The real cost of being sued by Getty
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: Mark Goodge on 19 Oct 2009 15:10 On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:21:58 +1300, Eric Stevens put finger to keyboard and typed: >On 18 Oct 2009 18:10:12 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >>Did you READ those license agreements in detail to ensure that you are >>fully in compliance? Did you make a backup of software that does not >>allow for backups? Did you install the same software on two computers >>without paying for two copies? Did you transfer music from one >>machine to another without making sure that you had permission to do >>so? > >You can't be a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren't. It's >the same with stealing. You either are or you aren't a thief. Your >choice. That's true, but there are degrees of theft. Stealing a doughnut does not incur the same penalty as stealing a million dollars, for example. However, this is rather missing the point, since copyright infringement isn't theft. In most cases, it isn't even a criminal offence - it's a matter of (civil) contract law. In contract law, the amount of damages you can win for breach of contract by the other party is dependent on the nature of the contract and the nature of the breach. In this particular case (which occurred in the UK, so UK law applies), the amount the infringer has had to pay to Getty comprises the normal commercial rate for using the image, plus Getty's costs in detecting and pursuing the infringement, plus reasonable damages incurred by Getty as a result of their loss of control over the image, plus interest, plus court costs for both parties incurred as a result of disputing (and losing) the case. Individually, none of these elements are excessive, what makes the final payment seem so high is simply a result of adding them all together. Mark -- Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
From: sobriquet on 19 Oct 2009 15:32 On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >[..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..] IPR is a figment of your lively imagination. All people with any understanding of information technology and a tight budget can simply download everything for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement.
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Oct 2009 23:39 Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >On 18 Oct 2009 18:10:12 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >>>Ray Fischer wrote: >>>> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>>> In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for >>>>> copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically >>>>> for damages plus court cost and legal fees. >>>> >>>> It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive >>>> maliciousness. >>> >>>That's your opinion. The courts differ. >>> >>>As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase >>>significantly when you do something wrong. >> >>Let's put this in concrete terms... >> >>You doubtless have music on your computer. Did you pay licensing fees >>for EVERY bit of music? If not then you could be sued for $1000 (or >>more) for each $0.90 song you didn't pay for. You could be sued for >>thousands for each bit of software you didn't pay for. >> >>Is THAT justice? > >Yes. Quite the goose-stepping fascist, aren't you? >>Did you READ those license agreements in detail to ensure that you are >>fully in compliance? Did you make a backup of software that does not >>allow for backups? Did you install the same software on two computers >>without paying for two copies? Did you transfer music from one >>machine to another without making sure that you had permission to do >>so? > >You can't be a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren't. Simple minds like to think in black and white terms. > It's >the same with stealing. So you should be sent to prison for exceeding the speed limit? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Oct 2009 23:40 Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >rOn 18 Oct 2009 07:33:07 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for >>>copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically >>>for damages plus court cost and legal fees. >> >>It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive >>maliciousness. > >'Punitive' is exactly the right word. It's to punish the thief for >stealing. By chopping off their hands. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Oct 2009 23:41
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>>> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> : Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> : >On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>>>>> : >> >>>>>>> : >> >>>>>>> : >> >The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief. >>>>>>> : >> >>>>>>> : >> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the >>>>>>> licensable >>>>>>> : >> photo isn't ridiculous? >>>>>>> : > >>>>>>> : >Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the >>>>>>> : >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> : The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks >>>>>>> : like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more >>>>>>> (sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The >>>>>>> court makes a judgment on what equitable. >>>>>> "I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll >>>>>> screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth." >>>>>> >>>>>> But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice. >>>>> That is justice. >>>> In what bizarro world is that? >>> U.S. Copyright law. >> >> You're a stupid liar. Copyright LAW says nothing about justice. >> It describes law. > >Justice is based entirely on the law. You _must_ be a rightard idiot because it is only such people who worship law above the people that law is supposed to serve. >>>> Tell us: Do you also insist that having ones hands chopped off for >>>> stealing is also justice? >>> Completely unrelated. >> >> Run away, rightard. > >Nope. Coward. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |