3 ms·
>... except for the fact that a lawsuit allows you to recover that fee, and more damages—if you have a case to begin with. It's a recoverable cost, not a sunk c
by ikeboy 6y ago
>... except for the fact that a lawsuit allows you to recover that fee, and more damages—if you have a case to begin with. It's a recoverable cost, not a sunk cost.
This wasn't specified in the original post. They said the money gets forfeited to LOC, not recoverable.
>What are you basing this on? The comment you're referring to very deliberately did not use specific numbers.
In response to questions, they gave the figure of $100.
If the number has to be high enough to be a significant incentive to file suit, then it would also be too high for use as the DMCA intended. People would just file lawsuits instead of sending notices at all.
- wtallis 6y ago> They said the money gets forfeited to LOC, not recoverable. That was not explicitly stated, and the more reasonable interpretation is that the money would be considered as part of the legal fees for the action culminating in the lawsuit, and would therefore be eligible for recovery absent specific legal provisions excluding that possibility. > People would just file lawsuits instead of sending notices at all. The DMCA notice procedure would continue to serve the original purpose of serving as an expedited way to get infringing content removed, thereby limiting the damage done while waiting for room on the court's docket. And in cases where the infringer knows they're guilty and doesn't want to contest the takedown, a court would still not have to get involved (except perhaps for being part of the escrow system, but that doesn't waste the judge's time).