Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to vpoko
Re: Bad Summary
It certainly is if the RIAA looking to claim damage awards stated in the criminal statutes.
Those big penalties are written into the criminal statues. If this was a simple civil tort, they would only be able to collect their actual damages plus perhaps an unspecified punitive damage.
Like shoplifting and writing bad checks, the criminal statue grants additional damage awards but you only get the damage award if that statue was violated.
They absolutely must prove the crime happened if they want to collect damages for violation of the statue. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| That's not true, you're confusing "criminal damages" with "statutory damages". RIAA/MPAA only need to prove their case by "preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the state is not required to provide an attorney for you. There may be civil damamges that kick in upon a criminal conviction, but the statute also allows for pure civil suits absent of a criminal prosecution. There's nothing criminal about it. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | Criminal damages and statutory damages aren't mutually exclusive.
They don't get statutory damages unless they show the statue to which the statutory damages apply was violated. Their damage award was received based solely on the files being available for transfer.
This is where the RIAA ran into a wall. Merely hosting the files (making them available) isn't a violation of the statue AT ALL. The statute specifically requires a transfer and the court overturned the decision requiring proof that the transfers occurred. Whether by preponderance of the evidence or not, the RIAA showed ZERO evidence that the transfers actually occurred.
IOW, hosting the files by itself is not actionable because there is no statute prohibiting it and the RIAA/MPAA can't go after those people outside the statutes because they have no damages from someone just hosting files. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| said by Dogfather  :Hosting the files by itself is not actionable because there is nothing illegal about it and the RIAA/MPAA can't go after those people outside the statute because the have no damages from someone just hosting files. Yet... If this becomes the requirement, I honestly feel they will buy the change necessary in Washington. It shames me to say it, but in these situations our lawmakers are for sale.
Now, must you download the whole file or just a part? If you have to get the whole file... how does that work in a distributed system? They allow legal 'sampling' of songs without copyright issues correct? I could easily say that little bit you got from me was just a... sample.
Or I could say it was just data. By itself it was useless.. completely unrecognizable as anything copyrighted to anyone. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| That was my question from a few weeks ago. If it's a torrent, does a few KB of a file constitute a "work"? And could the RIAA do their own downloading? Meaning can the RIAA infringe on their own works?
The law is unclear but what is clear is that simple making files, even if they're entire songs available, isn't a violation of the statue and thus the RIAA doesn't get sh!t. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | reply to Dogfather
That's all fine and dandy, but you still haven't shown where "criminal" plays into it. There are no criminal damages without a criminal conviction. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | Because the statues in question are criminal statutes (specifically Title 17 506 and 507 and Title 18 Sec 2319) and these statutes permit both civil and criminal penalties.
No one is talking about criminal damages (eg property damage). My point is even in a civil action you don't get the statutory damages unless you fulfill the requirements per the statue (the person has to be found to infringe). And in this case the statue in question doesn't allow for statutory damages for hosting files, only for transferring files (hosting isn't infringement). But the RIAA got their award based on the hosting alone. It's simply not a violation of the Copyright Act to host files, according to this court.
IOW, the RIAA's case was that the Copyright Act was violated thus they're entitled to statutory damages per the statute. The court tossed it out saying the RIAA must show evidence that the Copyright Act was violated. |
|
