News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Obama Supports $675,000 File Sharing Verdict. Parent comment

Re:Obama Supports $675,000 File Sharing Verdict by tptacek on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @03:17PM (#1065657)
This assertion is repeated often by defenders of file sharing, but it's been uniformly rejected by the legal systems of --- from what I can tell --- most of western civilization.

The RIAA makes over-the-top claims about the evils of file sharing, but district and appellate court judges in the US are not uniformly shills of the RIAA, and none of them adhere to your logic.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Obama Supports $675,000 File Sharing Verdict by randallsquared on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @04:46PM (#1065881)
I wasn't suggesting it was legal, or non-infringing, only that referring to it as doing damage is incorrect. Whether something is actually damaging doesn't have perfect correlation with whether you can get legal damages in court.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Obama Supports $675,000 File Sharing Verdict by tptacek on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @05:26PM (#1065956)
Since people are losing tort cases, I'm pretty sure the legitimacy of the word "damage" is a settled issue.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Obama Supports $675,000 File Sharing Verdict by randallsquared on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @06:16PM (#1066061)
This is the case only if you believe the law defines fact. Since some law is contradictory, it's clear that there is room to disagree with law, in at least some cases. But maybe you only meant to imply that legal damages were being awarded, which I can agree with.
[ Parent | on HN ]