The real cost of being sued by Getty
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 14:10 Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>> In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for >>> copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically >>> for damages plus court cost and legal fees. >> >> It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive >> maliciousness. > >That's your opinion. The courts differ. > >As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase >significantly when you do something wrong. Let's put this in concrete terms... You doubtless have music on your computer. Did you pay licensing fees for EVERY bit of music? If not then you could be sued for $1000 (or more) for each $0.90 song you didn't pay for. You could be sued for thousands for each bit of software you didn't pay for. Is THAT justice? Did you READ those license agreements in detail to ensure that you are fully in compliance? Did you make a backup of software that does not allow for backups? Did you install the same software on two computers without paying for two copies? Did you transfer music from one machine to another without making sure that you had permission to do so? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: NotMe on 18 Oct 2009 14:15 � 2 0 0 8 a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d ; n o p o r t i o n o f t h i s p o s t m a y b e u s e d a n y w h e r e e l s e o r a r c h i v e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18v/sk3oJm9Pdq9xzZICQ7EtlkQ782WLj44tIQmN2Demg== X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091017-0, 10/17/2009), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:8UtF2AmfOvREADvAysxRDibCdpA= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: news.netfront.net alt.www.webmaster:4758 rec.photo.digital:34354 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4adb5766$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... : Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: : >Ray Fischer wrote: : >> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: : >>> In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for : >>> copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically : >>> for damages plus court cost and legal fees. : >> : >> It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive : >> maliciousness. : > : >That's your opinion. The courts differ. : : The courts are about upholding the law, not about dispensing justice. You're just figuring that out? Been that way since the days of King Herod. : >As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase : >significantly when you do something wrong. : : That's the lawyer's argument. No that's the reality of business. The name of the game is to get the best deal without going cross ways with the system. Works for banks, credit card companies and the IRS.
From: Jerry Stuckle on 18 Oct 2009 14:38 Ray Fischer wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>> In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for >>>> copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically >>>> for damages plus court cost and legal fees. >>> It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive >>> maliciousness. >> That's your opinion. The courts differ. >> >> As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase >> significantly when you do something wrong. > > Let's put this in concrete terms... > > You doubtless have music on your computer. Did you pay licensing fees > for EVERY bit of music? If not then you could be sued for $1000 (or > more) for each $0.90 song you didn't pay for. You could be sued for > thousands for each bit of software you didn't pay for. > Actually, no, I don't. But when I did have music on a computer, I paid the appropriate fees for every bit of music. I also have licenses for every bit of software on this system. > Is THAT justice? > Yes, it is. > Did you READ those license agreements in detail to ensure that you are > fully in compliance? Did you make a backup of software that does not > allow for backups? Did you install the same software on two computers > without paying for two copies? Did you transfer music from one > machine to another without making sure that you had permission to do > so? > Yes, I do. My livelihood depends on it. And there is no software which does not allow backups. And no, I did not install the same software on two computers without paying for them. It's obvious you are worried about the consequences because you flout the law. I'm not worried, because I don't. And neither do my clients. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: Jerry Stuckle on 18 Oct 2009 14:38 Ray Fischer wrote: > NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >> : Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> : >On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> : >> >> : >> >> : >> >The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief. >> : >> >> : >> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the >> licensable >> : >> photo isn't ridiculous? >> : > >> : >Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the >> : >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. >> : >> : The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks >> : like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. >> >> Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more >> (sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The >> court makes a judgment on what equitable. > > "I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll > screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth." > > But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice. > That is justice. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: Jerry Stuckle on 18 Oct 2009 14:40
Ray Fischer wrote: > michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: >> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable >>> photo isn't ridiculous? >> Not if they only ever expected to ever catch say 1 in 100 copyright infringers, >> then no it isn't. > > Since when is one person supposed to be responsible for the actions of > others? > They're not. But it is meant to discourage ALL copyright violations. If you don't violate a copyright, then you have no problems. You can be honest and pay a small price, or attempt to be dishonest and potentially pay a large price. Your choice. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ================== |