4 ms·
> people who settled for ~$3000 each So then not a single instance of an actual judge ruling that the downloading part was civilly illegal or requires payment
by stale2002 3y ago
> people who settled for ~$3000 each
So then not a single instance of an actual judge ruling that the downloading part was civilly illegal or requires payment civilly?
If no, then my point stands.
Anyone can make a threat and get money out of someone.
I could threaten you right now with horrible legal consequences for the completely bogus "civil crime" of being wrong on hacker news!
But you giving in to me, and giving me money, isn't a ruling or precedent that action X (in this case "being wrong on hacker news") is illegal.
- PeterisP 3y agoAll the trial cases which went through the courts e.g. Sony vs Tenenbaum also were judged that the downloading part was also infringing activity, it's just that those defendants did both downloading and [offering for] distribution.
- stale2002 3y agoGotcha. So then you could have instead just said. "I agree with you completely, 100%, that there has not been a singular case in the history of the USA copyright law where a judge has ruled against someone who only did the downloading part". I am glad after half a dozen posts I was finally able to get you to agree to this. You could have just said that from the beginning really. I am happy that you agree with me on my main point!