3 ms·

Why doesn't Google have to pay the artists the full amount since the original payments were made to the wrong person?

freedomben 3y ago
If you think the current system is too favorable to content creators (i.e. too unfavorable to DMCA complainers), then you should go ahead and make Google pay the full amount. That would get us to a world where you have to prove that you're not violating copyright, or have to put money in escrow or something. I'd like to go the other way. Current copyright laws are way too imbalanced in favor of copyright holders.
- gosub100 3y ago
  I'm from a gambling state (Nevada) and every 6-8 months, there's a story about a small business employee that is caught embezzling around $200k-$400k from their employer. It's usually not stated in the articles, but it's a very good guess (based on the demographic and asking "where did the money go?") that the stolen funds were played (and lost) in a casino. It always bothered me that casinos never have to pay this stolen money back, but if you or I buy stolen property, it will be immediately confiscated even if we had zero knowledge that it was from a crime. That's what this case makes me think of.
  - loufe 3y ago
    In your example there is no legal or otherwise requirement to verify to provenance of money spent in a casino. I think many would agree it's an overstep to start checking that. Going to the casino would require an invasive inquiry into every gambler's personal finances. I cannot imagine that kind of thing happening in our current world. If I buy a bike, or any other good from another person, it is an unfaire burden on myself as well. That said, we at least have the ability to do some screening that may be otherwise impossible for a casino. I can ask at least for a copy of the receipt or proof of how the good was originally purchased. It's not perfect, and I've never personally asked or been asked for such a proof when buying/selling, but it's definitely possible.
    - gosub100 3y ago
      I'm not asking for invasive credit checks to go gamble, just like there's no invasive checks to buy a bike or car stereo (back in the 90's) from a shady character on the sidewalk. Maybe my interpretation of the law - "possession of stolen property is illegal and subject to forfeiture" - is incorrect? I just think that when these cases break, the casinos should be required to return the stolen property (and maybe that's the crux of it, is money not "property"? I know it has separate laws that apply to it). Especially because most gamblers use "player's cards" that track every dollar you play (to build rewards comps). I could see the difficulty in trying to surmise how much cash was played and lost if you didn't have player tracking cards. But when there is a clear paper trail of the money, take it right back and give it to the victim. What's the problem?
  - amne 3y ago
    My guess is that money is fungible (as a concept, ignoring serial numbers on bills) and you can't prove the money lost to a casino is the same money stolen from those employers.
    - gosub100 3y ago
      > you can't prove the money lost to a casino is the same money stolen from those employers see my sibling comment below re: player's cards
  - freedomben 3y ago
    I fully agree with you in principle. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences here that would make this impossible and counterproductive to do in practice. If we could figure out a way around that I'd be for it, but I can't think of a way
    - gosub100 3y ago
      Civil Asset Forfeiture, perhaps? "We're not suing YOU (the casino), we're suing the money. If you can prove the money was not obtained from illegal sources, you can have it back".

If you think the current system is too favorable to content creators (i.e. too unfavorable to DMCA complainers), then you should go ahead and make Google pay the full amount. That would get us to a world where you have to prove that you're not violating copyright, or have to put money in escrow or something. I'd like to go the other way. Current copyright laws are way too imbalanced in favor of copyright holders.

gosub100 3y ago
I'm from a gambling state (Nevada) and every 6-8 months, there's a story about a small business employee that is caught embezzling around $200k-$400k from their employer. It's usually not stated in the articles, but it's a very good guess (based on the demographic and asking "where did the money go?") that the stolen funds were played (and lost) in a casino. It always bothered me that casinos never have to pay this stolen money back, but if you or I buy stolen property, it will be immediately confiscated even if we had zero knowledge that it was from a crime. That's what this case makes me think of.
- loufe 3y ago
  In your example there is no legal or otherwise requirement to verify to provenance of money spent in a casino. I think many would agree it's an overstep to start checking that. Going to the casino would require an invasive inquiry into every gambler's personal finances. I cannot imagine that kind of thing happening in our current world. If I buy a bike, or any other good from another person, it is an unfaire burden on myself as well. That said, we at least have the ability to do some screening that may be otherwise impossible for a casino. I can ask at least for a copy of the receipt or proof of how the good was originally purchased. It's not perfect, and I've never personally asked or been asked for such a proof when buying/selling, but it's definitely possible.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    I'm not asking for invasive credit checks to go gamble, just like there's no invasive checks to buy a bike or car stereo (back in the 90's) from a shady character on the sidewalk. Maybe my interpretation of the law - "possession of stolen property is illegal and subject to forfeiture" - is incorrect? I just think that when these cases break, the casinos should be required to return the stolen property (and maybe that's the crux of it, is money not "property"? I know it has separate laws that apply to it). Especially because most gamblers use "player's cards" that track every dollar you play (to build rewards comps). I could see the difficulty in trying to surmise how much cash was played and lost if you didn't have player tracking cards. But when there is a clear paper trail of the money, take it right back and give it to the victim. What's the problem?
- amne 3y ago
  My guess is that money is fungible (as a concept, ignoring serial numbers on bills) and you can't prove the money lost to a casino is the same money stolen from those employers.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    > you can't prove the money lost to a casino is the same money stolen from those employers see my sibling comment below re: player's cards
- freedomben 3y ago
  I fully agree with you in principle. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences here that would make this impossible and counterproductive to do in practice. If we could figure out a way around that I'd be for it, but I can't think of a way
  - gosub100 3y ago
    Civil Asset Forfeiture, perhaps? "We're not suing YOU (the casino), we're suing the money. If you can prove the money was not obtained from illegal sources, you can have it back".