Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
the problem is that in post case the person actually making the fair use doesn't make any money from that act. The 43 people who used the downfall clip to make fun of xbox live, burning man etc were doing it because they wanted to express themselves.
|
Why woudn't they express themselves within the already accepted fair use boundaries, if they only do it for fun? I believe it is only fair that only those would be pushing the boundaries of the law who feel what they do is right and really necessary, and ready to stand up for that; not just every teenager making fun of xbox at public service site.
If those parodies are such a necessaty for the human kind, some one will make one and post it at his own site, and then battle in court it's fair use. If he wins, every teenager at public service site could do the same. If not, than not.
I understand we should ensure some progress in fair use practices, but it doesn't have to be a speedy one, and certainly not at the expense of the entire industries collapsing.
Quote:
|
3x is what the current laws (if applied) state is the penalty and therefore that should be the minimum cost for a false takedown request.
|
That would be $450K? Too harsh imo. Especially if this particular kind of potential fair use case have not been tried in court yet - you can hardly claim those takedown requests a "bogus" ones, since the extension of fair use have not been set yet in court for this particular case.