tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post653792782097665330..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Orcas and Statutory DamagesWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-6304882375092069002008-03-11T11:56:00.000-04:002008-03-11T11:56:00.000-04:00I'm not trying to be modest, I'm just a little bit...I'm not trying to be modest, I'm just a little bit lost on the issue. From my understanding, if the infringement is secondary, then it is still one infringement action because the contributory infringer did not directly infringe the work, but helped another to directly infringe the work. However, if the infringment is direct, then there are two separate infringement actions. In my opinion, MG Perin infringed directly by distributing/making copies of the video AND contributorily infringed by helping UTN to directly infringe by performing/displaying the video. If MG Perin directly and indirectly infringed, it should be liable independently for its direct infringement AND be jointly liable with UTN for its contributory infringement. Thus, there should be two separate awards. Right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-64827362297321030192008-03-11T09:34:00.000-04:002008-03-11T09:34:00.000-04:00Hooray! Are the rotating bio pictures back?Hooray! Are the rotating bio pictures back?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-37755724171453623392008-03-10T22:44:00.000-04:002008-03-10T22:44:00.000-04:00Hey Anon, none of this false modesty about being a...Hey Anon, none of this false modesty about being a mere law student. In earlier drafts of the blog (it may come as a surprise to some that there are ever drafts of the blog), I had discussed the contributory infringement issue. But I don't see why if there is direct or secondary, that still impacts on the number of awards. Where is it written that joint or several liability hinges on such differences?William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-59810854645459006862008-03-10T22:35:00.000-04:002008-03-10T22:35:00.000-04:00I'm having problems with the first part of the opi...I'm having problems with the first part of the opinion. It seems to me that both MG Perin and UTN infringed the copyright. MG Perin infringed the distribution right, while UTN infringed the display/performance right. Perhaps the argument is that MG Perin only contributed to UTN's public distribution, and thus is only contributorily liable for infringement as opposed to being a direct infringer. But, there is still the issue of reproduction of the copyrighted work, which MG Perin surely did in order to allow UTN to broadcast the clip. Thus, it seems to me that both are direct infringers and liable as such. So, the copyright holder should be entitled to two separate awards.<BR/><BR/>The court holds that MG Perin and UTN are jointly and severally liable, which seems to encourage this type of behavior. Each should be liable for the full amount of statutory damages. I agree with Nimmer that if MG Perin had given the video to multiple networks for broadcast, each network would be liable for separate damages. To not hold so would encourage an infringer to simply distribute the video amongst a multitude of networks and split the cost of the statutory damages among all of them. However, I still believe that MG Perin violated a different 106 right than the network and should be liable for such, while the network should liable for the 106 rights it violated. Maybe I'm missing something. I am still in law school you know.<BR/><BR/>Any help?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com