> What would it serve to bankrupt the IA, they can't pay anyway?
It would serve the termination of the infringement.
My point is that the Times doesn't particular seem to care about infringement per se, they care about getting their slice of the cut from that infringement.
It's like if a video game company or a movie company only attempted to sue illegal downloaders who had a certain net worth.
> It's like if a video game company or a movie company only attempted to sue illegal downloaders who had a certain net worth.
I mean yeah, no one's gonna bother trying to squeeze money out of Joe Schmoe with 10 bucks in his bank account over some pirated movies. If a company with billions and billions of dollars like Netflix started pushing out pirated movies instead, then obviously they'd be sued into oblivion, as they should be.
It would serve the termination of the infringement.
My point is that the Times doesn't particular seem to care about infringement per se, they care about getting their slice of the cut from that infringement.
It's like if a video game company or a movie company only attempted to sue illegal downloaders who had a certain net worth.