3 ms·
This is a silly argument, though - she was not distributing in perpetuity, and the result is way out of proportion with actual damages. If a total of 100 song c
by ericd 16y ago
This is a silly argument, though - she was not distributing in perpetuity, and the result is way out of proportion with actual damages. If a total of 100 song copies were downloaded off of her computer, and market price of the songs are $1.30 on iTunes, the damages were no more than $130. In that case, it is as if she deprived them of a maximum of $130, and it should be treated as theft of that amount, at worst. Thieves don't pay back 10000x what they stole, they go to prison.
If she's very unlucky and it was downloaded 1.5 million times off of her computer (doubtful - Comcast would have shut down her computer for going way over her bandwidth quota, and the ratio of sharers to downloaders is quite a bit higher than 1:1000-1:1000000), then maybe it's justified.
This is even without factoring in the likelihood that those people would have bought that music otherwise, rather than downloading in bulk and listening to a small percentage, as is common.
- tzs 16y agoSo when three of the four major labels were refusing to give Apple permission to distribute DRM-free music on iTunes, but were allowing Amazon to distribute their music DRM free, would you argue that Apple could have just gone ahead and distributed the music without permission, as long as it went ahead and paid the labels the same that Amazon pays them?
- cma 16y agoSo when I start throwing rocks and break one window a day of your 5000-window house and announce this intention, when you take me to court and stop me with an injunction after 5 windows, you can go ahead and sue for the repair costs of 5000 windows?