1 edit | Someone needs to stand up Someone needs to take the bullet, perhaps not this woman, but someone. This is a tired and old game of scare tactics, and inflammatory and groundless lawsuits. Someone needs to orchestrate a strong case and stop the ridiculous persecution of file traders. With the right arguments, someone could possibly render the industry's groundless lawsuits dead. How can a company threaten to sue on profits it might have made? That's almost akin to suing an individual who walked by a boombox playing a particular song from a cd he does not own, enjoyed, asked the fellow playing the boombox to play it again, but then didn't buy the cd.
Copyrights were meant to protect people from reselling intellectual property under the guise that it was their own, not to be used as an excuse to hunt down normal people and cut open their pockets (we all know my feelings on this, I've posted extensively in past forums, I won't repeat myself unless, of course, someone asks for the info or contradicts this sentiment).
The RIAA and the major labels would be better served converting the people who invent P2P servers to come work for them and create profitable P2P or advertising markets instead of ridiculously persecuting people in a long-term battle they cannot win. File sharing will not and cannot be stopped. The industry needs to adapt and enlist the P2Pers into their ranks or dissolve. Even the most hardline socialist can be bought by something. |
|
| said by broadbander:With the right arguments, someone could possibly render the industry's groundless lawsuits dead. Perhaps that's why there are still 9,000 suits that didn't go to trial and/or are never heard from again. |
|
|
|
 stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
1 edit | reply to broadbander
said by broadbander:How can a company threaten to sue on profits it might have made? This is not the right argument to use.
edit: The copyright holder doesn't have to sue for actual loss in profits, they can sue for statutory damages, which can reach as high as $150,000 per infringement (minimum $200). See section 504 for title 17. (copyright law).
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. |
|
| That's a pretty grey area in copyright law actually. Specifically copyright law states infringement as unauthorized sale and distribution. The RIAA separates the two and just says any distribution is infringement. However conventional thinking keeps it the combo (sales AND distribution). This is the crux of the whole argument. This is probably also one of the reasons why the lawsuits haven't gone to court. There is enough in copyright law now to sway the courts in favor of non-commercial sharing... if presented the right way. |
|
| EXACTLY!!! That's the "argument" I was referring to that someone needs to make.  |
|
