Ethan Klein the one Jew commie wrecking crew.
Ethan "takin my 9 to the welfare line" Klein.
Intent does not appear to be necessary for liability, and maliciousness doesn’t even seem to be relevant for statutory damages.
The word "malice" generally isn't used, but "willfulness" is what justifies the highest range of awards. While not all willfulness is malice, a malicious infringement with the intent to harm would almost certainly be found to be willful as well. There are also possible punitive damages (but in the Ninth Circuit only if Klein proves actual damages).
The malicious intent matters a lot when it comes to proving that they were intentionally providing a market replacement.
Especially in a jury trial it will matters a lot if you can show a jury how people organize the activity with the malicious intent and desire to damage him financially clearly spelled out.
The judge ultimately determines the amount of statutory damages as a matter of law, although the jury may determine willfulness (which changes the potential range of damages) and may be given instructions in the form of a jury questionnaire to make findings of fact relevant to the judge's ultimate determination.
Not "malicious" so much as "willful." That's the relevant term of art, because if you maliciously did something intending it to cause harm, you knew it would cause the target financial harm and you willfully did it anyway. That's what raises the cap on statutory damages to $150,000 per infringement.
Maliciousness, for example, posting a dmca sent to you by the complaintent, makes it MUCH easier for the complaintent.
So Google's Lumen Database is illegal? I'd say this is completely retarded, and then call you a retard, but I think you're probably referring to a certain Tenth Circuit case involving this very site. So instead I'll call three Tenth Circuit judges retards.
With what I am reading is that only the infringement matter in term of knowing it or acting in disregard, if you try to ''steal view'' of a work you believe or had reason to believe isnt copyrighted then it dont seem to count in statuory damage maybe for actual damage which you need material loss which is hard to prove it seem.
This is why people go for statutory damages so often.
I think someone as heavily monetized as Klein would actually not have much difficulty proving, or at least arguing for, a specific amount of actual damages. He just needs to count his shekels, divide by the number of views he got on the infringed work to get a "per view" value, count the number of views on the infringing copies, and multiply by that value.
That would at least be a good place to start and on top of that, technical enough that arguing back and forth about it for months would be ruinously expensive.
I won't bother arguing with anyone because clearly it'll get no where. I'll wait until someone contacts or subpoenas the skull company. The CPS shit already went from "it never happened" to "he deserved it because it was legitimate from concerned people".
CPS scumfuckery, much like ratting someone out to the IRS, is the sort of shit engaged in by the lowest of vermin. I don't mean mandatory reporter stuff, but over an Internet beef, and I'd even make an exception on IRS scumfuckery if the guy was something like your employer and ripped you off.
Running interference for kikes should get you banned from kiwi farms.
Running interference for Hassan and his gaggle of retards should get you sent to Abu Ghraib.
Calm down Goebbels, it's entirely possible to hate both Klein and Hasan.[/QUOTE]
