this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
507 points (99.6% liked)

Music

9431 readers
168 users here now

↳ Our family Communities:

➰#Music

Music.world - !music@lemmy.world

Jazz -!jazz@lemmy.world

Album Art Porn - !albumartporn@lemmy.world

Fake Album Covers - !fakealbumcovers@lemm.ee

Obscure Music - !ObscureMusic@lemm.ee

Vinyl and LP's - !vinyl@lemmy.world

Electronic Dance Music - !edm@reddthat.com

60's Music - !60smusic@lemmy.world

70's Music - !70smusic@lemmy.world

80's Music - !80smusic@lemmy.world

90's Music - !90smusic@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] meliodas_101@lemmy.world 83 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Why is everyone focusing on the number. It's going to set the record that artist's can sue corporate for using their work unfairly.

I mean, Zuck personally made that much money every 6 minutes last year - when sleeping, eating, basking in the sun on a hot rock...

But the real answer is that the article itself is not good reporting.

Copyright claimants will typically request the statutory wilful infringement amount ($150,000 per work) in the court complaint, but will also have a catch-all for actual damages and profits. Proving that at trial can make this much higher. Some plaintiffs put a $10 million or $100 million or $1 billion number in their documents to make headlines. But this reporter presumably is not familiar with this practice, so is underselling the risk here.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

Been going after individual users long enough I guess