4 ms·
$675,000 divided by $1.29 comes out to 523,255 copies distributed, which is ludicrous.
by chrisbolt 17y ago
$675,000 divided by $1.29 comes out to 523,255 copies distributed, which is ludicrous.
- noonespecial 17y ago$38.70 is also ludicrous, but for the opposite reason. We can't get to the place where we start to ask "how many copies were reasonably distributed and what might the actual damage be?" until we clarify what the actual accusation is. To the typical user, who thinks that all that is in question is $40 worth of downloads, $20,000 and $200,000 are equally ridiculous damage demands.
- protomyth 17y agoI used $38.70 as the basis for what would have been bought. Most damages are based on something lost. How many seeds got data from the defendant? Is there some number that can be arrived at? I am not sure, I just don't think the amount of damage of the fine is reasonable.
- noonespecial 17y agoI am not sure, I just don't think the amount of damage of the fine is reasonable. Of course not. Its so off the charts irrational, batshit-insane is about the only description that fits. I'm just saying that until we get to the place where everyone understands that the real meat of the accusation is mass distribution, we won't have a meaningful dialog about what actual damages might be. Until then its just 3vi1-R144 vs. p1rat3z and most people will just believe that its all about "stealing" $20 worth of Britney Spears.
- protomyth 17y agoI understand the distribution, but I think some of the problem is the difference between distribution with intent to profit and distribution as part of getting the data. One is the intent at committing a criminal act for profit; the other is consequences of the technology means for committing a single criminal act.