Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
1. Don't you have to be 100% sure to get your facts straight before starting a thread that can potentially damage reputation and "shut down someone sources of income" as the result? Or maybe you think that proper due diligence is for "copyright dinosaurs" only? Now talk about sense of entitlement lol.
|
"pirates" don't do their due diligence they get hit with 25k statutory damages
you don't do your due diligence your damages are capped to only actual damages
Quote:
|
2. They aren't shutting down sites, they're asking to take down links. No real damage was done, no reputations ruined, no income lost, no businesses closed, no jobs lost, just a trivial mistake that was already corrected and all parties involved sincerely apologized - if your buddies at filesharing sites would have also acted like that all the time we wouldn't have any problem with piracy and false positives in DMCAs.
|
cool so are you offering to oover the cost of finding all the people who posted comments/linked too etc this article and pay them to recreate their work.
I find it interesting how you minimize those loses to nothing.
Yet if someone claims that infringements are balanced out by increase sales from people finding your stuff.
Or that you innovate your way out of all the "loses" you are suffering you tear into them.
Very interesting double standard
Quote:
|
3. Yes false positives do happen from time to time when sending DMCAs, and the ONLY reason for it is the absurd amount of infringment that is going on out there. If those sites were of but small help to copyright holders and at least banned repeat offenders, the amount of infringing links would decrease 1000 fold and of course it would be much easier to check them all before sending take down notices.
|
and that the problem with trying to balance a penalty against an exemption.
Especially an exemption that is capped with knowledge of infringement.
If they tracked those kind of details unless they did an absolutely perfect job, they would be liable for all the people they miss. The law makes it better for them to stick their heads in the sand and say sorry we can't help you.
If copyright holders were willing to accept statutory damages of 25k for each bogus take down they send instead. The law would not need such foreknowledge based exemptions.