Re:Obama Supports $675,000 File Sharing Verdict
by tptacek on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @04:19PM
(#1065810)
People aren't getting sued for burning a copy of CDs that they own just for shits. That may in fact be all they've done, but what's being claimed is that they're copying and distributing content.
Re:Obama Supports $675,000 File Sharing Verdict
by lutorm on Thursday January 21, 2010 @11:30AM
(#1067588)
I'm only arguing against the blanket statement that there is no such thing as victimless tort.
As for the distribution issue, unless there are actual damages I still don't think the copyright owner is a victim.
That's like saying that you are a victim if someone walks across your property without permission. They may not be legally able to do that (in the US), but if the act does not affect you in any way, you can not justifiably claim to be a victim.
I understand that tort by definition is compensation for injury, but if that injury as defined by the law does not actually harm a party, it fits my definition of "victimless".
Statutory damages for copyright infringement have historically been in lieu of actual damages when such were hard to prove, and IIRC earlier versions of the copyright act explicitly said that statutory awards are not to be construed as punitive. It's hard to argue that these awards are anything but punitive.