tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post505199193039504622..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Letter from AmeriKatVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36051884705867730912009-06-26T13:11:06.850+01:002009-06-26T13:11:06.850+01:00Thanks, Michael, for your comments. The AmeriKat ...Thanks, Michael, for your comments. The AmeriKat letter is an experiment which, if successful, leaves the blogging team with a choice of future courses -- one of which is to run more US features as separate articles. For the while, most of our readers are drawn from the European Union and we must respect their interests and wishes too.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72754029480711797932009-06-25T01:43:57.876+01:002009-06-25T01:43:57.876+01:00The RIAA's statutory damages in the Minnesota ...The RIAA's statutory damages in the Minnesota case are absurd in light of the fact that these songs cost 99 cents on iTunes. I predict the damage award will be lowered by the trial judge or reversed or modified on appeal. I certainly agree with AmeriKat that the RIAA is going to regret this verdict. As they say, "Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered."Kevin Leichternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46260935065836875112009-06-24T06:43:07.638+01:002009-06-24T06:43:07.638+01:00Delighted to see that Top Kat, Jeremy has extended...Delighted to see that Top Kat, Jeremy has extended the IPKAT team to include an Amerikat, thereby internationalizing my favorite blog (that is, appart from my own ;-).<br /><br />Perhaps as the separate stories are significant and America is less of a backwater British Colony and more of a declining super-power; rather than an occasional letter covering recent developments, individual articles with separate headings would be more appropriate?Dr. Michael Factor (IP Factor)http://www.blog.ipfactor.co.ilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38249767498419702872009-06-24T00:44:22.898+01:002009-06-24T00:44:22.898+01:00Re the Minnesota verdict, I have to say the idea t...Re the Minnesota verdict, I have to say the idea that finding the defendant liable (twice) is somehow immoral is kind of ironic. Given that the jury was only able to rule on statutory damages, does anyone think that the montary award for copyright infringement would have been different if the jury could also have found for perjury? Was the jury hamstrung in its ability to express its finding of fact in the truth of the case? Is this perjury factor something to take into account when contemplating copyright "reform"?Chris Castlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09652154277551773055noreply@blogger.com