My name is "Defendant Radzikowski"

[DracoSuave]

This is the point that US posters seem to be missing. Poland may be US-friendly but it's not a US-controlled state, it has the rule of law, and Polish courts are there to protect the people of Poland, not to enforce predatory US laws.

Once your copy mysteriously ends up on scribd.com without the permission of the copyright holder, it's hardly 'predatory' to sue if people are using that copy rather than the copies you have every right to sell and control.

That's the part people gloss over, it's not that his copies were distributed to friends (which is negligible in terms of damages) but rather, that they ended up being distributed online. The fact he intended for his friends or not is not relevant at that point--he copied files he did not have permission to copy and the result lead them onto scribd.com.

Fair use definately ends at scribd.com and you'll have a hell of a time proving otherwise in -any- court.

Civil cases are based on preponderance of evidence, meaning that which ever side has a more likely case wins. All Hasbro has to do is prove that his copy was on scribd.com and that he willfully copied them to distribute and that, as they say, is that.


That said, some jurisdictions have different rules. For example, Canada you can download copies from distribution sites provided you hold a legal original copy (Fair Use includes digital copies for personal use). You, however, cannot upload copies to illegal users.

 

[S'mon]

Tort law has a concept called "remoteness of harm" or "remoteness of damage" which especially limits liability for economic loss. I expect Polish law has such a concept.

Edit: Re "predatory" - I was thinking particularly of damages though, and how damages for tort in the US are commonly punitive rather than a measure of actual loss.

 

[DracoSuave]

True enough, but the 'remoteness' in this case is -at most- one generation. More importantly, once Hasbro establishes that he did make illegal copies, and his illegal copies were being distributed, it's up to him to prove that remoteness exists in the first place, something he might not be able to do. The fact that he is -aware- of the distribution makes it difficult to prove he is not complicit or that he is, in fact, remote. He might have to prove he took steps to put a stop to it.

 

[Jack99]

Tort law has a concept called "remoteness of harm" or "remoteness of damage" which especially limits liability for economic loss. I expect Polish law has such a concept.

Edit: Re "predatory" - I was thinking particularly of damages though, and how damages for tort in the US are commonly punitive rather than a measure of actual loss.

I agree.

In my country, US tort/punitive laws are ridiculed at our law schools. From what I know, this is pretty much consensus in the EU (at least in all countries I have travelled/contact with), so no, no court in Europe will probably even consider whatever amount a US court comes up with.

 

[S'mon]

More importantly, once Hasbro establishes that he did make illegal copies

According to him, he did not make illegal copies under Polish law, which is the relevant law.

 

[DracoSuave]

According to him he distributed those copies to other people, which is not the same as making copies for personal use.

A fine distinction.

 

[Alnag]

US often mistakes its internal law for international one. The guy is from Poland. Whatever he sign doesn't matter if it is in contradiction with the the law in his country.

If you would sign you want to be killed and someone killed you, it would be murder anyway.

So the only question here is what Polish law said. Which I am not quite sure.

 

[Maggan]

I am not the defendant here, but I would show how your thinking is a bit unfair.

I think it is important that we all make a distinction between "being fair" and "having your case tried in a court".

Maybe I'm too crass after being through disputes over agreements and having spoken to lawyers about those things, but "fairness" doesn't enter into the picture.

WotC won't look at the defendant "fairly". They'll look at it in a way that supports their argument. It is up to the defendand to best present his views on the matter.

/M

 

[JPL]

Huh. I ran across this site. It's a 2004 site profile listing his user name, his real name, and his favorite files being bittorrent software.

It's a double-edged sword, this Intraweb.

 

[Shadowsong666]

According to him he distributed those copies to other people, which is not the same as making copies for personal use.

A fine distinction.

Question is: Is sharing files with your friends (copying them and distributing them) allowed in poland or not? As he said, it is.
As long as he considers these people part of his social culture circle called "friends" it may be ok. In germany there is some kind of limit to how many people you can give out a private copy. So sharing mp3 files in a disco club with everyone isn't really legal here as wouldn't be such a thing as publishing copyright material on scribd.com.

well, i think damador shouldn't talk about it on the web. Hopefully.

Regarding betanews: You don't put software on that list. The website does that when you download stuff. So having some software on that list doesn't prove that these are my "favorite files" i use. Just that these are the files i downloaded there... afair

I don't think someone would want to know which kind of software i downloaded in many years.

Regarding this case i just had a look at the Pirate Bay trial and it was really funny to see how american lawyers started bringing new evidence to the court like pulling out a bunny from there hats and just failing at the "Uhhhh new evidence" effect because of not knowing the laws of the country. I hope wotc prepares wiser than the movie industry. ^^