IANAL, but that's sounds like something which would really piss of a judge, which is why I thought I was misunderstanding it. I mean, there's the legal doctrine of "minimization of damages", which means the person who's (potentially) being damaged is supposed to take reasonable steps to minimize the damage they take, yet when ASCAP has a chance to minimize damages fall into their laps, they do nothing.
During negotiations, ASCAP and the publisher increased the pressure by refusing to provide Pandora the list of tracks that were being withdrawn, exposing Pandora to copyright infringement liability of up to $150,000 per work. At Pandora’s scale, such liability would be enormous.
The way I'm reading that is that Pandora is asking "Would doing X be infringing", and the response was "if it is infringing, we'll tell you after you do it". But I'm pretty sure that can't be right, so what does the above quote actually mean?
I think that their accusation was that while the John Does do exist, none of those Does actually contacted Pietz, and he's just pretending one of them contacted them. Which is a stupid claim to make since they don't have any evidence for it, but it's not quite as stupid as you're making it out to be.
Feels weird to be defending the NSA, but with that much data they couldn't read it all, but would have to do targeted searches or terrorism-targeted data-mining, neither of which would have revealed stuff like that.
Awwwwwww. I was hoping that he'd try to explain why the IP evidence in this instance doesn't meant anything, while the much less extensive IP evidence he used for sending settlement demands is iron-clad. Whatever he came up with, it would've been hilarious.
If this was just to offset the costs, they could simply buy the clerks some stopwatches and charge by the minute. That would be easier to tie into the costs involved, and the charges would be much less discouraging to the public that wanted to do searches.
Of course, if the intent to get the government more income without raising taxes... Well, like Jim Ewert said, "[I]f it's adopted there is going to be very little additional funding, because people just aren't going to make the request", but I guess hope springs eternal.
It's not unlimited reproduction and distribution, but only reproduction and distribution while a member of that specific swarm. And "an implicit and temporary grant of rights because of how the technology used for distribution works" doesn't explicitly need to be a part of the Constitution, as there's tons of case-law that interprets the Constitution.