Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
I think it's $20k per "infringement," which is probably per song, not per copy. I suspect that a corporation that grabs someone's book and publishes it w/o permission is fined per print run, not per individual copy sold.
It's possible that each sales *contract* counts as an infringement, so records of their distributors might be relevant.
|
"p2pnet news view P2P | RIAA:- Helped along by RIAA lawyers, an American jury of 12 ordinary people wants an ordinary American mother to come up with an extraordinary $1.92 million for Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but run by a Canadian).
The money is being demanded in recompense for 24 songs Jammie Thomas-Rasset is said to have shared online.
That works out to $80,000 per song.
Or was it 1,700 copyrighted tunes."
(Source: P2Pnet)
EDIT: I put this here as relevant because Michael Geist, who is "adviser to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, which is co-counsel, but [has] had no involvement in the case":
"The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement, potential liability exceeds $60 billion.
“These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages...” "
Guess it depends on what they use as precedent (if anything), but as a musician I would think they'd go by units sold, as that's how the labels measure income. They can also go per song and ask for stupid-high punitive damages (do they have those in Canada?)
In either case, the 'Murican ambulance-chasers will be watching this case closely. Be right back, gonna make some popcorn...
