Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
Part of the problem here is that there are statutory damages involved, at a minimum of $750 per song, which puts a hard floor on the damages at $18000. Given the circumstances, I think that's what the award should have been. One issue here is that the penalties were originally created with pirate CD distributors in mind, and so are based on a completely different economic model.
|
Sounds like a good reason to amend the laws, to be more equitable in punishment to non-profiting activities (like file sharing), as opposed to illegal CD duplicating and sales. It also sounds like a good base for an appeal in Thomas' case. Personally, I think that "statutory damages" should not have been brought here, since the case was essentially based on circumstantial evidence and no physical harm was done. Since statutory damages was so far out of line for a file-sharing (not for profit) situation, the record companies should have been forced to provide a dollar figure of damages done, from which the punishment should have been based.
Alternatively, as the industry obviously chose to limit the number of songs involved, down from "over 1,700" to 22 songs, perhaps the judge should've adjusted that number to one that would equate to a more reasonable fine if found guilty, and not one that would cripple or ruin Thomas even at its lightest penalty. At $750 per song, just 10 songs would've put the sting in the decision for most anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
I'd go so far as to say that their greatest loss from file sharing is due entirely to people boycotting the major labels because they don't approve of the way they're handling the file sharing issue.
|
But they're not boycotting, they're file-sharing... and that's the problem. Boycotting leaves the industry with no income, and no legal recourse. You want to get the message across to them, you have to boycott. Go cold turkey.