Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
I'm not going to argue with you. there is no point in that. you are right about everything. You know everything and if you would just listen to me and rise up and lead the masses you could change the world.
As per your question:
You want fair, that is all I want as well. If Sony goes after a small site that makes $50 per month by posting links to Sony's copyrighted materials and the site is found to be guilty there should be actual damages figured out and if the site owner can't pay them they should be shut down. If Sony wrongly goes after a site and it is proven so Sony should have to pay damages, but those damages need to be realistic. If the guys is making $50 per month with his site and the site is shut down for 6 months while the trial goes on he should win $300 plus his legal fees and maybe some extra to cover the cost of getting the site back up and running, but he shouldn't be entitled to millions.
|
are you sure you want that
how are copyright holders going to success prove they actually lost sales, if people can simply claim they wouldn't have bought if they could get it for free (zero loss since we are excluding potential losses from the fair use side).
How about about all the increase sales from people sampling and then buying afterwards you would have to deduct all that extra revenue (since we are cancelling out life time potential growth on the fair use side).
copyright claims would also lose all statutory damages claims (since your capping damages to actual damages on the fair use side).
That a serious level of gimping your going to have to accept to truly be equal.