Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
That wasn't the point of this case at all. The point was to make an example of someone, with a serious monetary fine that had nothing to do with any actual harm caused ("statutory damages"). They clearly stated that they were finding her guilty of making the files available, and not on whether or not a single file was downloaded as a result of her actions.
|
That's a questionable motive on the part of the plaintiff, but the fact remains that the only thing the courts are interested in is repairing the harm caused. But there are some weird exemplary (penal) damage laws in the US which mix repression into the civil process, so it could be possible that most of the damages asked for in this case were exemplary damages. I also find questionable using the term "guilty" in a civil suit.