3 ms·

How much of this would become a non-issue just by requiring the losing party to pay all costs? The way it stands now is really just blackmail. Sure you can sp

How much of this would become a non-issue just by requiring the losing party to pay all costs? The way it stands now is really just blackmail. Sure you can spend $100,000 to defend against a frivolous claim or just $5,000 and everything goes away. I have been in that exact situation. Probably the most frustrating thing I have ever been involved in.

sabat 16y ago
I suppose you could counter-sue, but that's not very efficient.
roel_v 16y ago
Seems to me these people are all in the wrong. The way it's described in the article, these were people who reproduced whole articles on their website. Like it or not, this is contrary to current copyright law (and to add my opinion, as it should be). Even if they would've challenged the suit they would've lost. Standing up for your legal rights is not blackmail.
- gamble 16y ago
  They were in the wrong, true, but a simple takedown request would have cleared that up if this was about copyright. The bone of contention is that this fellow has set up a company designed to buy up rights and pounce on violations for profit, regardless of whether the infringement was malicious and without notifying his victims that they were in the wrong. Most of the people he sued appeared simply ignorant of the law. While he may be operating within the law, a world where relatively small mistakes result in four-figure lawsuits without any opportunity for making amends isn't one most people would enjoy.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    Takedown requests are for companies like YouTube where content is illegally uploaded by a user. In this instance, the site owners clearly stole the intellectual property themselves. This is plagiarism, plain and simple, and the DMCA does not (and should not) protect it. I may be biased because I'm a published author, but if it takes a guy like this to hammer plagiarists I'm all for it. If you want to use someone else's writing, ask them for their permission and get it in writing. That's been the law and custom since time immemorial.
    - akgerber 16y ago
      The article says many of the targets are discussion boards, probably where users posted the articles.

sabat 16y ago

I suppose you could counter-sue, but that's not very efficient.

roel_v 16y ago

Seems to me these people are all in the wrong. The way it's described in the article, these were people who reproduced whole articles on their website. Like it or not, this is contrary to current copyright law (and to add my opinion, as it should be). Even if they would've challenged the suit they would've lost. Standing up for your legal rights is not blackmail.

gamble 16y ago
They were in the wrong, true, but a simple takedown request would have cleared that up if this was about copyright. The bone of contention is that this fellow has set up a company designed to buy up rights and pounce on violations for profit, regardless of whether the infringement was malicious and without notifying his victims that they were in the wrong. Most of the people he sued appeared simply ignorant of the law. While he may be operating within the law, a world where relatively small mistakes result in four-figure lawsuits without any opportunity for making amends isn't one most people would enjoy.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  Takedown requests are for companies like YouTube where content is illegally uploaded by a user. In this instance, the site owners clearly stole the intellectual property themselves. This is plagiarism, plain and simple, and the DMCA does not (and should not) protect it. I may be biased because I'm a published author, but if it takes a guy like this to hammer plagiarists I'm all for it. If you want to use someone else's writing, ask them for their permission and get it in writing. That's been the law and custom since time immemorial.
  - akgerber 16y ago
    The article says many of the targets are discussion boards, probably where users posted the articles.