Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
This is my position...just to be clear.
If a company (say for this example Sony) accidentally wrongly sues someone for copyright violation then I feel those who were wrongly sued are due their court costs and an amount of money that is reasonable for "pain and suffering." Now if Sony carried out gross misconduct and they went after people they knew likely were not guilty simply to scare them into settling then those people should be allowed to counter sue and should be awarded whatever damages the jury sees as fit. But Sony should not have to make its property public domain.
|
except that not what you defended
you defended damages only up to what would be considered actual damages
there is no emotional distress, i have to prove real economic loss and that all i am entitled too
even if i was put under intense emotional distress because of the wrongful accusation i get zilch for my pain and suffering because that not actual damages.
Quote:
|
If a site owner puts something up that they know is infringing, they should be sued and a jury should decide what the punishment is. DMCA laws protect them from "accidentally" infringing because they create a legal pathway for copyright holders to have their content removed from the site. If that site doesn't remove it after DMCA (or in my opinion they continue to let it be posted again and again after being DMCA'd) they should be sued.
|
different uploaders may or may not have different rights to the content.
letting it get posted again and again is the only way those potential rights could be protected.
Quote:
|
If they are grossly negligent and post things that they know people do not have the rights to download, they should be forced to stop operating until the case is resolved. That is how it works in the real world. If the police think I am using my car to traffic drugs, they will impound the car. If I'm found innocent I get the car back.
|
and if the police officer was committing gross fabrications (the equivalent to bald face lying and claiming you cleared all fair use rights/authorized distribution and swearing falsely that the site is a rogue site) that officer would face jail time.
Quote:
|
You can go to The Pirate Bay and do a search for Twilight Breaking Dawn and there are many different versions of it available for you to download at will. This is a movie that is only available in theaters. the only way for you to legally view it is to buy a ticket so everyone who is downloading that movie (or seeding it) is violating copyright and the site knows this and still allows it to happen.
|
bull crap there are countries that don't make it illegal to record a movie in a theater.
EU has established that 1 download != 1 lost sale
Quote:
|
If the producers of that movie filed suit the site should be shut down until , at the very least, a hearing can be held to determine if the site owners were negligent.
|
and if access shifting is established as a fair use, that locational restriction would just as invalid as demanding that people only watch tv shows on copyright authorised re runs.
how much is that studio going to pay all the independent musicians and creators who used the site to distribute there stuff
what is the fair value for the blocking of those peoples first amendment rights
under the current law that worth zero dollars.
remember the lose of copyright is dependent on the wronged person asking for that
if the copyright holder adequately pays off the wronged artist they don't lose anything.
it just like statutory damages for infringement, a penalty that only happens if you don't settle.