21–30 of 143 posts
Awarded NZ$60,000 for “loss of dignity and injury to feelings” haha
I assume you're laughing because the sum was so small. It should have been at least 100x larger, in the millions.
I always wanted to know how is the damage done determined ? "U.S. authorities say Dotcom and three co-accused Megaupload executives cost film studios and record companies more than $500 million and generated more than $175 million by encouraging paying users to store and share copyrighted material." Distributing copyrighted stuff is illegal, period. But the way those calculations are made worries me. Do they start fr…
Both "distributing" and "copyrighted" are terms that some times have not such clear boundaries. Is giving your sibling a used DVD illegal? Is selling it to a 2nd hand store illegal? A book is clearly legal to resell, right? Then why wouldn't some digital material be? There is a whole industry interested in making you think that is illegal, so please don't spread FUD :)
I always wanted to know how is the damage done determined ? "U.S. authorities say Dotcom and three co-accused Megaupload executives cost film studios and record companies more than $500 million and generated more than $175 million by encouraging paying users to store and share copyrighted material." Distributing copyrighted stuff is illegal, period. But the way those calculations are made worries me. Do they start fr…
"the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
This is how Thomas-Rasset was at one time convicted to pay almost $2M for having shared 24 songs on Kazaa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma...
I always wanted to know how is the damage done determined ? "U.S. authorities say Dotcom and three co-accused Megaupload executives cost film studios and record companies more than $500 million and generated more than $175 million by encouraging paying users to store and share copyrighted material." Distributing copyrighted stuff is illegal, period. But the way those calculations are made worries me. Do they start fr…
In an adversarial system (in particular most systems that descend from English law), the claimant/plaintiff/prosecutor generally must claim a quantized liability at the start of proceedings, and then justify the quantum of liability. In some cases, some fraction (or even all) of the quantum may be subject to assessment by the court, which can consider the adversarial parties' pleadings and covering law (staute or case) and alter the quantum. In any event, if the defendant is not found liable, it very likely simply does not matter what the quantum of damages in the claim is (although a very high quantum can have an impact on the assessment of costs payable by the unsuccessful claimant in some circumstances, e.g. if a cheaper court cannot lawfully deal with such a large claim, or if there is over-reach in the face of something like an offer under England & Wales's Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) part 36).
The key point here is that the defending party will generally argue that it is not liable in the first place, and if it is liable then the quantum of damages is too high "for the following reasons...". If the court doesn't agree that the defendant is liable at all, then it usually does not deal with the question of damages, even if how they are calculated by the claimant looks a bit suspect. If the claimed damages are overstated in an outrageous way, many courts will take that into account, and that will not benefit the claimant.
In a case like this there likely will be litigation where Dotcom's litigation team will argue that the $500 and/or $175 million figure should be put to strict proof, and/or that it is unreasonably high (pointing to similar cases, for example). On the other hand, depending on the NZ court's rule on disclosure or discovery of evidence, that may expose them to having their books examined (at some cost) by the U.S. authorities.
> Distributing copyrighted stuff is illegal, period.
No; one may have a license from the copyright holder to distribute the material in question, there may be statutory license, or there may be defences against infringement claims in case law. Remember: there is copyright in everything that is produced from scratch by a human being in practically every jurisdiction in the world. I have copyright in this reply to you. You have copyright in the message I'm replying to. The sentence I quote above is a poor basis for you to raise a claim of copyright infringement since there is an implicit licensing, plausibly a mandatory licensing under HN TOS (since they necessarily made a copy and distributed one of those copies for me to read), a variety of defences based on concepts related to the U.S. doctrine of fair use, and local statute. You are free to liberally quote from this message in reply, and may do so entirely lawfully.
It's not like he's some principled crusader fighting for a precedent that affects all of us. He's just some creep who got rich off of deliberately running a site that facilitated piracy, and then managed to dodge the consequences because he is rich. Whoopitee doo.
Don't get me wrong I think the US copyright laws are screwed up and have been manipulated by awful corporations for decades. But his legal troubles don't really have any consequence on that front, things won't be any better because he wins (and won't be worse if he loses.) So I fail to see why anyone thinks it is interesting on any level.
Awarded NZ$60,000 for “loss of dignity and injury to feelings” haha
Why is this guy's legal troubles news? Honestly. There's tons of rich jerks like him who have legal troubles that we don't hear about. But for some reason he likes to put out press releases about every step of the way and then they actually get picked up and upvoted on sites like this. Why? I really don't understand. It's not like he's some principled crusader fighting for a precedent that affects all of us. He's jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to payouts in other common law jurisdictions, that is, indeed, laughable.
What would a typical payout be?
UK's record damages were in above GPB 2M