"Rojo didn't have to relocate, the .es domain was already up and being used. Losing 1/3 of their traffic is just as likely as a result of people realizing that what they were doing is illegal, and that they should not use the site. (prove otherwise). Clearly, if they only lost 1/3 of their traffic, they didn't lose their free speech rights."
Wait... Do you even know where Rojadirecta was targeted? IE, not even the US? And that's because watching a stream of a futbol game is illegal in their country, when the courts have twice vetted RD?
"No channel of communication was blocked."
People keep saying that when their forums were taken down with the domain name... I wonder why the misleading argument?
"This is a question of "substantial hardship" here, and your indication that 2/3 of their traffic still found them even after legal action suggests that any hardship is not substantial."
Because they are a larger corporation with the resources to have backup servers while the government bullies them... Gotcha.
Get into an accident or park your car while the police clean up. They're saving jobs by having the police come out to you. That's Charlie Sheen thinking right there!
"You mention providing examples, but if I recall correctly your examples were the verdicts in three cases, and were not directed to the ease by which you believe actual damages can be proven."
That was not the case. My argument is here. I'm criticizing the AC for his correlation and provided examples of ways They are losing artists to new methods of distribution, because they no longer represent the artist.
Also, it should be noted, not every download is a sale per se. This is the problem with the critical AC who I was responding to. I have to ask, is the downloaded mp3 an alternative to other forms of media? Does it replace it? When a stream is watched, does that mean no one else can watch the same thing? That's the problems with the law as is. It's why I won't ever think this is a legal issue. The law just so happens to criminalize downloading unnecessarily, and the industry can't find ways to differentiate legal from illegal files, which makes the entire process even MORE difficult. These are just some of the problems I see in the suing strategy.
"Even if economic damages were easy to prove in the context of a copyright suit, the law is clear that statutory damages can be sought in liew of actual damages even if no actual damage has transpired. This is no accident because one of the purposes of damages in any tort action is to "encourage" the defendant to stop engaging in the conduct that gave rise to the suit in the first place."
Let's really think about this though... Did Tenenbaum, Harper, or Thomas harm the economic availability of the song through their download? Bear in mind, the songs are available illegally as well as legally. Whether on Kazaa or iTunes, can you really say that it harmed the artist?
Can you say having a streaming service like Spotify, if it were around for these three, would have substituted these "sales", saving the industry a lot of hassle?
What I noticed is people are focused on "yeah, she did it. Now she's got to pay something". The reason no one respects this law is because of the amounts it has charged with it. It doesn't matter that she's been in a jury trial or not. If the instructions say "pick a number between $750 - $150,000, and charge it per work" then how can you say that amount is going to effectively deter anyone else from filesharing?
By now, everyone has read the Jammie Thomas case. They're familiar with the million dollar verdict. Has this stopped filesharing in any regard? If anyone is sued for copyright lawsuits, what is that based on? Right now, it's easier to just settle for a few thousand dollars than go to trial, which exposes the problem as it did here.
The jury instructions read thusly:
“Willful” means that a defendant had knowledge that her actions constituted copyright infringement or acted with reckless disregard of the copyright holder’s rights. You are hereby instructed that a jury in a previous trial has already determined that the defendant’s infringement of plaintiffs’ copyrights was willful. In this case, there is no issue as to the defendant’s liability for willful copyright infringement. As a result, your sole responsibility is to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs for the defendant’s willful infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights.
In this case, each plaintiff has elected to recover “statutory damages” instead of actual damages and profits. A copyright holder may recover statutory damages even if it did not submit evidence regarding actual damages. Under the Copyright Act, each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license). Because the defendant’s conduct was willful, then each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of up to $150,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just.
In determining the just amount of statutory damages for an infringing defendant, you may consider the willfulness of the defendant’s conduct, the defendant’s innocence, the defendant’s continuation of infringement after notice or knowledge of the copyright or in reckless disregard of the copyright, the effect of the defendant’s prior or concurrent copyright infringement activity, whether profit or gain was established, harm to the plaintiff, the value of the copyright, the need to deter this defendant and other potential infringers, and any mitigating circumstances.
The bold is my emphasis. Rather than a range for all damages, the law is a sticking point. So unless the law is changed to have the prosecutors find economic damages (or the ranges go down), which enables statutory damages, there really isn't much more to say in how the litigation will continue to be pointless in regulating filesharing behavior.
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rules were enacted by Congress and basically nothing has been done to repeal them, merely add more rules to the mix.
Is it fraud? I don't think I have to answer that question.
Remember, the first rule of economics is "People respond to incentives".
The first rule of politics is "Ignore the first rule of economics".
On the post: Puerto 80 Explains How Rojadirecta Domain Seizures Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Police Ticket Guy Who Helped Direct Traffic After Traffic Light Failure; Then Leave Without Handling Traffic
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Yahoo Blocking People From Sending Any Email That Mentions OccupyWallSt.org?
Re: Re:
Seriously, it's easier for law enforcement to get information about you than it is for YOU to find stuff about you. How much sense does that make?
On the post: Puerto 80 Explains How Rojadirecta Domain Seizures Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting...
On the post: Puerto 80 Explains How Rojadirecta Domain Seizures Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
Wait... Do you even know where Rojadirecta was targeted? IE, not even the US? And that's because watching a stream of a futbol game is illegal in their country, when the courts have twice vetted RD?
"No channel of communication was blocked."
People keep saying that when their forums were taken down with the domain name... I wonder why the misleading argument?
"This is a question of "substantial hardship" here, and your indication that 2/3 of their traffic still found them even after legal action suggests that any hardship is not substantial."
Because they are a larger corporation with the resources to have backup servers while the government bullies them... Gotcha.
On the post: Police Ticket Guy Who Helped Direct Traffic After Traffic Light Failure; Then Leave Without Handling Traffic
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And... When does this go to court again?
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
In response to...
"You mention providing examples, but if I recall correctly your examples were the verdicts in three cases, and were not directed to the ease by which you believe actual damages can be proven."
That was not the case. My argument is here. I'm criticizing the AC for his correlation and provided examples of ways They are losing artists to new methods of distribution, because they no longer represent the artist.
Also, it should be noted, not every download is a sale per se. This is the problem with the critical AC who I was responding to. I have to ask, is the downloaded mp3 an alternative to other forms of media? Does it replace it? When a stream is watched, does that mean no one else can watch the same thing? That's the problems with the law as is. It's why I won't ever think this is a legal issue. The law just so happens to criminalize downloading unnecessarily, and the industry can't find ways to differentiate legal from illegal files, which makes the entire process even MORE difficult. These are just some of the problems I see in the suing strategy.
"Even if economic damages were easy to prove in the context of a copyright suit, the law is clear that statutory damages can be sought in liew of actual damages even if no actual damage has transpired. This is no accident because one of the purposes of damages in any tort action is to "encourage" the defendant to stop engaging in the conduct that gave rise to the suit in the first place."
Let's really think about this though... Did Tenenbaum, Harper, or Thomas harm the economic availability of the song through their download? Bear in mind, the songs are available illegally as well as legally. Whether on Kazaa or iTunes, can you really say that it harmed the artist?
Can you say having a streaming service like Spotify, if it were around for these three, would have substituted these "sales", saving the industry a lot of hassle?
What I noticed is people are focused on "yeah, she did it. Now she's got to pay something". The reason no one respects this law is because of the amounts it has charged with it. It doesn't matter that she's been in a jury trial or not. If the instructions say "pick a number between $750 - $150,000, and charge it per work" then how can you say that amount is going to effectively deter anyone else from filesharing?
By now, everyone has read the Jammie Thomas case. They're familiar with the million dollar verdict. Has this stopped filesharing in any regard? If anyone is sued for copyright lawsuits, what is that based on? Right now, it's easier to just settle for a few thousand dollars than go to trial, which exposes the problem as it did here.
The jury instructions read thusly:
“Willful” means that a defendant had knowledge that her actions constituted copyright infringement or acted with reckless disregard of the copyright holder’s rights. You are hereby instructed that a jury in a previous trial has already determined that the defendant’s infringement of plaintiffs’ copyrights was willful. In this case, there is no issue as to the defendant’s liability for willful copyright infringement. As a result, your sole responsibility is to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs for the defendant’s willful infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights.
In this case, each plaintiff has elected to recover “statutory damages” instead of actual damages and profits. A copyright holder may recover statutory damages even if it did not submit evidence regarding actual damages. Under the Copyright Act, each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license). Because the defendant’s conduct was willful, then each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of up to $150,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just.
In determining the just amount of statutory damages for an infringing defendant, you may consider the willfulness of the defendant’s conduct, the defendant’s innocence, the defendant’s continuation of infringement after notice or knowledge of the copyright or in reckless disregard of the copyright, the effect of the defendant’s prior or concurrent copyright infringement activity, whether profit or gain was established, harm to the plaintiff, the value of the copyright, the need to deter this defendant and other potential infringers, and any mitigating circumstances.
The bold is my emphasis. Rather than a range for all damages, the law is a sticking point. So unless the law is changed to have the prosecutors find economic damages (or the ranges go down), which enables statutory damages, there really isn't much more to say in how the litigation will continue to be pointless in regulating filesharing behavior.
On the post: Police Ticket Guy Who Helped Direct Traffic After Traffic Light Failure; Then Leave Without Handling Traffic
Re:
On the post: Police Ticket Guy Who Helped Direct Traffic After Traffic Light Failure; Then Leave Without Handling Traffic
Re:
On the post: If Righthaven Declares Bankruptcy, Expect Lawyers To Go After Stephens Media, Media News, And Righthaven Principals
Re: Re: Re: No double standards.
On the post: Puerto 80 Explains How Rojadirecta Domain Seizures Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re:
On the post: Full List Of Sites The US Air Force Blocked To Hide From Wikileaks Info; Includes NY Times & The Guardian
News had just come in that the officers working military intelligence go home, download the cables, then talk about them over the water cooler.
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?
There is plenty of free entertainment that can replace tv content. So good luck in trying to control everyone's way to view content.
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re: Re: Re: What part of free do you not understand?
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re:
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re: Re: What part of free do you not understand?
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>