Tim Smith wrote: > > In article <[email protected]>, > Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/352.pdf > > 505, 512 (9th Cir. 1985)). To determine the workâs âmarket valueâ° at > > the > > time of the infringement, the Ninth Circuit has endorsed a hypothetical > > approach which asks âwhat a willing buyer would have been reasonably > > required to pay to a willing seller for [the ownerâs] work.â° Id.; see > > also Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 708 (9th > > Cir. 2004). This is an objective approach, and âhurt feelingsâ° has no > > place in this calculus. Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d at 917. > > Surely, though, the hypothetical must take into account the details of > the infringer's use? For example, suppose a movie studio made its movies > available for free streaming over the net. If someone came along, > recorded those streams, and turned then into DVDs which they sold, I > can't see a court, even a Ninth Circuit court, saying that the free > streams means that the studio would have sold DVD rights for $0.
Probably not as long as market for streaming has not eliminated the DVD market. Different market values. How does that relate to the JMRI case? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
