> Terry Carroll <carroll@tjc.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> Copyright, like most civil causes of action, is not intended to reward the
> >> plaintiff for being harmed. It's only intended to put the plaintiff in as
> >> good a position as if he or she had not been harmed. Sure, if you suffer no
> >> significant loss, you won't get a significant award. That's the point: the
> >> award is supposed to reflect the damage.
>
> Surely, with regard to FAQs, this is the key point. If your FAQ
> is available for free elsewhere on the Internet, then you have not
> suffered any financial loss. This means that, in the case of FAQs,
> resorting to law for a breach of copyright is a waste of time.
That's essentially correct. I think (or hope) I said in an earlier post that
you can get the infringer's profits as actual damages as well, to the extent
that those profits are not double-counted from your losses, which means that
in some cases of commercial infringement, you may have some actual damages
available. But Martin's pretty much got it: if there's no monetary harm,
there's not likely to be any monetary award. Now, if you want something
other than monetary award, e.g., an injunction to make the infringer stop, a
lawsuit will work -- but not cheaply.
In general, not just with regard to copyright, a lawsuit is not an
economicaly viable option unless significant amounts of money are at stake,
and should be treated as a last resort.
-- Terry Carroll | "In a professional sports league game played in the Santa Clara, CA | United States, the head referee ... shall ... in the carroll@tjc.com | event of conflicting calls, review instant replay to Modell delenda est | determine the correct call." - House Bill H.R. 3096
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved