$125,000 in fines for D&D pirates? Help me do the math...

[ProfessorCirno]

The odds of being struck by lightning are 576,000 to 1. The odds of being tagged with a judgment for uploading copyrighted materials appears to be considerably less favorable.

First of all, learn to multiquote, goddamn. You don't need to post 6 times in a row.

Secondly, uh, no. If anything, the odds of being tagged with a lawsuit from piracy is less likely then being struck by lightning. Seriously, what on earth makes you think otherwise?

 

[pedr]

One final peep here, since I forgot to address one thing before.

The assertion that being fined for lost profits in a piracy case on the grounds that some of those downloads "would not have been sales" is a non-starter.

The law is pretty clear: if you take property of another- even if you wouldn't have bought it- lost value or profits are a valid remedy. The form of the property is immaterial in the eyes of the law, and applies to physical or digital property equally.

This, FWIW, goes back to the Tort of Conversion which derived from the ooooold action called Trover.

Conversion of non-physical property? Really? I'd honestly be very interested to see any caselaw or authorities on that point.

Out of interest, if copyright infringement is theft, why is the adverse possession of a piece of land not theft?

 

[Storm Raven]

First of all, learn to multiquote, goddamn. You don't need to post 6 times in a row.

I don't see the need to conform my posting style to your desires.

Secondly, uh, no. If anything, the odds of being tagged with a lawsuit from piracy is less likely then being struck by lightning. Seriously, what on earth makes you think otherwise?

Really? Do you seriously think more than 1.5 million people uploaded WotC content to file sharing services on the web?

 

[Storm Raven]

Out of interest, if copyright infringement is theft, why is the adverse possession of a piece of land not theft?

One of the elements of adverse possession is that the property has to be held under a colorable claim of right. In other words, you have to believe that you have a valid legal claim to the property that isn't entirely specious.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

I guess I just disagree here. I don't think the damages are particularly disproportionate, especially since the range of damages was not kept a secret before these guys decided to break the law. If the damages were not painful, then they wouldn't really serve their purpose, would they?

I can agree to disagree. I am not trying to convert. I am trying to understand.

Based on the choice of remedies (in post #32), it seems that the wronged party can choose the most profitable remedy. So, it is legally viable to produce something worth $40, then sue pirates for $750-$30,000 per infringement. Does the idea of "no more than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" have no place in the law?

It did just occur to me that these laws are structured to focus on the first person in the piracy chain. The guy who shares his stuff in the first place that lets it get out, the seeder.

But what about the leeches? Are they liable for one infringement? What if I leech from 2 seeders? How many infringements is that? Once the seeder has seeded one copy to one leech, that file never really goes away.

If there are 5,000 copies at the time of the suit, he's liable for 5,000 copies right? But after the suit, another 1,000 copies show up from different seeders. Can he be sued for the new copies?

 

[Storm Raven]

Rubbish.

Perhaps you'd like to back that statement up.

How many copies of how many 4e PDFs were shared online before WotC decided 'out of the blue' to 'do something' about this particular instance? Oh, and how many are being shared *right now*?

The number of copies being shared isn't the baseline metric. The number of people uploading WotC content is. That's likely what, less than ten thousand? Unless the number is in the millions, then the chance of you uploading something and getting tagged with a lawsuit appears to be at least an order of magnitude greater than the chance of getting hit by lightning.

 

[Storm Raven]

Based on the choice of remedies (in post #32), it seems that the wronged party can choose the most profitable remedy. So, it is legally viable to produce something worth $40, then sue pirates for $750-$30,000 per infringement. Does the idea of "no more than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" have no place in the law?

Well, it depends. Normally one would expect to compensate the owner of property for the amount of harm caused, and in a run of the mill tort case, this is generally what happens. In this case, however, there is also a public policy goal, that of protecting copyright holders. How much of a deterrent to infringement would it be to limit the potential damages to the $40? One could then pirate and only pay out the retail value of the book if you are caught. That makes piracy a legally profitable endeavor insofar as the damages would be limited to what you would have paid, and then discounted by the chance you would get caught. This is the reason for things like "punitive damages": they are generally to deter intentional behaviour considered to be socially harmful.

It did just occur to me that these laws are structured to focus on the first person in the piracy chain. The guy who shares his stuff in the first place that lets it get out, the seeder.

But what about the leeches? Are they liable for one infringement? What if I leech from 2 seeders? How many infringements is that? Once the seeder has seeded one copy to one leech, that file never really goes away.

If there are 5,000 copies at the time of the suit, he's liable for 5,000 copies right? But after the suit, another 1,000 copies show up from different seeders. Can he be sued for the new copies?

Generally the law would limit the damages to direct damages (i.e. in this case downloads from the primary upload by the original defendant). If someone later decided to upload another copy, that would probably break the causal chain. The new uploader would be potentially liable though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Conversion of non-physical property? Really? I'd honestly be very interested to see any caselaw or authorities on that point.

That was a discussion of the origins of why profit is viewed as a remedy even when someone wouldn't have bought the product stolen.

The caselaw is before us in the form of IP law, which adopted the some of the same remedies.

Out of interest, if copyright infringement is theft, why is the adverse possession of a piece of land not theft?

It is.

<Edit>If it helps, think of it as analogous to a type of theft that just happens to have a longer statute of limitation and slightly different remedies. A long time ago, states decided that it was best for society as a whole to have a concept of abandonment of property. That way, the use of property will tend towards actual use, not laying fallow. In the eyes of the state, its better to have someone take the property and use it productively in some way than to have it lie unused- the fact of disuse and non-enforcement of property rights is seen as evidence of abandonment, transforming the theft into a transfer of property rights.

If you steal a car and get away with it for 20 years, the law will not and cannot prosecute you for that theft.

If you adversely possess property for your location's statutorily set period- typically 10-15 years- that property is yours. If you're sued before that period runs- and remember, there are things that extend the beginning of that time period- then you're subject to forcible eviction, fines and even penalties (which vary from state to state).

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

How much of a deterrent to infringement would it be to limit the potential damages to the $40?

Lawyers charge between $125-$250 an hour right? So wouldn't cost of good + legal fees be pretty painful for an average american? That would be an effective detterent. Also expensive enough to make piracy unprofitable.

Generally the law would limit the damages to direct damages (i.e. in this case downloads from the primary upload by the original defendant). If someone later decided to upload another copy, that would probably break the causal chain. The new uploader would be potentially liable though.

Does this mean that one could seed 1 time to a couple leeches, then stop seeding, and be liable for 2 infringements? Then if each leech became a seeder, they'd be liable for any downloads that followed the initial 2?

 

[Mistwell]

One of the elements of adverse possession is that the property has to be held under a colorable claim of right. In other words, you have to believe that you have a valid legal claim to the property that isn't entirely specious.

No, you don't. That is not an element in most jurisdictions.