3 ms·

Seems like a nice way of teaching them a lesson without being completely harsh. The thing the kid here doesn't understand, they get caught for pirating again by

Seems like a nice way of teaching them a lesson without being completely harsh. The thing the kid here doesn't understand, they get caught for pirating again by another organization, that set of lawyers now have documentation that they didn't learn their lesson from their last tango. They will pursue full damages and collect since any public apology will be meaningless. And yea, there are settlements like this. For one, to hold certain IP rights, you have to defend them, even if you dont want to. Because if you dont, someone else can use that as a case you're not protecting your IP, thus party 2 can go around and sell it without legal recourse. This was a slap on the wrist that actually makes me like the UFC even more now.

luma 6y ago
I think you're confusing copyright for trademark. At least in the US, trademarks require defense but copyright does not.
syshum 6y ago
>>For one, to hold certain IP rights, you have to defend them, even if you dont want to. That has been a myth around Trademark for a long time, and it is a false hood [1], I am saddened that this myth is now spreading to Copyright law as well. There is no provision of copyright that would mandate a copyright holder to relentlessly police the internet finding all infringement less they loose their copyright. That simply does not exist at all so I would recommend not representing this fake information [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
- hedora 6y ago
  You do have to defend Trademarks, but only in egregious cases. According to the article you linked, you can lose a trademark if it becomes a generic term (zipper, xerox a document, etc), or you completely stop using it for multiple years. So, there are some nuances. However, courts have repeatedly ruled you do not need to levy lawsuits at everyone that uses your trademark. In fact, if your defense is so egregiously over-aggressive, you may be liable due to misuse of trademark. Unfortunately, while they could do so in theory, the US has never revoked a trademark in such cases. If they started doing that, it would put an end to SLAPP trademark suits, and a lot of lawyers would be out of work.
  - laumars 6y ago
    It’s worse than that, because overly aggressive defence of trademarks isn’t punished yet not defending it could theoretically cost a business their trademark, it skews the system so, for businesses, it’s more beneficial to be aggressive. (I certainly wouldn’t want to be the person that said “their fine to use our trademark. We have nothing to worry about” only to unexpectedly end up losing the trademark)

luma 6y ago

I think you're confusing copyright for trademark. At least in the US, trademarks require defense but copyright does not.

syshum 6y ago

>>For one, to hold certain IP rights, you have to defend them, even if you dont want to. That has been a myth around Trademark for a long time, and it is a false hood [1], I am saddened that this myth is now spreading to Copyright law as well. There is no provision of copyright that would mandate a copyright holder to relentlessly police the internet finding all infringement less they loose their copyright. That simply does not exist at all so I would recommend not representing this fake information [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

hedora 6y ago
You do have to defend Trademarks, but only in egregious cases. According to the article you linked, you can lose a trademark if it becomes a generic term (zipper, xerox a document, etc), or you completely stop using it for multiple years. So, there are some nuances. However, courts have repeatedly ruled you do not need to levy lawsuits at everyone that uses your trademark. In fact, if your defense is so egregiously over-aggressive, you may be liable due to misuse of trademark. Unfortunately, while they could do so in theory, the US has never revoked a trademark in such cases. If they started doing that, it would put an end to SLAPP trademark suits, and a lot of lawyers would be out of work.
- laumars 6y ago
  It’s worse than that, because overly aggressive defence of trademarks isn’t punished yet not defending it could theoretically cost a business their trademark, it skews the system so, for businesses, it’s more beneficial to be aggressive. (I certainly wouldn’t want to be the person that said “their fine to use our trademark. We have nothing to worry about” only to unexpectedly end up losing the trademark)