Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob
Your argument blaming the greedy copyright owner is false. The copyright owner only makes a complaint to the courts for perceived injuries. Anyone who is injured by someone publishing content (libel, obscenity, and copyrights violation are just a few) has the right to petition the courts for justice.
The guilt or innocence of the alleged copyright violator is in the hands of the judge and jury; not the copyright's owner or creator.
Disagreements will always occur and be settled by the courts using the principle of stare decisis, i.e. prior decisions.
The prior decisions are to be used as a guide for content users to ascertain that which is probably legal and that which is not.
If pirates don't get greedy, they probably won't be found guilty.
But then, we know pirates; and, they are all about the 'gold'.
Just my opinion.  |
you notice you mentioned a right to file for damages to copyright infringement, but there is no right for violating fair use
it a one side situation which you want to make worse by giving transactional immunity based on nothing more then the claim that you "believe" your being wronged. You complain about how pirates are taking advantage of the safe harbor, do you really expect me to believe absolutely no copyright holder will take advantage of that situation.
if i am so wrong and no one is actually going to do the shit i am afraid they would do
why not put a statutory damage restriction for violating fair use.
If no one is ever going to take advantage of the blanket immunity to take out competing companies why not revoke the copyright holders who do.
If that number is zero, the clause is totally useless, it like betting the sun will rise in the north
it doesn't matter how serious the penalty is , you would have no problem accepting it because you know it will not happen.