Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
but see the thread title of this thread goes one step further to INCLUDE google depspite the google images by "linking to violaters" as i'm sure many sites do, so how many links deep are they concerned with ..
|
yes, and again.. a gray area. someone could be linking to a page that has the blatant paris hilton copyright infringements, but that page also promotes other (legal) links... so to determine if that linking relationships is contributing to the infringement is a case that would have to be settled in court.. and one that would most likely never go to court because it was too vague.
now having a paysite that was streaming the paris hilton video that clearly was not xpays, and affiliates that were promoting that site.. since there is commissions, there is co-infringement, and the affiliate could be rolled up wit that paysite in a lawsuit.. and then have money take back via RICO, etc.
As Perfect10 and xpays has demonstrated, DMCA to google is far more effective in both costs and time (since the infringer must be taken down within a "reasonable period of time" which in practice is probably no more than 72 hours).. than filing a lawsuit and trying to prove damages.
People are just starting to realize how much power the DMCA takedown statue has, as a good thing for those that are copyright holders and trying to prevent people from stealing from their works, and as a bad thing, when it is mis-used.
The greater problem is the general ignorance of copyright laws and that alot of infringements are truly infringements due to people not understanding or making up their own rationale for what is "fair use" and "public domain".
Fight the flightless bird!