To all the copyright holders who argued that lack of a designated agent means you lose safe harbor

[gideongallery]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...iability.shtml

1. That Counterclaimants Democratic Underground and David Allen have committed no volitional act giving rise to a claim for direct copyright infringement. Counterclaimants neither posted the excerpt nor encouraged the posting. Nor did they have any knowledge of the posting until after this suit was filed. See Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-line Commnc?n Servs., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (direct copyright infringement requires ?some element of volition or causation which is lacking where a defendant?s system is merely used to create a copy by a third party?); see also CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) and Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc,, 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008).

[V_RocKs]

Nice... but this is only one case... Have to see if other judgments use it as a precedent and whether or not they appeal.

[porno jew]

techcrunch misreads the judgement and so did you idiot.

[pornguy]

Something tells me that this will get tossed.
" Oh we did not know " Kind of goes under the " Ignorance of the law is no excuse "

[Barry-xlovecam]

Appeals clock is ticking ...

[O]n March 7, 2012, the Court issued an Order entering final judgment against all claims and causes of action of Righthaven, dismissing Righthaven with prejudice (Dkt. 176). ...

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Nice... but this is only one case... Have to see if other judgments use it as a precedent and whether or not they appeal.

well the company who could appeal this ruling is now bankrupt and is losing all the copyrights that WERE transferred to sue.

so there really is no chance this will get appealed.

The best you can hope is that it gets over turned by a higher court ruling

that means someone has to win a case at the equal level on this point even though this precedent is established.

And an appeal court judge has to agree with that over ride.

Don't think that likely given the current laws.

[bronco67]

Do you spend all day scouring documents written in legalese to defend your right to pilfer others' creativity?

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by porno jew

techcrunch misreads the judgement and so did you idiot.

Originally Posted by bronco67

Do you spend all day scouring documents written in legalese to defend your right to pilfer others' creativity?

and I'll add "fuck you free-tard"

.

[[Labret]]

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Do you spend all day scouring documents written in legalese to defend your right to pilfer others' creativity?

tech dirt
slashdot

two sites really lot of work

hell the email updates from those two sites are all you need

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Do you spend all day scouring documents written in legalese to defend your right to pilfer others' creativity?

btw i just happens to be the exact point i made when the morons here kept saying "no agent" = automatic guilt

my arguement just got validated so it another one where i was right and all those idiots were wrong.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

btw i just happens to be the exact point i made when the morons here kept saying "no agent" = automatic guilt

Once again you show your lack of knowledge to the laws and quote again from junk blogs.

First of all, there is no such thing as "automatic guilt". If failure to comply, and in worst case lose safe harbor, the liability question is treated as in pre-DMCA law (this is also voluntary choice. No one is forced to comply).
Then, there is a difference between direct and indirect liability. Third, all levels of service providers do not have the same requirements regarding safe harbor.

Like he said, spot on:

Originally Posted by porno jew

techcrunch misreads the judgement and so did you idiot.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

btw i just happens to be the exact point i made when the morons here kept saying "no agent" = automatic guilt

my arguement just got validated so it another one where i was right and all those idiots were wrong.

But you just seem to be in some kind of war against copyright holders. I'm not sure how you have any defensible position against the people who make a product -- when you had no part in the creation of it. Why is it the you vs them attitude? Go out and make some of your own shit and quit leeching off the work of others.

Come back with an intelligent answer, and not some double talk. Be a straight up person, and not a snake who tries to flip around every argument with a bunch of legal bullshit that you don't even really understand.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by bronco67

But you just seem to be in some kind of war against copyright holders. I'm not sure how you have any defensible position against the people who make a product -- when you had no part in the creation of it. Why is it the you vs them attitude? Go out and make some of your own shit and quit leeching off the work of others.

Come back with an intelligent answer, and not some double talk. Be a straight up person, and not a snake who tries to flip around every argument with a bunch of legal bullshit that you don't even really understand.

So my brother's a criminal defense attorney... and every once in a while we get in a discussion about some crazy psychopath he's defending that did something absolutely atrocious. C***d mol****tion, shooting a spouse's lover with a shotgun, or repeat offenses of similar type stuff. I asked him if he's ever asked them why they do it, or how they justify it... and he said that's the first mistake you ever make as a defense attorney. Everyone has some completely warped justification, and none of it will ever make sense to you or I. To them it makes perfect sense. No matter how GG pleads his case, you won't ever be able to wrap your mind around it.