Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
Besides attacking me, please tell me why it is fundamentally flawed. You need to research reverse passing and false origin claims off under the Lanham Act. I believe that watermarking your content could protect content producers from tubes that publish their content with their TM logo on it. And if the tube site strips the watermark, it may only make their claim stronger.
The TM owner may also have a claim for false origin under the Lanham Act.
I am not saying its a guaranteed winner. What I said was it gives a content owner another weapon in the fight against piracy.
Seeing how your threads/posts seems to support piracy I didnt expect you to like the application of this decision to such actions though.
There is fair use when it comes to TMs but it is more limited than in copyright.
I also think it makes hosts here in the US and abroad more likely to police infringing sites.
|
ok let see
host get takedown notice
host ignores take down notices
host claims safe harbor protection for content they refused to respond too
judge and jury deny safe harbor protection.
you draw the conclusion that it a game changer allows you to get around the takedown notice responsibility.
what is unclear about the fundamental flaw in your arguement.