[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:57:19 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <> wrote:
The Free Software Foundation is asking for permission to file an amicus brief in the current case of Sony v. Tenenbaum in the
 federal District Court of Massachusetts:

"We are submitting this brief to bring to the Court's attention
 some of the growing body of authority suggesting that the
State Farm/Gore due process test applicable to punitive damage
awards is likewise applicable to statutory damages, and in
particular bars the suggestion that each infringement of an MP3
file having a retail value of 99 cents or less may be
punishable by statutory damages of from $750 to $150,000 -- or
from 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages."

The FSF thinks 2,100 - 425,000 times actual dahages is excessive!

Well. . . Huh?

In the current suit Free Software Foundation Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. the FSF is asking for monetary damages:

"(2) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiff?s actual and consequential damages incurred, in an amount to be determined at trial or, in the alternative, statutory damages as set forth in 17 U.S.C. ? 504(c);"

Since the limit as x-> 0 of 1.00/x approaches infinity, awarding monetary damages of even one dollar is more than trillions of times actual economic losses.

No. The damage done by the copyright violater to the copyright holder is non-zero, even though that damage is not caused by the flow or non-flow of money.

Uh... "pay Plaintiff's actual and consequential damages incurred, in
an amount to be determined at trial. . ." is non-economic?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit does not
recognize non-economic damages in copyright suits.

In filing its amicus brief, the Free Software Foundation is not
seeking due process fairness. It is simply blathering its standard hypocritical socialist propaganda.

Can you really not make a point without adding in vitriolic irrelevance?

The irrelevant vitriol spewed by RMS and the FSF deserves a reply in

Actually, I wonder what the FSF is doing mixing in here, because the file-sharing case doesn't seem to have much to do with free software, except tangentially. (Look it up in a dictionary!)

We were comparing damages in copyright suits. Hopefully, the U.S.
copyright laws are uniform in principle.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]