MPAA Violates Another Software License

Patrick Robib, a blogger who wrote his own blogging engine called Forest Blog recently noticed that none other than the MPAA was using his work, and had completely violated his linkware license by removing all links back to the Forest Blog site, not crediting him in any way. The MPAA blog was using the Forest Blog software, but had completely stripped off his name, and links back to his site. He only found about it accidentally when he happened to visit the MPAA site.

Comments

Re:Well, not anymore...

[cpt kangarooski]

No no no. It has nothing to do with the cost of the albu^H^H^H^Hsoftware. You see, since they didn't pay initially, they should have had a link. And if they had placed a link, then there would have been more users of Forest Blog, and thus they are liable for each user who did not use Forest Blog because they were missing the link. Therefore their liability should be $97 times everyone who has visited mpaa.org, and thus was a lost customer, plus punitive damages of $150,000 per page that should have had a link.

No no no. It has nothing to do with your made-up crap. If you want to argue that he was actually damaged by the failure to provide the link, then they are only liable for each user who did not use the software because of the missing link, and who otherwise would have used the software. Unless this is spectacularly popular software, not all users who see the link are going to use the software. So you determine which, if any, of the users, who went to the site would have used the software had the link been there. This will be some percentage of the users, perhaps a low percentage. You don't get to assume that every single one is a lost customer. That isn't how it works. Additionally, it's not every user that went to the entire domain, it's only the ones that went to the pages where they'd've seen the link.

So really, we're not looking at all mpaa.org users. We're looking at a rather tiny fraction of them, since those would be the only ones for which there'd be actual damages. Not made-up damages. You don't get made-up damages in court.

As for punitive damages, they don't exist in this case. And your $150,000 figure, if not totally pulled out of your ass, is probably based on statutory damages, which cannot be claimed together with actual damages (you have to pick one), and which I suspect are unavailable here, but perhaps they are, it depends. If the guy is at all serious, he needs to talk to a US copyright lawyer right now, lest his window close for getting decent damages. Assuming it hasn't closed already.