3 ms·
> The author most certainly did lose something: sales. But they didn't lose 6000 sales, they lost however many sales they would have made at $6. So it's trick
by cbr 15y ago
> The author most certainly did lose something: sales.
But they didn't lose 6000 sales, they lost however many sales they would have made at $6. So it's tricky to quantify the damages.
- danssig 15y agoAgreed. I'd say 10% is probably fair.
- Dylan16807 15y agoIt's tricky to figure out the damage, yes, but I think an award of sales times normal royalties would be fair here. If the RIAA went for the number of whole copies distributed times normal sale price times three in their lawsuits I wouldn't find them to be a terrible organization.
- mikeash 15y agoIs it really necessary to precisely quantify the damages? Amazon was clearly in the wrong here and essentially* violated this fellow's copyright, so it would only make sense for the damages to be set at the number of copies times the previous royalties, even if he wouldn't have sold that many otherwise. * Weasel wording here because it seems likely to me that the distribution contract ends up giving Amazon the right to do this sort of thing with this guy's copyrighted work.