5 ms·

I agree. Likely a quick checkmate in court.

by dsiegel2275 5y ago

wiz21c 5y ago
Stockfish has an opportunity to make money here. No?
- alexfromapex 5y ago
  It will be interesting, depends where jurisdiction falls and how that jurisdiction interprets any alleged damages since GPL content is normally released free of charge.
  - indymike 5y ago
    Copyright infringement can have large statutory damages that have nothing to do with the actual financial damage from the infringement.
    - yladiz 5y ago
      Case in point, the awards given against people who pirate something like a movie which are completely detached from the actual damage caused by the piracy.
      - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
        "Deterrent value", apparently.
      - rhizome 5y ago
        Yeah, that's what "statutory damages" means. In the US, if you have registered your copyright (distinct from the automatic copyright that attaches at creation), you are entitled to damages up to $150,000 per infringement. If 1,000 people can be proven to have downloaded that movie from you, that would be an unwelcome bill indeed. If 10,000, well then now you're starting to talk about real money.
        tzs 5y ago
        Statutory damages are per work infringed, not per infringement. They are normally from $750-30000 per work infringed. The lower limit can be lowered to $200 if the defendant can prove that they were an innocent infringer (they were not aware and had no reason to believe they were infringing). The defendant has the burden of proof for this. The upper limit can be raised to $150000 if the infringement is "willful". The statute does not define "willful". Courts have taken it to mean reckless disregard. The defendant knew they were infringing and did it anyway. The jury decides where in the range you end up, and they certainly might take into account the magnitude of your infringement so 10000 downloads might cost you more than 1000 by convincing the jury to choose somewhere high from the range, but the cap on the total will be $30k (or $150k if it was willful). Note that this means that willfully distributing 10000000 copies of one movies is going to be a lot better for the defendant than distributing a single copy each of 300 different movies, if the plaintiff elects to ask for statutory damages. The 10000000 copies of one movie is just one work infringed, so you are looking at $150000 worst case. The single copy each of 300 movies is 300 works infringed, so best case (assuming you are not an innocent infringer) is the minimal amount of statutory damages per work, $750, times 300 works = $225000. (But remember that the plaintiff gets to choose between statutory damages and actual damages. If you've distribute 10000000 copies of their movie, they'll probably go for actual damages which could be considerably more than $150000!)
        rhizome 5y ago
        Ugh, TIL "per work." I'm sure I've read past that 100 times. Too late to delete, but thanks for the tuneup.
    - Jolter 5y ago
      In Germany? Are you sure about that?
      - PennRobotics 5y ago
        It seems there has already been one similar case in Germany where an open source copyright violation occurred but no damages could be awarded. Specifically, a higher court overturned the damages permitted by a lower court. (in German) https://www.cmshs-bloggt.de/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz/urheberrecht/olg-hamm-kein-anspruch-auf-schadensersatz-bei-gpl-verletzung/ https://www.cmshs-bloggt.de/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz/urhebe...
        suyjuris 5y ago
        But crucially, in that case the infringer did not make money based on their infringement, and the actual infringement was minor. (Specifically, a university failed to provide a copy of the GPL license alongside a download of the software, which they offered free of charge.)
    - occamrazor 5y ago
      Statutory damages are virtually non-existent in Europe.
    - tzs 5y ago
