The judgment is a combination of actual damages, i.e. the quantifiable monetary losses of the copyright holder; and statutory damages, which may be up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement.
Anyone who unlawfully appropriates literary; musical; dramatic; choreographic and pantomime; graphic, pictorial, and sculptural; audiovisual and motion picture; sound recording; and architectural works may be liable for copyright infringement.
Doesn't follow, as there isn't really a precedent and claiming "quantifible" here is all but arbitrary.
If the songs are being sold for $0.99 cents each, the jury/judge is assuming she would be [illegally] handing them off directly to 80k other people online and making her directly responsible for each offense with that $80k fine, which is unprovable and highly improbable.
Edit: It'd be similar to, if you permanently crippled me with your car where I couldn't work ever again, then I sued you for $100 million dollars, because it's possible [though highly improbable] that I could have made that much before I retired or died.
Though fortunately for you, there are precedents and their is legal settings for how much each body part costs, you'd be surprised how little a spine goes for.
__________________ RUN RABBIT RUN
STRIKE OUT BOYS, FOR THE HILLS
I CAN FIND THAT HOLE IN THE WALL
AND I KNOW THAT THEY NEVER WILL
Last edited by Robtard on Jun 19th, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Exactly. First off, I've never seen evidence of how they "find" the people doing this. I think it would be a fair assumption that she downloaded more than 24 songs. Most P2P system allow you to see all the files a user will share but that doesn't mean you can find out where they are.
At my college, they would charge people $ 5,000 for a select amount of downloads if they agreed to some sort of plea., but that is also an outrageous number.
An entire album is normally worth $15 today. There is no fair reason that any corporation should be able to charge someone hundreds of times beyond that amount even if they did steal it. As mentioned earlier, someone who robs a store might have to pay back for the amount stolen, but they don't charge percentages over that. I understand media can be replicated easily, but that still doesn't condone charging someone an amount that obviously could not be paid by this woman or her future generations.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
Indeed. You gotta be in it for the love of it. Big gigs can be few and far between (Ive not been too active, myself of late) and you wanna make that money count, of course, but the reality always seems to be no matter your paycheck, someone is always there to make off of what you do, often at your detriment. Usually the record company if someone is signed, and it goes beyond renumeration with these folk.
So it garners little sympathy when those greedy people get hit for it, among many. But the artist seems to take a hit for it too.
No excusing piracy, per say, but I agree that each case should be proportional.
__________________
Les Paul (1915-2009) RIP
Last edited by Sadako of Girth on Jun 19th, 2009 at 11:47 PM
When my mother was injured at work 15+ years ago, her lawyer had the spread-sheet out, iirc, I think 'unrepairable spinal damage' was around $50k. This is of cource a base and circumstances can cahnage it, but $50k for a spine? Doesn't sound like a logical base, especially when some woman is getting taken anally sans lube for 24 songs.
If you earch online for "loss of use", and maybe throw in the search 'legal', 'body parts', 'workers comp', you should find something. It does vary from state to state, but I don't think by large margins.
__________________ RUN RABBIT RUN
STRIKE OUT BOYS, FOR THE HILLS
I CAN FIND THAT HOLE IN THE WALL
AND I KNOW THAT THEY NEVER WILL
If the woman was found to be liable for 24 instances of copyright infringement, and the market value of each work is .99¢, then the actual damages, or quantifiable monetary losses, is $23.76.
However, she is also liable for statutory damages up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement; in this case, a maximum of $3,600,000.
Gender: Male Location: USA, Oklahoma. Pewpy balls.
Partially true.
There is not host SAN to the that distributor uploads to.
However, the uploading occurs on the distributor's end. They are considered the ad hoc server. The download occurs on the downloader's side.
So, yes, there are uploaders and downloaders in the real sense of those terms...just in a P2P environment, the client-server relationship is very dynamic...as each computer in the P2P network is both.
Now, about this thread.
Stupid stupid stupid music industry. Why can't the Muslim extremists focus on the RIAA and the MPAA...they are obviously the real devils.
Which they hit her with about 50% of the max, which is still bullshit, considering it's a bullshit law, since it allows for a much greater pay-out per actual lose to the infringed upon. I'm not arguing that she's innocent, just that the fine doesn't fit the crime.
Might as well fine someone $50k, if they steal $20.00 Gap shirt.
__________________ RUN RABBIT RUN
STRIKE OUT BOYS, FOR THE HILLS
I CAN FIND THAT HOLE IN THE WALL
AND I KNOW THAT THEY NEVER WILL
Last edited by Robtard on Jun 20th, 2009 at 07:20 AM
Regardless, the software only facilitates the transfer of files, it does not provide a proprietary environment for the transfer to take place, so the software developer is not vicariously infringing any copyrighted works.
Technically, the punishment does fit the crime . . . as prescribed by law; it is simply not proportional to the crime.
Gender: Male Location: USA, Oklahoma. Pewpy balls.
In your defense, you put "upload" in quotes. But I figured I'd make it clear before some idiot thought that P2P wasn't uploading.
The "proprietary" environment IS the P2P software being used and the computers the data is transferring over. i.e. Azerus Vuze, Bittorrent, etc.
But you are correct. It is the user of the software that is breaking the law. However, I don't think anyone was arguing that it's the software companies' fault for their software being used for illegal actions.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 19th, 2009 11:19 PM
