MaxwellKennerly

8 ms·

31.
by MaxwellKennerly 16y ago
The problem in both cases is the absence of any standards governing the exercise of the prosecutor's and investigator's discretion. The appearance of impropriety in both cases magnifies the problem. If REACT wants to make it a high priority
32.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
I'm a lawyer (and the author of the post), though I've never discovered any genes. IMHO, although the court would likely have found a use of a knockdown assay to have been a sufficiently descriptive method of modulating the protein, that
33.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
An adherent of "originalism" would have supported Lessig in the Eldred case; your "original" view is at odds with the understanding of copyright at the time of the Constitution, yet oddly consistent with the understanding of copyright by th
34.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
See my response above. "Statutory" does not equal "solely compensatory," particularly not where the statute includes a punitive element for "willful" conduct.
35.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
Speaking of checking your case law, you should look into the statutory damages. If there is no punitive element, then why are damages elevated for "willful" conduct? There's nothing novel about applying due process limitations to statutory
36.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
"You conveniently assume that by not providing evidence as to the size of this figure, the plaintiffs, defendants and jury have valued it at zero." It's irrelevant what they valued it at: no evidence means no damages. Period. Cases are dism
37.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
See my reply above. The record companies did indeed prove unauthorized use of the songs by Tenenbaum, and thus the approximately $0.99. Your "cannot separate" argument completely misses the point: just because Congress lumps compensatory an
38.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
You're making my argument: "neither he nor any of the plaintiffs witnesses contributed any proof of the "actual damages."" That's not entirely true, as the record companies did briefly call their own lawyers to testify as to ownership of th
39.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
I was referring to the unproven damages you wrote about above, the unproven distribution damages. Fact is, at trial, the only actual damages proven was the unauthorized personal use of a $0.99 song. "Had there been more of an onus on the re
40.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
See my response to you below. You're confusing multiple issues. For purposes of my discussion about the constitutionally-permissible compensatory-to-punitive ratio, the sole question is what actual damages were proven. At trial, the defenda
41.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
Obviously, you shouldn't "trust" my "opinion" at all. It's just an opinion on the internet from someone you never met. You should, however, think about the underlying issues. Fact is, the plaintiff proved only $0.99 in actual damages per so
42.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
It's not as "off" as you think. Punitive damages limitations have already been applied to common law copyright cases, and numerous courts have considered, but not ruled on, their application to the statutory regime. But there's a more basic
43.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
Please see my reply below -- your distinction isn't relevant, because the record company elected statutory damages, thereby eliminating the need to prove any actual damages from "sharing." The downloading itself is all they needed.
44.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
I'm the author of the article. Let me clarify (this is hinted at with the asterisk footnote at the bottom of the post) what happened here: the record company elected, under the copyright statute, not to prove any actual damages and instead
45.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
If by "people behind the LLC," you mean the investors, then, yes, their liability is typically limited. I write "typically" because investors can be liable if either (1) they participated in the infringement or (2) a court decides to "pie
46.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
To answer two questions in this thread: a number of the media liability policies include copyright infringement, though typically only of text (and sometimes images), with specific exclusion of hosting media like MP3s or DVDs, and an exclus
47.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
There's defamation-specific insurance out there, typically called "media liability insurance," which fills that need. I believe Chubb Insurance just released a new "MediaGuard" policy that's supposed to have pretty broad coverage in that ar
48.
by MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
I'm the author; thanks for reading and let me address it "go[ing] a bit far." In the context of Hacker News readers (presumably startups looking for funding and with employees) there are many good reasons for setting up an LLC, including li