this post was submitted on 11 May 2024

173 points (98.9% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55056 readers

164 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

173

Supreme Court: There's No 'Time Limit' on Copyright Infringement Claims * TorrentFreak (torrentfreak.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by Glass0448 to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Copyright holders can claim damages for copyright infringements that occurred years or even decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified. In a majority decision, the Court rejected the lower court's argument that there's a three-year time limit for damages. Older claims are fair game, as long as the lawsuit is filed within three years of 'discovering' an infringement.

A copy of the Supreme Court Decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan, is available here

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 193 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Eternal copyright damages. This sounds like a safe and reasonable decision by our ever respectable Supreme Court.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 62 points 7 months ago

You forgot to mention how democratically chosen its' members are.

[–] brax@sh.itjust.works 97 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Hmm, need to figure out how I can trace my lineage back to the first recorded musician so that I can trademark some chords then go after every record label to have ever existed.

Then I'll try to track down the first ever written script so I can go after the movie industry next

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 50 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You’re missing the most important element. Disgustingly large pile of money that you can use to drag out a suit until the other end folds.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Just send letters en masses to smaller players who can't afford lawyers. Use those payments to hire lawyers to go after influencers and the next rung up... Use those payouts to hire even more lawyers, etc

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

I WAS THE FIRST TO ADD A 9 TO A C NOW EVERY ACOUSTIC COVER FROM 1988 TO 2004 OWES ME $6

[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 52 points 7 months ago

The fuck outta here

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 51 points 7 months ago

The headline is misleading, but the article reports it correctly.

In copyright law in the US, there is a 3-year statute of limitations. However, some jurisdictions follow the "discovery rule." This is a court-made doctrine that allows a lawsuit to be filed beyond 3 years if the plaintiff can show they only discovered the infringement after the statute of limitations ran out, with some other extenuating factors. However, there is also the issue of damages. Under a sister legal doctrine, damages that are more than 3 years old have been barred regardless of whether the discovery rule allows a lawsuit. Effectively negating the discovery rule.

The Supreme Court in this situation held that damages follow the discovery rule. Meaning, if the discovery rule applies, then damages can be sought. The Court explicitly said it wasn't ruling on whether the discovery rule applied.

The decision doesn't expand or create the discovery rule that allows lawsuits beyond 3 years. That already existed.

Interestingly, this is a rare time when I agree with Gorsuch on the dissent. He basically said, "The damages is moot because the discovery rule is made up and shouldn't even apply, so the majority is wasting its time even entertaining that damages can be sought."

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 48 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sexual assault victims have a time limit. Copyright infringement "victims" do not. Tracks.

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 11 points 7 months ago

Think of the kids

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The time limit is a century or so, so that's something our descendants can figure out.

[–] prowess2956@kbin.social 14 points 7 months ago

Just after they figure out the climate, I suppose

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We need to shut down the Supreme Court until we figure out what the hell is going on

[–] greentreerainfire@kbin.social 23 points 7 months ago

Oh we know what is going on already. The court has been stacked in a way that usually favors corporate and authoritarian interests, with justices frequently receiving gifts that aren’t always disclosed.

[–] ____@infosec.pub 10 points 7 months ago

There’s an SOL on rape in most scenarios.

But no statute of limitations on copyright violations? WTF?

[–] Zier@fedia.io 9 points 7 months ago

So we can sue AI for a fuck ton of cash? Sweet!!!

[–] AernaLingus@hexbear.net 6 points 7 months ago

Thanks liberal justices, very cool!