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

Music

11560 readers
84 users here now

Per community feedback, low-effort GenAI posts are disallowed.

↳ 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 11 months 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 11 months ago

Been going after individual users long enough I guess