Is the first paragraph missing a “not?” Otherwise, I’m so confused and I’ve read it through three times now. =o/
Just wait until the TPPA is signed. Then the copyright holders will be able to hand the Oz courts their arses in an Investor State Dispute Resolution court somewhere a long way from Oz …
No, the ruling is basically about two sums: compensation and damages. The court found in the favour of compensation but ruled against the claims of damages.
So they’re caught and have to pay for a legal copy and for the court costs of catching them.
But, they don’t have to pay the “damages” against the company, such as the cost of a distribution license fee for the film because they ‘distributed’ it across bittorrent, penalty fees based on how many other copyrighted things they’d stolen regardless of who owned them, or any kind of penalty based on their income.
That second one is the part that copyright trolls thrive on, because they’re invented costs that were never actually paid so you turn a profit by extorting people for them. You can’t make an industry out of forcing people to buy a dvd and cover your court costs.
Ahhh, reading it now with that in mind I can follow it. Thanks!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.