      Germany does not appear to have statutory damages the way the US does, but they have something else that could work here. They seem to have three kinds of damages possible [1]. 1. Lost profits due to the infringement. 2. The profits the infringer made from the infringement. 3. The amount the infringer would have had to pay to license the work to use the way they did it if they had requested such a license from the copyright owner. The first one would likely not apply to something that is solely licensed under GPL, but the other two might, especially #2. I'm curious how #3 is determined. There is something similar in the US for patent infringement damages. That involves the court trying to determine what would have happened in a hypothetical negotiation if the patent owner had been willing to license the patent and the infringer had wanted to license the patent. That can work because usually with patents you can compare to other patent in the same or related field that are about as valuable and have been licensed out. I don't think that there are a lot of open source world class chess engines that are dual licensed for proprietary use that a court could use for comparison. [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cef58d76-21a2-4071-9abd-05b001388494 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cef58d76-21a2...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- elmo2you 5y ago
  I'm definitely not a lawyer/expert on this, even less about Germany specifically, but isn't actual financial damage required for financial compensation? While Stockfish might have suffered damage from ChessBase's behavior, if it can't be clearly specified as monetary damage, I don't really see how they could make money from this. On the other hand, if ChessBase is found (and ruled) to have distributed software illegally, the company and its executives might have another problem. I don't know the specifics of German law, but I believe that distributing software (or any product) illegally is actually a criminal offense (no longer a civil dispute). That could (theoretically/eventually) lead to criminal prosecution and who knows .. jail time?
  - jeremyjh 5y ago
    Step 1. Hire an expensive attorney. Step 2. Sue to recover attorney fees.
    - germanier 5y ago
      In German court proceedings you can only recover attorney fees up to the (pretty low) legal fee schedule (RVG). Anything above that you will have to pay yourselves
      - mananaysiempre 5y ago
        GP’s joke, I suspect, was that in practice every bit of money they get from the lawsuit, whether it is labeled “attorney fees” or not, is likely to go towards compensating the legal team, and not to the actual injured party. Which does not contradict your statement. (Part of the point of having a legal fee schedule is, I suppose, to put a damper on the prices of legal help, because, like in medicine, the demand is otherwise extremely inelastic: when you need it, you really need it. That does not appear to work. I wonder if there is an approach that would work.)
        groby_b 5y ago
        The German legal system does put somewhat of a damper on "every bit of money". First, it can only be charged as attorney fees, and if it exceeds the legal schedule, it needs to be very clearly called out as an attorney fee agreement. So "or not" is off the table. Secondly, there is a morality clause with regards to attorney fees, so usurious rates like some US attorneys charge are harder to achieve. This doesn't mean German attorneys are cheap. It's just not quite as out of control as the US legal system. (Though attorney's professional bodies are obviously lobbying to make it easier to charge more) The legal fee schedule does put a damper on attorney work, and more importantly, makes it somewhat easier to predict costs should you need an attorney. If it's enough of a damper is open to interpretation. I
dheera 5y ago
Hard to say, very often the sour-cream-and-onion-tiff* cannot afford the same quality of lawyers that the plain-tiff can. * I don't know what the opposite of a plain-tiff is
- Gaelan 5y ago
  Defendant, for the record, but your term is way better.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Plaintiff and Defendant. Complainant and Respondent

