Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Jan 2010 17:41 UTC
Legal Like many of you, I kind of lost my faith in the US justice system (when it comes to piracy cases) when a judge awarded USD 1.92 million in damages for downloading 24 songs in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. At the same time, also like many of you, I was very pleased with the outcome of the OiNK case in the United Kingdom last week. As it turns out, some of my faith in the US system has been restored: the USD 1.92 fine has been reduced by 97%, to a mere USD 54000.
Permalink for comment 405627
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
OK let me get this straight
by fury on Sat 23rd Jan 2010 19:03 UTC
fury
Member since:
2005-09-23

If you applied the original damage model from this case to the OINK case, the admin would've been charged $720,000,000,000 ($720 billion). That's $80,000 per song, 600,000 albums of approx. 15 songs a piece (a total of 9,000,000 songs). Now, the OINK guy didn't actually obtain 600,000 albums, but he was making money from them. If you apply the new model that's $20,250,000,000 ($20.25 billion). Ellis made approx $322,320 from OINK.

So how's that. When someone profits from a music piracy venture, they must pay back their profit to the industry 62,825 times! Even when you cut that in half that's still $10.125 billion, 31,412.5 times his profit.

The Rasset model is not only ridiculous for noncommercial piracy, but for commercial piracy too!

Reply Score: 5