Perfect 10 ordered to pay $5.6M to Giganews in failed copywrite battle

[JayAllan]

This is some interesting news.

Perfect 10 Ordered to Pay Giganews $5.6m After Failed Copyright Battle | TorrentFreak

I always favor the copyright owners but this is definitely pushing the limits.

[j3rkules]

Wow! This just shows that if challenged most cases have no substance. But look at how expensive it is to go to court...! Glad Giganews went through with it.

Maybe time to go back to Usen..shhhh!!

[xXXtesy10]

Originally Posted by celebsnudehd

Wow! This just shows that if challenged most cases have no substance. But look at how expensive it is to go to court...! Glad Giganews went through with it.

Maybe time to go back to Usen..shhhh!!

unless you John Deiz and he just not give one shit with free for all theft.

[VikingMan]

Norm loves the drama, he loves whining about how much money he has dumped into that stupid business. I had some biz with him back in 1998 and he told me he had already dumped 9 million into Perfect 10. He was also whining about companies not wanting to advertise in a nude magazine.

[TheSquealer]

They are no better than acacia

[blackmonsters]

Judges like free porn.

[mikesouth]

After reading the verdict it is apparent that the judge decided that chasing copyright infringers was the main business NOT producing content...very much like patent trolls. I too come down on the side of copyright owners but this case raises some questions...like why isnt it ok to make more money from copyright violations than from producing content? Admitted we dont want companies doing this left and right and clogging up the courts but a few cases with big verdicts for infringement and these start going away.

interesting decision

[Due]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

After reading the verdict it is apparent that the judge decided that chasing copyright infringers was the main business NOT producing content...very much like patent trolls. I too come down on the side of copyright owners but this case raises some questions...like why isnt it ok to make more money from copyright violations than from producing content? Admitted we dont want companies doing this left and right and clogging up the courts but a few cases with big verdicts for infringement and these start going away.

interesting decision

The DMCA notifications they sent purposely lacked information needed to identify the content in question. The law is very clear about what a dmca notification should include, if any information is missing you can legally ignore it.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Judges like free porn.

Or... you're an illiterate dipshit

[JFK]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Judges like free porn.

[sandman!]

great to hear those scumbags got what they deserved

[L-Pink]

This still boils down to one fact ... FUCK people who knowingly take the labors of others without permission or compensation and make money off that product.

To make the legal owners/creators of that property have to "jump thru hoops" is a short coming of the legal system. You either own the content you are using or you don't. It should be obvious.

To me an "uploader" is a thief and the site is a receiver of stolen property. I know it's a simplistic view but it's also correct. The two sides to this argument are those that create and those that don't. Those that don't will never understand.


.

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

This still boils down to one fact ... FUCK people who knowingly take the labors of others without permission or compensation and make money off that product.

To make the legal owners/creators of that property have to "jump thru hoops" is a short coming of the legal system. You either own the content you are using or you don't. It should be obvious.

To me an "uploader" is a thief and the site is a receiver of stolen property. I know it's a simplistic view but it's also correct. The two sides to this argument are those that create and those that don't. Those that don't will never understand.


.

Zada should have formed a group of legitimate copyright holders, but instead in his greed he apparently violated other copyrights with blanket claims including content that he did not in fact own. In a sense he was no different than the uploaders... only I guess you could characterize him as a "downloader" and the other side of the same coin.