Yeah, that's never going to happen. The prosecutor in their case came up with some fantastical amount of money TPB is supposed to have made, but it's complete nonsense (see the documentary TPB: AFK for details).
What makes you say that?
The question here is what the running costs of TPB is. My point is that those should mirror quite nicely the running costs of Wikipedia, since neither has "headcount cost" attached to each visitor. Both are mostly just serving static text on a website, and neither are paying royalty or click-throughs to third-parties based on visitor count.
In revenue, Wikipedia has donations and TPB has ads. Asking which revenue is bigger is very different from calculating costs. TPB might earn more revenue, but to figure that out one has to calculate the competitive price of advertise space for infamous websites. My guess is that the competitive price is quite low, sine few companies are willing to send untraceable money in order to advertise on a website that many companies and governments consider criminal.
So for revenue, I would look into what botnet spam and hijacked webservers brings in per eyeball. Multiply that with the visitor count of TPB, minus the running cost, and you should get a rather realistic number for the sites total income.
They scaled up a lot from that point too, so that is not an accurate picture of their costs at all.
For TPB advertisement, do you have numbers on how competitive advertisement space is for a website like the pirate bay? Would startups here forexample be willing to pay top dollars for ads there? Willing to use untraceable methods to pay for it?
I personally have a hard time seeing either PRQ or TPB as massive revenue sources at this point in time.
The money made from ads is probably a lot less than the ad revenue you know from other places, there are a lot of middlemen, ad networks, and money services involved and everyones takes their cut.
The reason I said that it's never going to happen is because they are simply unable to pay that amount back. They can't just pull millions out of thin air correct? So I think it's reasonable to conclude it will probably never get paid, at least not in full.
Personal bankruptcy is usually out of the question for debts arising from unlawful behaviour. You cannot evade damages or a penalty imposed by a court just by filing bankruptcy.
Imagine a legal system where you could. Preposterous.
That seems mildly misleading. Sentences can be extended beyond 20 years as long as the person is still believed to be dangerous to society.
You may conclude that someone is insane and force them to be institutionalized, but that is not prison, and the decision is not ever final.
I don't believe in the death penalty, but I also believe an essential function of prison is to remove the irredeemable from society so they aren't a threat anymore. I'm not sure you can classify anyone insane just for wanting to kill people, but I'm also not a psychologist. I also would not want to be the psychologist who released a serial murder considering him safe to return to society only for him to on another murder spree...
It's my opinion that a society cannot simultaneously hope to 'cure mental illness', while also simultaneously locking up people who do the same things as the mentally ill without them ever having any hope of rehabilitation (life imprisonment). I have never felt as if the judiciary system should be an extension of personal vengeance; to take two people out of the active society as a murder/life imprisonment does seems more unhealthy for the society in the long run than if the person in prison had a realistic chance at a productive life through means of rehabilitation.
The placement of blame is just all wrong. I wouldn't feel bad as a psychologist releasing a would-be-future-murderer, because as a psychologist I would understand that it was my job to assess the chances rather than make the person. Of course they know there is a chance of 'relapse', because even a sane person has the outlying chance to snap and become psychotic under the right conditions. I am sure that the psychologist would be saddened at the relapse of his patient and at whatever damage was caused by the patient, but I would surely hope that the psychologist would not feel personally responsible for the actions of their patients.
And what if they're a Schizophrenic, stop taking their meds (as such are wont to do) and murders someone even though they had been receiving help?
N.B.: this is not a hypothetical scenario, it describes one of the things that led to the brutal murder of my mother.
Then again, I don't think we ever had a serial killer. Maybe one, in the sixties, still unsolved. It's just probabilities at work. At ten million citizens, the odds are low.
It is my understanding that if you assault someone intending to injure them and accidentally kill them, that is murder in the second degree, unless they provoked you so much that the position of the law is "they were asking for it" (USA) (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-m... , http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/voluntary-mansl...). I can see your objection to serial killers, but the hypothetical 2nd-degree-murderer doesn't seem to be much risk unless you like to get into bar fights.
The same resource also points out that if anyone dies (and there's some sort of iffy connection to you) while you're committing a felony of any kind, you're guilty of murder. Robbing 7-11 with your buddy who you didn't realize was armed will get you convicted of murder if he happens to shoot and kill anyone.
// Swedish
It is a system for heavily indebted people to free themselves of their debt after living on a minimum for five years. It also includes damages due to crimes. [1] It is pretty rare however (5357 in 2013)[2].
There are two requirements: The person has to be indebted enough to not be able to pay off the debt in the foreseeable future, and the procedure has to be reasonable with regards to the personal and economical circumstances of the person.[3] This includes the age of the debt, why they came up and if the person has worked to pay them off.
[1] https://lagen.nu/dom/rh/1996:33 [2] http://www.kronofogden.se/20136.html [3] https://lagen.nu/2006:548 [4] http://www.kronofogden.se/Vemkanfaskuldsanering.html
The damages from a criminal case expire once Statute of limitations hits in, which is in this case 5 years (based on copyright infringement maximum jail time). I do not know when the timer starts to tick, but I would assume it starts once he is serving his sentence.