3 ms·

> Just because it’s onerous doesn’t mean you don’t have a duty to do it. That depends heavily on context. Anyway you're refuting a claim that I never made. A

> Just because it’s onerous doesn’t mean you don’t have a duty to do it. That depends heavily on context. Anyway you're refuting a claim that I never made. A thought experiment. You are publishing an archive containing billions of items and expect that 0.01% will infringe copyright or be libelous or what have you. Can you legally publish that archive without manually checking every single item? What if you believe that exactly 1 of a total 1 billion posts will be infringing? Are you required to hunt down the single needle in the haystack prior to publication? I am quite confident that in the vast majority of jurisdictions the answer in both of those cases is that regardless of what the written law says you will not be found liable in practice so long as you take reasonable precautions prior to publication and respond promptly upon learning of any specific infringing items. > Normally this would probably not be heavily punished by the courts Or at all? Does IP law not require intent as a necessary precondition of breaking it? > If the legal system isn’t given an opportunity to weigh in, it can’t do so. I never claimed it did, only that the outcome appears obvious to me. This looks like a typical troll case.

d1sxeyes 1y ago
> That depends heavily on context. Anyway you're refuting a claim that I never made. You asserted that you don’t think “there is any expectation every single post […] is checked”. I think my answer was completely responsive to that point. > [You] expect that 0.01% will infringe copyright This means you either knowingly or negligently publish material you do not have reason to be non-infringing. The 99.99% of non-infringing posts in the article are a red herring, only that 0.01% matters for this discussion. The test is pretty simple: did you believe the material was not infringing, or did you have reason to believe it was not infringing. In this case, you expect (your word) some content to be infringing. You might get some leeway from the courts, but you would still likely be found liable for unlawful infringement. > Or at all? Does IP law not require intent as a necessary precondition of breaking it? The courts may decide to go easy on you, but intent is not required in civil cases (unless it’s a criminal case). See the law itself: 17 U.S. Code § 501(a), and case law regarding intentionality: Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191 (1931) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/191/#:~:text=Intention%20to%20infringe%20is%20not%20essential%20under%20the%20Act https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/191/#:~:text...). > This looks like a typical troll case. Disagreeing with you doesn’t make me a troll.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll. > intent is not required in civil cases Fair enough. > You might get some leeway from the courts, but you would still likely be found liable for unlawful infringement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you can cite precedent? To be clear, I'm not disputing the law as written but rather as practiced.
  - d1sxeyes 1y ago
    > I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll Ah sorry, I misunderstood. This example perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_v._Metro-Goldwyn_Pictures_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_v._Metro-Goldwyn_Pic.... https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/81/49/1475281/#:~:text=no%20plagiarist%20can%20excuse%20the%20wrong%20by%20showing%20how%20much%20of%20his%20work%20he%20did%20not%20pirate https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/81/...
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      But they used material from a play published 2 years earlier? > the plaintiffs discredit this denial because of the negotiations between the parties for the purchase of rights in the play, and because the similarities between the two are too specific and detailed to have resulted from chance. For a movie an analogous scenario to publishing an archive with infringing material might be unknowingly capturing a copyrighted piece of art in the background of one of your shots and then being sued for it. Except in that case you're profiting from the movie (at least presumably). To make it analogous to publishing archives it would have to be something that isn't profitable, perhaps uploading an amateur short to youtube. Actually this provides a perfect example. If you shoot enough documentary footage in the city you are almost guaranteed to inadvertently catch something that's copyrighted at some point. Unfortunately the scenario breaks down because unlike the internet you can't easily retroactively edit all distributed copies of your video. Unless perhaps it's only available via streaming services? But then we're back to profiting again.

d1sxeyes 1y ago

> That depends heavily on context. Anyway you're refuting a claim that I never made. You asserted that you don’t think “there is any expectation every single post […] is checked”. I think my answer was completely responsive to that point. > [You] expect that 0.01% will infringe copyright This means you either knowingly or negligently publish material you do not have reason to be non-infringing. The 99.99% of non-infringing posts in the article are a red herring, only that 0.01% matters for this discussion. The test is pretty simple: did you believe the material was not infringing, or did you have reason to believe it was not infringing. In this case, you expect (your word) some content to be infringing. You might get some leeway from the courts, but you would still likely be found liable for unlawful infringement. > Or at all? Does IP law not require intent as a necessary precondition of breaking it? The courts may decide to go easy on you, but intent is not required in civil cases (unless it’s a criminal case). See the law itself: 17 U.S. Code § 501(a), and case law regarding intentionality: Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191 (1931) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/191/#:~:text=Intention%20to%20infringe%20is%20not%20essential%20under%20the%20Act https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/191/#:~:text...). > This looks like a typical troll case. Disagreeing with you doesn’t make me a troll.

fc417fc802 1y ago
I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll. > intent is not required in civil cases Fair enough. > You might get some leeway from the courts, but you would still likely be found liable for unlawful infringement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you can cite precedent? To be clear, I'm not disputing the law as written but rather as practiced.
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  > I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll Ah sorry, I misunderstood. This example perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_v._Metro-Goldwyn_Pictures_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_v._Metro-Goldwyn_Pic.... https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/81/49/1475281/#:~:text=no%20plagiarist%20can%20excuse%20the%20wrong%20by%20showing%20how%20much%20of%20his%20work%20he%20did%20not%20pirate https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/81/...
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    But they used material from a play published 2 years earlier? > the plaintiffs discredit this denial because of the negotiations between the parties for the purchase of rights in the play, and because the similarities between the two are too specific and detailed to have resulted from chance. For a movie an analogous scenario to publishing an archive with infringing material might be unknowingly capturing a copyrighted piece of art in the background of one of your shots and then being sued for it. Except in that case you're profiting from the movie (at least presumably). To make it analogous to publishing archives it would have to be something that isn't profitable, perhaps uploading an amateur short to youtube. Actually this provides a perfect example. If you shoot enough documentary footage in the city you are almost guaranteed to inadvertently catch something that's copyrighted at some point. Unfortunately the scenario breaks down because unlike the internet you can't easily retroactively edit all distributed copies of your video. Unless perhaps it's only available via streaming services? But then we're back to profiting again.