7 ms·
Interesting approach and I think it is a good direction. There are some differences though: sharing the files on the net is releasing them to a potentially broa
by voidpointer 16y ago
Interesting approach and I think it is a good direction. There are some differences though: sharing the files on the net is releasing them to a potentially broader audience. The patrons in a bar don't get to take home the music they listen to on their mp3 player. Maybe a comparison to unlicensed broadcasting is more appropriate?
- c1sc0 16y agoBut imagine if they could?! Right now, there is no technical reason why this is not possible, all hurdles are legal ones.
- dedward 16y agoThere is a distinct legal difference between performance of a work and copying.... if you were recording the thing at the bar and then distributing copies - it would be the latter. The point the judge is making here is more like "Hey - in performance related damages - we punish violators who knowingly and blatantly refused to follow the law to their direct commercial benefit, and the only pay a few thousand bucks in damages compared to the licensing fees. (4, or 5 figures in the extreme.) Now, even though it's not the same issue precisely, it seems grossly out of place that a person at home who shared some music with a few people for non-commercial reasons is being assessed damages in the 6 to 7 figure ranges...and that just seems absurd. I mean seriously - some Mom goes out and shares a song on some bittorrent setup - and we're saying she owes a MILLION DOLLARS?
- jlcgull 16y agotime for someone who is a lawyer to weigh in ... calling grellas !!
- voidpointer 16y agoThe high figures seem to result from the fact that the *AA argue that the file was _potentially_ shared with _millions_ of people around the internet. I wonder why they are not required to prove every single instance of downloading that they claiming damages from...