do, and if I steal a CD from the store it's a single act of shoplifting and not a separate act for each song on the CD. Even if I steal 2 boxed sets and 6 video games it's still one act, just one of higher value.