3 ms·
I looked around for costs; basically the original copyright holder has to prove damages. Since most people using Youtube, et al, are not making that much profit
by Joakal 15y ago
I looked around for costs; basically the original copyright holder has to prove damages. Since most people using Youtube, et al, are not making that much profit, the DMCA-issuers won't face significant penalties for misusing DMCAs.
Seems like I won't get much penalties for taking down the trailers because it's hard to prove damages.
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/02/27/the-economics-of-accusation-penalty-for-false-dmca-claims-is-low/ http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/02/27/the-economics-of-...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0432448359.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0432448359.shtml
- politician 15y ago"Hard to prove damages" hasn't stopped the RIAA and Sony from claiming $750 per song and winning.
- Natsu 15y agoThey have statutory damages for that, so they do not need to prove actual damages most of the time. I say "most of the time" because I think there are a few cases where statutory damages can become unavailable. I don't remember the details, but I think I heard once that someone mucked up registering their copyright and was unable to claim statutory damages because of that.
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago> Since most people using Youtube, et al, are not making that much profit, the DMCA-issuers won't face significant penalties for misusing DMCAs. Issuing a false DMCA takedown is perjury, and the victims may have standing for a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations civil lawsuit with substantial damages.