[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case
From: |
Tim Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case |
Date: |
Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:46:03 -0800 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <4AF17964.A222A37F@web.de>,
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/352.pdf
> 505, 512 (9th Cir. 1985)). To determine the work‚s „market value‰ at the
> time of the infringement, the Ninth Circuit has endorsed a hypothetical
> approach which asks „what a willing buyer would have been reasonably
> required to pay to a willing seller for [the owner‚s] work.‰ Id.; see
> also Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 708 (9th
> Cir. 2004). This is an objective approach, and „hurt feelings‰ has no
> place in this calculus. Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d at 917.
Surely, though, the hypothetical must take into account the details of
the infringer's use? For example, suppose a movie studio made its movies
available for free streaming over the net. If someone came along,
recorded those streams, and turned then into DVDs which they sold, I
can't see a court, even a Ninth Circuit court, saying that the free
streams means that the studio would have sold DVD rights for $0.
--
--Tim Smith
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, (continued)
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Hyman Rosen, 2009/11/04
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/11/04
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Hyman Rosen, 2009/11/04
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Rjack, 2009/11/04
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/11/06
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/11/06
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/11/07
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/11/07
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/11/09
- Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case, David Kastrup, 2009/11/04
Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case,
Tim Smith <=