tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post2803231737112737616..comments2024-03-22T03:28:24.897-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: In Arista v LimeWire court rejects RIAA contention it is entitled to statutory damages for each direct infringerraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-10552636380636224082011-03-23T23:27:39.313-04:002011-03-23T23:27:39.313-04:00This is a great development. What better way to sh...This is a great development. What better way to show problems with the RIAA's interpretation of the DMCA than to show that it leads to absurd results such as $75 trillion dollar statutory damages?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-45872529626373978482011-03-15T15:25:14.286-04:002011-03-15T15:25:14.286-04:00@Anonymous -- I don't think it would have been...@Anonymous -- I don't think it would have been necessary at all without some indication from Plaintiff regarding how they would have determined the numbers anyway. See the footnote on page 6: "Plaintiffs have never explained to the Court how they would even go about determining how many direct infringers there were per work."<br /><br />Of course, in an ideal world, such a determination would require evidence, which I doubt Plaintiff has.<br /><br />- AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-11832350845594911442011-03-11T22:00:54.535-05:002011-03-11T22:00:54.535-05:00@ "that the number of direct infringers would...@ "that the number of direct infringers would be a factor in assessing the amount of the statutory damage awards" Would it be appropriate for the Defendants to demand the names of the "direct infringers" as proof before any assessment of the award is completed? Forcing the RIAA to put names to the numbers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-6690699163150479222011-03-10T22:22:40.873-05:002011-03-10T22:22:40.873-05:00This is really the only valid interpretation, peri...This is really the only valid interpretation, period, end of story. Statutory damages were intentionally changed from per copy to per work infringed for the express purpose of reducing damages when many copies were made due to a single defendant.Justin Olbrantz (Quantam)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02155606291145056334noreply@blogger.com