said by hm :if the 3rd party made available to you and you to others and you took no cash its not commercial teats what i want you to ask a lawyer. Also make sure you explain how torrents work.... said by Cyborg994:
The damages they are asking for is higher then the maximum allowable under the new law, strange...
Sued for more due to: "making available".
Not sure if this would be the same as being labeled an "enabler" or "enabling" in the new copyright system.
I do believe "enabling" makes you liable for higher damages.
"enabling" = making available. Like allowing upload, or allowing others to leech off of you.
But to my understanding this "enabling" clause was for something else. Like if you ran some commercial website with links to warez. Or a distro ftp, or even a site like isohunt.
This takes the basic functions of an app and brings it to a whole new level of liability here.
Geist warned of this a couple of years ago under the old system. But is it the same under the new system? I thought it wasn't.
I believe being labeled an "enabler" opens the doors to $20K liability. Not $5K for simple downloading. I would have to reread all that to be sure, and to clarify what the legal diff's are between being labeled "making available" and being labeled an "enabler". If there is a diff. Dunno really. That is one for Geist. Doubt I will find an answer.
So that's is my simple understanding of it.
But I guess this will be argued in court by lawyers. At least I hope.