3 ms·

It sounded like the goal was to make copyright holding companies nervous about sending automated notices. If damages for infringement are $180k per song, surely

It sounded like the goal was to make copyright holding companies nervous about sending automated notices. If damages for infringement are $180k per song, surely damages for wrongful DMCA notices are the same order of magnitude?

btown 13y ago
Unfortunately, a quick Google search brought me to http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+Corp http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+.... (EDIT: that link seems to be broken, it's /Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+Corp. with the trailing period): > A plaintiff suing over a wrongful Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice can only recover for damages that were proximately caused by the notice... The Court determined that attorney fees are collectable but explicitly forbid the attorney fees if the work was done on a pro bono basis. So it seems like Lessig would be pushing for a change in precedent, because as current case law seems to stand (IANAL), even if he won legal costs and damages it would be a drop in the bucket to the record industry, and no reason to change their practices of sending automated notices. I hope he succeeds though!
- kolinko 13y ago
  I think there's something called "punitive damages" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages). That's why that lady got a couple million dollars from McDonald's for a too hot coffee a couple years back - not because it caused her so much harm. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran... )
  - npsimons 13y ago
    And just to cut in with a quick response to all those who automatically use this as a call to tort reform: 1) The lady didn't ask for that much; the judge awarded it, after much shenanigans by McDonalds'; 2) In the end, it wasn't a couple million, it was reduced by the judge to under $500k. The case is more complex than most people want to believe.
- npsimons 13y ago
  IANAL, but one possibility is that Lessig might try to find others auto-threatened by "Liberation Music" (as another poster put it: ha!), and make the case that they are abusing the law and should have an injunction against filing DMCA notices. A bit of a stretch, I know, but one can dream :)

btown 13y ago

Unfortunately, a quick Google search brought me to http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+Corp http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+.... (EDIT: that link seems to be broken, it's /Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+Corp. with the trailing period): > A plaintiff suing over a wrongful Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice can only recover for damages that were proximately caused by the notice... The Court determined that attorney fees are collectable but explicitly forbid the attorney fees if the work was done on a pro bono basis. So it seems like Lessig would be pushing for a change in precedent, because as current case law seems to stand (IANAL), even if he won legal costs and damages it would be a drop in the bucket to the record industry, and no reason to change their practices of sending automated notices. I hope he succeeds though!

kolinko 13y ago
I think there's something called "punitive damages" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages). That's why that lady got a couple million dollars from McDonald's for a too hot coffee a couple years back - not because it caused her so much harm. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran... )
- npsimons 13y ago
  And just to cut in with a quick response to all those who automatically use this as a call to tort reform: 1) The lady didn't ask for that much; the judge awarded it, after much shenanigans by McDonalds'; 2) In the end, it wasn't a couple million, it was reduced by the judge to under $500k. The case is more complex than most people want to believe.
npsimons 13y ago
IANAL, but one possibility is that Lessig might try to find others auto-threatened by "Liberation Music" (as another poster put it: ha!), and make the case that they are abusing the law and should have an injunction against filing DMCA notices. A bit of a stretch, I know, but one can dream :)