4 ms·
It should be the other way around. The claimant must "bet" $100 that he owns the copyright. Then the defendant can call the bluff and say "I raise $100000 that
by amne 5y ago
It should be the other way around. The claimant must "bet" $100 that he owns the copyright. Then the defendant can call the bluff and say "I raise $100000 that you do not in fact own this output04.txt file with a 1 in it". If the the claimant still thinks he can win he can call the $100k and prove ownership. Otherwise the defendant just made $100. How cool would that be?
- jiggawatts 5y agoAn observation made by shrewd businesspeople throughout history is that you can only trust money. No amount of words, documents, statements, etc... matter unless someone is willing to put up real cash. If there are no consequences, then by definition misdeeds aren't punished and will be effectively incentivised. E.g.: You can trust a legally enforced warranty with full refunds guaranteed by the government, because it costs real money to the manufacturer. You can't trust a "Best Quality!" sticker. It basically costs nothing. It's just words. Copyright protection laws are the same kind of thing. While the marginal cost of enforcement is zero, there is similarly zero incentive to do it correctly and respectfully of the law. If there was enforced financial penalties for each screw up, then it is assured that any errors like this will be ironed out very quickly. No penalty? No bug fixing!
- kofejnik 5y agoBloody brilliant, and of course will never happen