Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingfish
You can’t extend it to copyright they are two spate things and that is why it is beneficial as they can’t claim safe harbor, once a host or advertiser is put on notice of the mark infringement or even if they merely should have know about the infringement they are liable from that point forward they can’t wait for the Tube owner to take it down.
|
Yes I agree they're two separate things and this case is yet another "arrow", as was said in another thread, one more weapon to throw at the offending site in court.
I didn't read the actual court case but from the magazine articles about it, it looks like DMCA and safe harbor were the part of the argument in court anyway. Don't know what was the exact reason for it, but it looks like the court found them connected in one way or the other.
Thus, if DMCA and safe harbor were parts of the reasoning anyway, that's what makes me think the decision can be extended into the copyright area. It will take one more legal battle, but having LV precedent behind you, a precedent that is portrayed as the one setting the limits of the safe harbor defense, will surely help.
Going after the trademark infringement is good, but not THAT good. For example, our older videos were not watermarked and they're still flying around at tubes and torrents, and we'll still need copyright laws and precedents if we're going to fight the offenders in court.