I agree. Likely a quick checkmate in court.

wiz21c 5y ago

Stockfish has an opportunity to make money here. No?

alexfromapex 5y ago
It will be interesting, depends where jurisdiction falls and how that jurisdiction interprets any alleged damages since GPL content is normally released free of charge.
- indymike 5y ago
  Copyright infringement can have large statutory damages that have nothing to do with the actual financial damage from the infringement.
  - yladiz 5y ago
    Case in point, the awards given against people who pirate something like a movie which are completely detached from the actual damage caused by the piracy.
    - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
      "Deterrent value", apparently.
    - rhizome 5y ago
      Yeah, that's what "statutory damages" means. In the US, if you have registered your copyright (distinct from the automatic copyright that attaches at creation), you are entitled to damages up to $150,000 per infringement. If 1,000 people can be proven to have downloaded that movie from you, that would be an unwelcome bill indeed. If 10,000, well then now you're starting to talk about real money.
      - tzs 5y ago
        Statutory damages are per work infringed, not per infringement. They are normally from $750-30000 per work infringed. The lower limit can be lowered to $200 if the defendant can prove that they were an innocent infringer (they were not aware and had no reason to believe they were infringing). The defendant has the burden of proof for this. The upper limit can be raised to $150000 if the infringement is "willful". The statute does not define "willful". Courts have taken it to mean reckless disregard. The defendant knew they were infringing and did it anyway. The jury decides where in the range you end up, and they certainly might take into account the magnitude of your infringement so 10000 downloads might cost you more than 1000 by convincing the jury to choose somewhere high from the range, but the cap on the total will be $30k (or $150k if it was willful). Note that this means that willfully distributing 10000000 copies of one movies is going to be a lot better for the defendant than distributing a single copy each of 300 different movies, if the plaintiff elects to ask for statutory damages. The 10000000 copies of one movie is just one work infringed, so you are looking at $150000 worst case. The single copy each of 300 movies is 300 works infringed, so best case (assuming you are not an innocent infringer) is the minimal amount of statutory damages per work, $750, times 300 works = $225000. (But remember that the plaintiff gets to choose between statutory damages and actual damages. If you've distribute 10000000 copies of their movie, they'll probably go for actual damages which could be considerably more than $150000!)
        rhizome 5y ago
        Ugh, TIL "per work." I'm sure I've read past that 100 times. Too late to delete, but thanks for the tuneup.
  - Jolter 5y ago
    In Germany? Are you sure about that?
    - PennRobotics 5y ago
      It seems there has already been one similar case in Germany where an open source copyright violation occurred but no damages could be awarded. Specifically, a higher court overturned the damages permitted by a lower court. (in German) https://www.cmshs-bloggt.de/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz/urheberrecht/olg-hamm-kein-anspruch-auf-schadensersatz-bei-gpl-verletzung/ https://www.cmshs-bloggt.de/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz/urhebe...
      - suyjuris 5y ago
        But crucially, in that case the infringer did not make money based on their infringement, and the actual infringement was minor. (Specifically, a university failed to provide a copy of the GPL license alongside a download of the software, which they offered free of charge.)
  - occamrazor 5y ago
    Statutory damages are virtually non-existent in Europe.
  - tzs 5y ago
    Germany does not appear to have statutory damages the way the US does, but they have something else that could work here. They seem to have three kinds of damages possible [1]. 1. Lost profits due to the infringement. 2. The profits the infringer made from the infringement. 3. The amount the infringer would have had to pay to license the work to use the way they did it if they had requested such a license from the copyright owner. The first one would likely not apply to something that is solely licensed under GPL, but the other two might, especially #2. I'm curious how #3 is determined. There is something similar in the US for patent infringement damages. That involves the court trying to determine what would have happened in a hypothetical negotiation if the patent owner had been willing to license the patent and the infringer had wanted to license the patent. That can work because usually with patents you can compare to other patent in the same or related field that are about as valuable and have been licensed out. I don't think that there are a lot of open source world class chess engines that are dual licensed for proprietary use that a court could use for comparison. [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cef58d76-21a2-4071-9abd-05b001388494 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cef58d76-21a2...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
elmo2you 5y ago
I'm definitely not a lawyer/expert on this, even less about Germany specifically, but isn't actual financial damage required for financial compensation? While Stockfish might have suffered damage from ChessBase's behavior, if it can't be clearly specified as monetary damage, I don't really see how they could make money from this. On the other hand, if ChessBase is found (and ruled) to have distributed software illegally, the company and its executives might have another problem. I don't know the specifics of German law, but I believe that distributing software (or any product) illegally is actually a criminal offense (no longer a civil dispute). That could (theoretically/eventually) lead to criminal prosecution and who knows .. jail time?
- jeremyjh 5y ago
  Step 1. Hire an expensive attorney. Step 2. Sue to recover attorney fees.
  - germanier 5y ago
    In German court proceedings you can only recover attorney fees up to the (pretty low) legal fee schedule (RVG). Anything above that you will have to pay yourselves
    - mananaysiempre 5y ago
      GP’s joke, I suspect, was that in practice every bit of money they get from the lawsuit, whether it is labeled “attorney fees” or not, is likely to go towards compensating the legal team, and not to the actual injured party. Which does not contradict your statement. (Part of the point of having a legal fee schedule is, I suppose, to put a damper on the prices of legal help, because, like in medicine, the demand is otherwise extremely inelastic: when you need it, you really need it. That does not appear to work. I wonder if there is an approach that would work.)
      - groby_b 5y ago
        The German legal system does put somewhat of a damper on "every bit of money". First, it can only be charged as attorney fees, and if it exceeds the legal schedule, it needs to be very clearly called out as an attorney fee agreement. So "or not" is off the table. Secondly, there is a morality clause with regards to attorney fees, so usurious rates like some US attorneys charge are harder to achieve. This doesn't mean German attorneys are cheap. It's just not quite as out of control as the US legal system. (Though attorney's professional bodies are obviously lobbying to make it easier to charge more) The legal fee schedule does put a damper on attorney work, and more importantly, makes it somewhat easier to predict costs should you need an attorney. If it's enough of a damper is open to interpretation. I

dheera 5y ago

Hard to say, very often the sour-cream-and-onion-tiff* cannot afford the same quality of lawyers that the plain-tiff can. * I don't know what the opposite of a plain-tiff is

Gaelan 5y ago
Defendant, for the record, but your term is way better.
alisonkisk 5y ago
Plaintiff and Defendant. Complainant and Respondent