[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OMG!

"Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
news:BQPJ6.23649$Aj1.8848264@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...

> Kelli Halliburton sent me the following reply to my post below.  What it
> means, I have no idea.
>
> "Fallacious reasoning. Value in this case is measured as 'value to the
> copyright holder' not 'value to the public at large'."

Here's what I meant: The courts' measure of damage is based on the value the
item has to the owner. The value it might have as an historical artifact, or
to a user, or to a community, is irrelevant unless the owner also shares the
valuation.

If it can be established that the owner does not consider the item to be
valuable even in light of its potential value to another party, for whatever
reason, then there are no actual damages.

IANAL, and all that.

> > > > Im Artikel <RCxJ6.20265$Aj1.8134559@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> schrieb
> "Frank
> > > > Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>:
>
> > Not so fast!  Damages have nothing to do with whether or not an item is
> > available through commercial channels (ie, "on the shelf").  That is one
> way
> > of establishing value, but there are others:  expert testimony,
valuations
> > of the work on the used market, etc.  Your own statements indicate that
> you
> > would pay $2 for a legitimately available copy, so you have already
> > impeached the credibility of your new argument that the value of a piece
> of
> > Apple II software is $0.  Furthermore, you and others have already
argued
> > that the software is so valuable that it would be a travisty if it were
> lost
> > to posterity.  Which one of your statements is a falsehood?
>
>
>