View Single Post
Old 07-23-2009, 03:07 AM   #346
carld
Wizard
carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.carld ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,678
Karma: 3698469
Join Date: Dec 2007
Device: Kindle Fire HD, Kindle 3, Droid Razr Maxx HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon View Post
One "difference" has to do with which country's law is involved. Another has to do with what kind of law - criminal or civil - is involved. Another has to do with exactly what it is that the law forbids.

On the P2P vs. Amazon situation, it seems to me that distribution is distribution. Amazon distributes infringing material all by itself, the P2P user distribute it as a group. Further, if I understand how P2P works, both Amazon and the P2P user store the infringing material, or some portion of it, on their own computer.

So in the absence of some other distinction, it seems to me that they should be, and will be, treated the same. As far as I can see, "good faith" only comes into play in terms of what the statutory damages wind up being.
Nope, you're never going to convince me that Amazon's retail store is the equivalent to P2P file sharing, just not going to happen. YouTube does the same thing as Amazon, infringing material is reported when it's removed. I think the statutory damages will add up to about ... zero, is my guess.

Carl
carld is offline   Reply With Quote