3 ms·

Damages, not fines. It's supposed to compensate Verizon for the losses it has suffered, due to the wrong-doing of OnlineNIC.

by lucumo 17y ago

DanielStraight 17y ago
Damages, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over. There is no conceivable way this company did that much damage to Verizon. In fact, it's unlikely they damaged Verizon at all, especially when we know that most users find pages through Google and that Google would certainly return Verizon's real site first. If anyone was damaged, it was the people who thought they were at Verizon's site but weren't, and the number of those people is probably 3 at best. Look at the other story they link to about file-sharing. A $2M fine for sharing 24 songs? Is there any possible way that one person sharing 24 songs can do $2M in damage? No. It's insane. I think it's quite clear that judgements like these are designed to scare people. They have absolutely no basis in reality or sanity. Any judge that issues a judgement like this should be removed from service. I would feel the same about someone ordering life in prison for car theft... but this is more like ordering the death penalty for shoplifting.
- lucumo 17y ago
  > Damages, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over. That's like saying "Cars, bicycles, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over." There's a difference between the two. > There is no conceivable way this company did that much damage to Verizon. In fact, it's unlikely they damaged Verizon at all, especially when we know that most users find pages through Google and that Google would certainly return Verizon's real site first. If anyone was damaged, it was the people who thought they were at Verizon's site but weren't, and the number of those people is probably 3 at best. OnlineNIC claims that it made ~$1500 in profits from it. That's just their claim and already far more than 3 visitors. Some of those visitors may have gotten lost and never ended up on Verizon's website. They may have been able to make more from their visitors than OnlineNIC. Their brand is lessened by the experience. They had to find OnlineNIC. They had legal expenses. And there's probably more. > Look at the other story they link to about file-sharing. I have no interest in comparing anything to file sharing/piracy. That subject seems to cause some powerful emotions that make rational discussion impossible.
  - DanielStraight 17y ago
    There's a difference between fines and damages, but the issue was simply terminology. I understand perfectly well what we're talking about. I used the wrong word. I understand there are issues where this could have caused damages to Verizon, but I don't think they come to $33M. Either way, I don't think there's any way to quantify the damages to show what they really come to... which is sort of the problem.

Damages, not fines. It's supposed to compensate Verizon for the losses it has suffered, due to the wrong-doing of OnlineNIC.

by lucumo 17y ago

Damages, not fines. It's supposed to compensate Verizon for the losses it has suffered, due to the wrong-doing of OnlineNIC.

DanielStraight 17y ago

Damages, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over. There is no conceivable way this company did that much damage to Verizon. In fact, it's unlikely they damaged Verizon at all, especially when we know that most users find pages through Google and that Google would certainly return Verizon's real site first. If anyone was damaged, it was the people who thought they were at Verizon's site but weren't, and the number of those people is probably 3 at best. Look at the other story they link to about file-sharing. A $2M fine for sharing 24 songs? Is there any possible way that one person sharing 24 songs can do $2M in damage? No. It's insane. I think it's quite clear that judgements like these are designed to scare people. They have absolutely no basis in reality or sanity. Any judge that issues a judgement like this should be removed from service. I would feel the same about someone ordering life in prison for car theft... but this is more like ordering the death penalty for shoplifting.

lucumo 17y ago
> Damages, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over. That's like saying "Cars, bicycles, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over." There's a difference between the two. > There is no conceivable way this company did that much damage to Verizon. In fact, it's unlikely they damaged Verizon at all, especially when we know that most users find pages through Google and that Google would certainly return Verizon's real site first. If anyone was damaged, it was the people who thought they were at Verizon's site but weren't, and the number of those people is probably 3 at best. OnlineNIC claims that it made ~$1500 in profits from it. That's just their claim and already far more than 3 visitors. Some of those visitors may have gotten lost and never ended up on Verizon's website. They may have been able to make more from their visitors than OnlineNIC. Their brand is lessened by the experience. They had to find OnlineNIC. They had legal expenses. And there's probably more. > Look at the other story they link to about file-sharing. I have no interest in comparing anything to file sharing/piracy. That subject seems to cause some powerful emotions that make rational discussion impossible.
- DanielStraight 17y ago
  There's a difference between fines and damages, but the issue was simply terminology. I understand perfectly well what we're talking about. I used the wrong word. I understand there are issues where this could have caused damages to Verizon, but I don't think they come to $33M. Either way, I don't think there's any way to quantify the damages to show what they really come to... which is sort of the problem.