Distinction between legal and illegal downloads?

[fiveworlds]

The Walmart effect?

[studiot]

A further distinction in law is worth mentioning, and again I appeal to imatfaal for amplification.

 

Several posters have mentioned being sued for damages.

 

There is a big difference between UK and US law about this, I do not know about Dutch or other EU laws.

 

The difference is that in the US so called 'punitive damages' can be awarded and are often substantial. Further they are awarded by juries and their amount are often a political act.

 

In the UK you have to be able to prove you have suffered material harm and are only liable to receive compensation for that harm and nothing more.

 

That is why compensation in the UK is some much less than in the US for corresponding actions.

Edited August 7, 2014 by studiot

[swansont]

Allow me to provide an example.

Many people who "illegally download" have little to no money. It is about 90% of what they do with their time. The better question would be why governments aren't providing for them. If these people have nothing to do what else would they do other than fight you? Also with respect to older movie content many of the original copies are now only exclusively available as an illegal copy. There is no other copy because the originals have been destroyed. I know we should pay them all as critics because they are doing the work for nothing.

 

That doesn't make sense. Even if the original is destroyed, if the copyright holder has a copy, that copy is legal. What makes it illegal is obtaining it without permission from the copyright holder.

A further distinction in law is worth mentioning, and again I appeal to imatfaal for amplification.

 

Several posters have mentioned being sued for damages.

 

There is a big difference between UK and US law about this, I do not know about Dutch or other EU laws.

 

The difference is that in the US so called 'punitive damages' can be awarded and are often substantial. Further they are awarded by juries and their amount are often a political act.

 

In the UK you have to be able to prove you have suffered material harm and are only liable to receive compensation for that harm and nothing more.

 

That is why compensation in the UK is some much less than in the US for corresponding actions.

 

In the US that's true only if you have registered the copyright — then there are statutory penalties. For unregistered copyrights, you have to prove damage and are similarly only entitled for compensation of that damage.

[studiot]

 

For unregistered copyrights, you have to prove damage and are similarly only entitled for compensation of that damage.

 

 

Are you not able to reclaim the cost of your action in the US, if you win?

 

I don't think this is usually the case in the UK.