What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.

True, but the punitive damages are set as a multiple of the damage done. I want them to be as a percentage of the revenue / valuation of the party at fault.

The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist.

In a system where punitive damages are a percentage of the valuation of the corporate entity that committed the crime, repeatedly breaking the law would force massive issuances of equity to the victims. For particularly lawless companies, this would mean the current owners equity would be diluted to the point where they would cede control of the company to the wronged parties.

To pick a different industry, this means that ownership of most coal mines would have been transferred to the miners and surrounding towns years ago (unless they stopped flouting safety and environmental regulations).

If you want punitive action, balance and justice in one package, aim high: eye for an eye.

For each case of copyfraud, have the defrauder lose copyright for one item in their catalogue and placed into public domain. The item? Victim's choice.

When legislatures come up with a penalty that depends on say a percentage of global turnover, HN lights up at the iniquity of it. Despite that being in a jurisdiction that demands proportionality in penalties, so it's a maximum that will rarely if ever levied, and only on the largest corporates.

"The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist."

This is such a strange comment to me. "Investors" use electricity, live in neighborhoods in California, etc. Why would they want to destroy that stuff? Or are you saying that investors that live far away and have a fraction of a percent of their money invested in PG&E through a mutual fund have the desire or the ability to cause PG&E to do bad things? Assuming they do, how do you envision a diversified investor be punished, even if you took away the whole thing?

FWIW there’s a lot more to that hot coffee lawsuit that people tend to generalize. It’s worth reading up on it.

It's been mentioned many times that there were "third degree burns". When I long ago read a definition, it said 3rd degree burns involve charred skin. That may not be quite accurate, but something still seems off. When I brew coffee or handle a pot of boiling water in the kitchen, I don't feel as though I'm risking "third degree burns".

Regardless of whether you feel you're risking third degree burns, you are.

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3

> Hot Water Causes Third Degree Burns… …in 1 second at 156º …in 2 seconds at 149º …in 5 seconds at 140º …in 15 seconds at 133º.

Sure, but I was referring to a spill. If I spill hot water on myself, I don't expect the consequences to be the same as being immersed in it at constant temperature. Both because the time is short and it cools as it falls and spatters.

I mean, I have spilled boiling water on myself occasionally and I don't think I got third degree burns.

Although maybe I'm just comfortably numb.

When you drive a car you probably don't feel like you're risking fatal road accidents happen either but it happens.

Third degree burns happen with boiling hot water, any boiling water is dangerous and potentially lethal if mishandled. People underestimate the energy stored in that water.

They may have paid millions, but not necessarily.

The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...