I think this is a very astute point that people tend to miss. If 1000 people gather in Times Square with baseball and do $1,000,000 worth of property damage, are they each liable for $1mm in damages or only their share?
With infringement, you could argue that the original uploader caused the chain events that led to an immeasurable number of downloads, but each individual seeder can only be held liable, using your equation, for a single download. Holding each seeder responsible for every single download means that you could successfully sue them all and recoup an obscene multiple of actual and/or statutory damages. There is no logic in this formula.
However, it should also be noted that statutory damages are, in my opinion, arbitrary in nature and do NOT require proof of actual damages to be awarded.
I think the point is that this patent is obvious to anyone with any reasonable understanding of computer operations and programming. However, most patent examiners are probably not software engineers. And most jury members probably wont be either.
And therein lies the biggest flaw with the patent system. How can the same patent examiner determine obviousness for patents relating to nuclear physics, airplane wing design, drug formulation, acrylic paint formulas, and any other of innumerable possible topics? Only by hiring the most brilliant minds in history could the USPTO have the required expertise to do its job. The problem is that most of these brilliant minds are out actually *inventing* things and wouldnt be content sitting around reviewing other people's inventions. Without a distributed peer review system, it is inherently self-defeating.
I dont think you can make that argument. If I own a building in a major city and decide to paint a giant mural on it with a particular message in mind (insert your pet annoyance here). Although the message has clearly been created within the confines of personal property, it is on public view. Therefore it is a public conversation.
A similar example happened during a St Patricks Day parade where a drunk couple decided it would be fun to have sex in the window while watching the parade, in full view of parade attendees. The cops showed up and charged them with public indecency because they were, in fact, in public even though they were on private property at the time.
I couldnt agree more with this. I have downloaded very few TV shows. Those that I have are when I fell a few weeks behind on a show and Hulu got rid of the content. If I could have watched it through some legit channel, I would have. When I was left with no choice, except maybe simply not watching it, I took the unauthorized route.
The other choice, which I almost opted for, was simply never watching the show again because I had missed an episode. Is that really what the producers want?
I have purchased a few seasons of shows on DVD in the past, but I just hate having DVDs around these days. If I could get back episodes streamed for free (or even cheap) I would do it. If they dont offer it to me, I will find the content through some other means. Especially since it is just so damn easy to find these days!
The difference between this and Wolverine is that this movie (I havent seen it, Ive only heard) is terrible. It is well hyped; they made really pretty previews, but the movie itself sucks.
It is very hard to monetize a movie that sucks once people know it sucks. If you can hold back that truth until opening weekend, you can still make a fortune.
That is the business model that is currently failing. Leaked screeners make it very hard to lie to the general public. Hollywood actually has to make decent movies now, and that scares the crap out of them!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dave.