37 ms·
The article is a bit light on these details; did Sony, Universal, et. al. show any proof of these damages or was it the usual conjecture of "if they bought inst
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
The article is a bit light on these details; did Sony, Universal, et. al. show any proof of these damages or was it the usual conjecture of "if they bought instead of pirated, we'd have made more money"?
The damage should be considered more dubious if they can't show that someone pirated instead of buying.
- synctext 3y ago32 pages of legal details to induce solid sleep: https://torrentfreak.com/images/cox-opinion.pdf https://torrentfreak.com/images/cox-opinion.pdf "We affirm the jury’s finding of willful contributory infringement. But we reverse the vicarious liability verdict and remand for a new trial on damages because Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability."
- p0w3n3d 3y agowhen law people get to pronounce in IT cases, it's always 50/50. 50% money 50% superstitions/beliefs. However in US it's really dangerous because of precedent law