6 ms·

> What annoys me about this is that the extra payment does not appear to have been decided based on losses, but more punitive How are you going to deter fraud

> What annoys me about this is that the extra payment does not appear to have been decided based on losses, but more punitive How are you going to deter fraud if the only penalty is a reimbursement of the stolen money? That incentivizes everyone to commit fraud because the penalty would be to go back to status quo ante. You'd be a sucker not to commit fraud.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Were they guilty of fraud? I don't think the court found that. Now granted I agree with you, that there needs to be a deterrent, but it doesn't seem like the article says that is the reason for the higher damages. It says that, it's for public good basically. What I'm questioning is the basis for the increase in damages.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  There were definitely elements of 'significant attempts to mislead'. The most glaring? The copy of the original score supplied during Discovery by Warner? Perfectly clear and legible. Except for (shocking) the Copyright/Authorship line at the bottom, which was smeared beyond recognition. Warner resisted supplying the original, saying the copy was a perfect facsimile. When eventually ordered to do so, (shocking), the Copyright/Authorship line was perfectly legible too, contradicted Warner's claim, and showed that Warner had had no authority or right to be licensing performance.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Incredible. Do you have a link?
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      Trying to find something definitive, and some of my details weren't accurate: "The "smoking gun" in the whole thing was the copy of the original publication that Warner presented to the court. It has a smudged-out piece of text that they claimed no knowledge of. Someone found a copy of the book in a library, and the text wasn't smudged out. It was the original copyright information." - https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/15/12/10/2156223/happy-birthday-to-you-set-to-finally-reach-the-public-domain https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/15/12/10/2156223/ha... Oh, here we go, smoking gun: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150727/16042931768/happy-birthday-copyright-bombshell-new-evidence-warner-music-previously-hid-shows-song-is-public-domain.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150727/16042931768/happy... (see images on the above).
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        Blimey, who's going to prison for that? Perjury is a crime in USA isn't it; or is it one of those 'doesn't apply if you're rich' crimes.
        bluejekyll 10y ago
        It's one of those crimes that requires knowingly lying. If you can convince the court that you were honestly mistaken, who's to say that you weren't? It might be hard to enforce in this case.
        pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        The original they provided a copy from wasn't blurred/smudged and they claimed under oath that it was? Sounds pretty clear cut - are they going to claim they had a booger on their glasses or something?? The smudged bit being the vital information pertinent to the case, seems to be beyond reasonable doubt on that basis, would be interested to hear the story their lawyers concoct ... sure it would/will be equal to some of Disney's greatest works of fiction.

bluejekyll 10y ago

Were they guilty of fraud? I don't think the court found that. Now granted I agree with you, that there needs to be a deterrent, but it doesn't seem like the article says that is the reason for the higher damages. It says that, it's for public good basically. What I'm questioning is the basis for the increase in damages.

FireBeyond 10y ago
There were definitely elements of 'significant attempts to mislead'. The most glaring? The copy of the original score supplied during Discovery by Warner? Perfectly clear and legible. Except for (shocking) the Copyright/Authorship line at the bottom, which was smeared beyond recognition. Warner resisted supplying the original, saying the copy was a perfect facsimile. When eventually ordered to do so, (shocking), the Copyright/Authorship line was perfectly legible too, contradicted Warner's claim, and showed that Warner had had no authority or right to be licensing performance.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Incredible. Do you have a link?
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Trying to find something definitive, and some of my details weren't accurate: "The "smoking gun" in the whole thing was the copy of the original publication that Warner presented to the court. It has a smudged-out piece of text that they claimed no knowledge of. Someone found a copy of the book in a library, and the text wasn't smudged out. It was the original copyright information." - https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/15/12/10/2156223/happy-birthday-to-you-set-to-finally-reach-the-public-domain https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/15/12/10/2156223/ha... Oh, here we go, smoking gun: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150727/16042931768/happy-birthday-copyright-bombshell-new-evidence-warner-music-previously-hid-shows-song-is-public-domain.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150727/16042931768/happy... (see images on the above).
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      Blimey, who's going to prison for that? Perjury is a crime in USA isn't it; or is it one of those 'doesn't apply if you're rich' crimes.
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        It's one of those crimes that requires knowingly lying. If you can convince the court that you were honestly mistaken, who's to say that you weren't? It might be hard to enforce in this case.
        pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        The original they provided a copy from wasn't blurred/smudged and they claimed under oath that it was? Sounds pretty clear cut - are they going to claim they had a booger on their glasses or something?? The smudged bit being the vital information pertinent to the case, seems to be beyond reasonable doubt on that basis, would be interested to hear the story their lawyers concoct ... sure it would/will be equal to some of Disney's greatest works of fiction.