Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
I'm very glad she's challenging the rulings on constitutional grounds. $2mil for copying certainly seems "cruel and unusual" to me, especially as the copyright owners don't seem able to prove any actual lost sales as a result of the copies.
|
That was a civil case. So while the outcome might be "cruel & unusual," that Constitutional concept doesn't bear on this case. It only relates to crimes.
What we have here is a disproportionate award of damages, which almost certainly will be reduced on appeal. How much depends - I've read that she lied about what she did, which neither juries nor courts like.
The inability of the copyright owners to prove any lost sales is irrelevant. That's not something they have to prove, except if they elect to go after actual damages, and then only if lost sales is at issue. There are probably other ways that a copyright owner could suffer actual damages.
But at any rate, under the copyright act, the owner can just elect statutory damages for the infringement itself. The whole point of statutory damages is to deal with situations where the owner finds it burdensome, or even impossible, to prove damages.