Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Or maybe not. The record labels are selling the artist's music and not paying them for it. The torrent sites are providing it for free and selling advertising on the website. So a torrent site can't argue that they can't find the copyright holder and pay them a royalty because they have never paid out a royalty and don't sell individual songs or albums.
|
you completely missed the point
the record companies are saying it not a burden to establish copyright and pay liciencing fees BEFORE post a single file
while at the same time NOT doing that themselves.
IF they argue against paying out the full damages (which is easily 100k times 60 billion because MG counted 1 infringement per record of pending, not 1 infringement per sale) they PROVE ABSOLUTELY that request is an unfair burden.
Quote:
|
They are both ripping the artists off, they are just going it in a different way.
|
except the torrent sites can argue that their service is fair use, while the record companies by selling the content DIRECTLY can't
Quote:
|
For a torrent site to argue that they were trying to contact the copyright holders and pay them but couldn't do so would mean that they would have to show that they were taking a portion of their profits and giving it to copyright holders to begin with and that isn't happening.
|
never said they would argue they "Trying" to contact the copyright holders, just that the burden to require them too is unfair.
See above point.
the only way that the CRIA/RIAA are going to avoid proving that point is to roll over and pay out what would translate into trillion dollars in judgement. If they fight at all, they prove the point that the torrent sites have been repeatedly saying. That the safe harbor takedown process is good enough already.
Anything more would be abusive.