Il giudice Michael J. Davis, ha significativamente ridotto la precedente condanna (pari a 1,5 milioni dollari), ridefinedola in un ammontare pari a 2.250 dollari per canzone, per un totale di $ 54.000.
La Corte ha affermato: “an award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable. In this particular case, involving a first‑time willful, consumer infringer of limited means who committed illegal song file‑sharing for her own personal use, an award of $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum award consistent with due process”
- RT @nyulawreview: Essay: @elizabeth_joh reveals how private surveillance technology vendors shape policing and law nyulawreview.org/online-feature…… 13 hours ago
- RT @SCRIPTCentre: Tech giants (incl #Google #Facebook) say US anti-sex trafficking bill will 'stifle #innovation'. washingtonexaminer.com/tech-community… 1 day ago
- RT @hoofnagle: Even the WSJ is asking: does "this device really needs to be connected to the internet?” wsj.com/articles/eight…? 1 day ago
- RT @hoofnagle: This little article about tape backups says a lot about the cloud wsj.com/articles/compa…? 1 day ago
- RT @JIPITEC: The latest issue 8 (2) 2017 of JIPITEC – Journal of IP, IT & E-Commerce Law – is now available at jipitec.eu. 2 days ago