Comments on: Eye-Popping Statutory Damage Award in File-Sharing Retrial http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/18/eye-popping-statutory-damage-award-in-file-sharing-retrial/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:55:50 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Mark Spades (Friendly File Sharing) http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/18/eye-popping-statutory-damage-award-in-file-sharing-retrial/comment-page-1/#comment-92519 Mark Spades (Friendly File Sharing) Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:08:14 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/?p=579#comment-92519 Strong point by Chris and excellent post. I wander how this would have gone in any European court, where appeal to Brussels cannot be overruled and human rights still mean something (in regard to the amount of damages rewarded). Will using services like Tor et co. count for willful infringement as well? Strong point by Chris and excellent post.
I wander how this would have gone in any European court, where appeal to Brussels cannot be overruled and human rights still mean something (in regard to the amount of damages rewarded).
Will using services like Tor et co. count for willful infringement as well?

]]> By: Derek Bambauer http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/18/eye-popping-statutory-damage-award-in-file-sharing-retrial/comment-page-1/#comment-90633 Derek Bambauer Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:30:32 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/?p=579#comment-90633 This is an interesting point. Given, though, that the jury found Thomas liable for willful infringement, is there an argument that her conduct in this trial is particularly indicative of willfulness? Her story on the stand seemed particularly problematic. I agree with Tim: this was a bad test case / cause celebre. Bad facts. I don't doubt that the damages will get knocked down by the trial judge or on appeal, but the fact remains that this is a significant defeat. This is an interesting point. Given, though, that the jury found Thomas liable for willful infringement, is there an argument that her conduct in this trial is particularly indicative of willfulness? Her story on the stand seemed particularly problematic.
I agree with Tim: this was a bad test case / cause celebre. Bad facts. I don’t doubt that the damages will get knocked down by the trial judge or on appeal, but the fact remains that this is a significant defeat.

]]> By: Chris Fulmer http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/18/eye-popping-statutory-damage-award-in-file-sharing-retrial/comment-page-1/#comment-90529 Chris Fulmer Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:17:37 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/?p=579#comment-90529 There's an additional problem here. This case was looked at by two juries who reviewed, basically, the same evidence, but came to vastly different conclusions about the amount of damages. What does it say about the US judicial system (and, possibly, the status of Copyright damages law) when $1.7M turns, basically, on the whim of a jury? It would be an interesting study to talk to the jurors from both trials and compare notes. There’s an additional problem here. This case was looked at by two juries who reviewed, basically, the same evidence, but came to vastly different conclusions about the amount of damages. What does it say about the US judicial system (and, possibly, the status of Copyright damages law) when $1.7M turns, basically, on the whim of a jury?

It would be an interesting study to talk to the jurors from both trials and compare notes.

]]>