Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

angersock·

We have to do better in our legislation than "well, it's only a crime if somebody cares".

Otherwise, why bother having a law about copyright infringement at all?

View on HN

You want people to be able to sue you even if you didn't cause them any harm whatsoever?

People are able to sue you even if you didn't cause them any harm. Regarding copyright, they'll even win (see "statutory damages", which aren't related to the actual damages).

Financial harm is still harm. You cant sue unless you are personal affected in some way, financial, emotional or otherwise.

Yes, financial harm is still harm, no argument there. But in copyright, the magic of "presumed harm" applies, so the plaintiff doesn't have to prove that they were actually harmed, hence statutory damages:

Statutory damages are a damage award in civil law, in which the amount awarded is stipulated within the statute rather than being calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff.

You still must have been harmed in some way. You can't just sue and say "well somebody owns the copyright on that! You'd have to be the one to own it in order to sue. Continue reading about statutory damages and explains what they are intended for.

You must have your copyright infringed upon, that's not the same as being harmed. Hence why it's presumed harm - if the infringement itself counted as harm, there would be no need to presume it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com