Quote:
Originally Posted by 6charlong
Lawsuits are based on the existence of an injury caused by the action of another. It would be hard for the film industry to prove they are injured by a practice that quickly grew until it provided the lion's share of their revenue. Isn't that the importance of this change in the law? The law itself requires a review of the facts with a presentation to Congress and a review of how the change is working out to be done one year after it goes into effect. If it does what we think it will, what Tor and others have found when they dropped DRM, it will either remain unchanged or be strengthened.
The hopeful thing is that someone is willing to do a trial and get the facts, to everyone's benefit.
|
In many U.S. copyright cases, statutory damages will apply, meaning you do not have to prove actual damages.
As for your second sentence: VCR only grew to be a major source of revenue after home taping was found to be legal, not before; if the case had gone the other way it may have had a chilling effect on the uptake of the technology and resulted in (ironically) less revenue for the movie studios.
The law has been in effect for more than a year.