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.  |
so under this law, the entire fair use company is wiped of the internet, all those employees are put out of work, the owners lose millions of dollars
and all they should get back is the court costs.
and the only way they can avoid that abuse, is to basically kill all free speech, that is not authorized explicitly by copyright holders.
explain how exactly will fair use survive in that situation.