Interesting approach and I think it is a good direction. There are some differences though: sharing the files on the net is releasing them to a potentially broader audience. The patrons in a bar don't get to take home the music they listen to on their mp3 player. Maybe a comparison to unlicensed broadcasting is more appropriate?
There is a distinct legal difference between performance of a work and copying.... if you were recording the thing at the bar and then distributing copies - it would be the latter.
The point the judge is making here is more like "Hey - in performance related damages - we punish violators who knowingly and blatantly refused to follow the law to their direct commercial benefit, and the only pay a few thousand bucks in damages compared to the licensing fees. (4, or 5 figures in the extreme.)
Now, even though it's not the same issue precisely, it seems grossly out of place that a person at home who shared some music with a few people for non-commercial reasons is being assessed damages in the 6 to 7 figure ranges...and that just seems absurd.
I mean seriously - some Mom goes out and shares a song on some bittorrent setup - and we're saying she owes a MILLION DOLLARS?
The high figures seem to result from the fact that the *AA argue that the file was _potentially_ shared with _millions_ of people around the internet. I wonder why they are not required to prove every single instance of downloading that they claiming damages from...
I'm afraid that if this parallel becomes common, it will backfire. An unlicensed public performance, which receives a penalty of 2x the license fee, represents the song being played one time, to a limited audience. If one extrapolates from there the number of potential hearers/hearings from a shared file....
Exactly, what bothers me is how they don't have to prove how many time the files were copied (from her computer to another, she didn't do the infringement when she first downloaded the song.) to make up that 1.92 million number. If we had a number say $10 per song shared (ridiculous number 10 times larger that the real number) then if they can prove she at least shared those file once, that's $240. But they can't prove that currently so... the damages are in my view totally in founded.
Copies of copies wouldn't count..... just direct infringements.. and why shouldn't the penalties be more in line with digital broadcasting without paying up? IT's almost the same thing.
