Pri prebirani informace doslo ke zkresleni. Ten soudce nehovori o situaci, kdy autorovi vznikla skoda. Hovori o principu "fair compensation", coz by bylo vhodnejsi prekladat jako "spravedlive financni vyrovnani" nez jako "spravedlive odskodneni":
The concept of ‘fair compensation’ must be understood as a payment to the rightholder which, taking into account all the circumstances of the permitted private copying, constitutes an appropriate reward for the use of his protected work or other subject-matter. Regardless of the system used by each Member State to calculate fair compensation, the Member States are obliged to ensure a fair balance between the persons affected – the intellectual property rightholders affected by the private copying exception, to whom the compensation is owed, on the one hand, and the persons directly or indirectly liable to pay the compensation, on the other.
Preklady typu "financni odskodneni" naznacuji, ze autorovi vznikla nejaka skoda. Na internetu jsou desitky prispevku o tom, ze timto zpusobem autorum zadna prima skoda nevznika. Nema smysl je zde opakovat. I kdyz to vypada jako hra se slovicky, prece jen je zde rozdil. V jednom pripade je uzivatel povazovan za zlodeje, ktery plati pokutu za to, co nespachal, v druhem pripade je povazovan za ferove platiciho sponzora kultury :-)