RIAA Joins MPAA In Thinking Proof Isn't Necessary > Bad Summary

reply to Dogfather

Re: Bad Summary

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.