Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> 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." 
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090321164736122
>
> > 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
kind.

> 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.