Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob
Gideongallery:
The reason there are no damages awarded to "fair use" users for a contents owner's allegations of copyright violation is that they NEVER OWNED THE CONTENT in question.
And, since they never owned the content in question, the value of their labors are not diminished.
If you take someone else's property without their permission (licensing), you run the risk of being accused of stealing (copyright infringement) and must bear the consequences of your actions. There is no basis here to justify a penalty upon the property owner (copyright holder) as you (the alleged violator) have free choice in making your decision to take the property (content) without permission, or not. The rules of he game are pretty clear, i.e. copyright law and fair use provisions.
On the bright side, if you are sued for infringement and win your case on a fair use basis that is very obvious and legal, you might be awarded your attorney fees by the court as the courts hate frivolous lawsuits.
Just my opinion and I'm no lawyer.  |
The only way you can call copyright infringement "stealing" is if you use the insane your cost me income so therefore your stealing bullshit arguement
second if you use that bullshit arguement then stoping someone from fair use distributing content is stealing the same income potential
so the damage is exactly the same.
btw you still haven't answered the question.