Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you serious or being sarcastic? 😄
just totally flabbergasted, I thought I was right. Like, man, obviously I'm mixing stuff up...
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I didn't.However, I did have a couple of avatars that were people smoking it.
I might have even had something in my sig, at one point.
3 cheers for memory
Originally posted by dadudemon
Anyway, I've posted twice, I think, that I don't smoke MJ beacuse it is illegal.
ya man, my bad for sure
Originally posted by FE Expert
2 million was too much. If $222,000 is too much as well, $80,000 would probably closer to reason.
You think a record company is entitled to $80 000 when they cannot show that the person is hindering their sales, nor is their any other measurable harm being done to the company?
EDIT: What exactly is the $80 000 covering at this point? what is the point of the lawsuit even?
Originally posted by inimalist
You think a record company is entitled to $80 000 when they cannot show that the person is hindering their sales, nor is their any other measurable harm being done to the company?EDIT: What exactly is the $80 000 covering at this point? what is the point of the lawsuit even?
Their trial expenditures, at the very least.
Perhaps record companies see the points of such trials that their targets don't. If the courts weren't so... overloaded, there would be a LOT more lawsuits like these.
Originally posted by FE Expert
Their trial expenditures, at the very least.
fair enough
Originally posted by FE Expert
Perhaps record companies see the points of such trials that their targets don't. If the courts weren't so... overloaded, there would be a LOT more lawsuits like these.
That still doesn't explain why a company is entitled to anything when they can show no material losses or harm based on a person's actions.
I'm pretty sure it could have happened differently with another judge. These are mere possibilities:
Judge #1: $222,000 awarded for damage with no criminal charge
Judge #2: $2 million awarded for damage with no criminal charge
Judge #3: $80,000 for trial expenditures with no damage awarded or criminal charge
Judge #4: Criminal charges without damage awarded
Judge #5: Innocent on all accounts
Originally posted by FE Expert
I'm pretty sure it could have happened differently with another judge. These are mere possibilities:Judge #1: $222,000 awarded for damage with no criminal charge
Judge #2: $2 million awarded for damage with no criminal charge
Judge #3: $80,000 for trial expenditures with no damage awarded or criminal charge
Judge #4: Criminal charges without damage awarded
Judge #5: Innocent on all accounts
ok
but, in a civil law suit, the party who was wronged must show damages caused by the party who did the wronging. I'm saying, there is no wrong. There are hypothetical wrongs. Courts shouldn't be giving settlements based on hypotheticals, especially to the tune of $80 000. $80 000 is more than most people make in a year. Hell, their are entire chains of CD distributors who don't make $80 000 for a record company from CD sales.
EDIT: trial expendatures are 80 grand?
haha, me = spamhound
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well how many places could she buy the songs from legally?
Originally posted by inimalist
can Wendy's sue me if I don't choose to eat from them?EDIT: Can Belmont sue me if I smoke black market cigs?
better example:
If I grow tobacco in my back yard, then start rolling it into cigs, and giving it to people, cigarette companies cannot sue me.
If I use their label, they can stop me, but because I am not profiting, they cannot take any money. It might even be arguable if they would have a copyright infringement case, as I can draw a picture of Spiderman and sell the original to you (though not any reproductions).
More directly though, the record companies, and not the chain distributors, are the ones who are suing (unless I'm totally off). It is a violation of the right to distribute copyrighted material and not material loss of sales to the stores that is being contested in the courts, as it is impossible to prove any material loss to stores from filesharing (one can only be inferred, which is not suitable in court).
I have seen the news for other civil court lawsuits where trial expenditures were actually disclosed. The case I remember best is that the defendant was awarded $325,000 (in a discrimination lawsuit) but spent about $150,000 in trial expenditures. So $80,000 (as far as trial expenditures go) seems a realistic amount.
Originally posted by inimalist
just totally flabbergasted, I thought I was right. Like, man, obviously I'm mixing stuff up...
lol
No worries.
Originally posted by inimalist
3 cheers for memory
I'll PM you something about that.
Originally posted by inimalist
ya man, my bad for sure
Again, no worries. If it were not illegal, I'd get a prescription and vape it for sure. Lord knows that I could use some relaxation when I'm bouncing off the walls.
Originally posted by inimalist
You think a record company is entitled to $80 000 when they cannot show that the person is hindering their sales, nor is their any other measurable harm being done to the company?EDIT: What exactly is the $80 000 covering at this point? what is the point of the lawsuit even?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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 [b]also
liable for statutory damages up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement; in this case, a maximum of $3,600,000. [/B]
Originally posted by inimalist
If I grow tobacco in my back yard, then start rolling it into cigs, and giving it to people, cigarette companies cannot sue me.If I use their label, they can stop me, but because I am not profiting, they cannot take any money.
One need not profit from infringement to be financially liable.
Originally posted by inimalist
It might even be arguable if they would have a copyright infringement case, as I can draw a picture of Spiderman and [b]sell the original to you (though not any reproductions).[/B]
Actually, you can't.