4 ms·
Wait, let me get this straight. A company with no vested interest in the copyright, no association with the party who owns the copyright, was claiming copyright
by RubyWestcoast 13y ago
Wait, let me get this straight. A company with no vested interest in the copyright, no association with the party who owns the copyright, was claiming copyright infringement and trying to subpoena identities? What the heck?
- reustle 13y ago> no association with the party who owns the copyright Did you read the article? > The Swiss firm didn’t hide the fact that they were nothing to do with the making of the film and they also admitted not being involved with traditional movie distribution channels. Instead, they licensed “BitTorrent distribution” and “enforcement” rights from Los Angeles-based Hannibal Pictures.
- ori_b 13y agoThey bought the right to sue from the actual copyright owners. Think of it as outsourcing the copyright enforcement.
- MichaelGG 13y agoDidn't Righthaven get slapped down for that? At least in the US, you can't sell the "right to sue" for copyright.
- nness 13y agoArs did a post-mortem of sorts that explained just that, that Righthaven did not posses any actual interest in the copyrights themselves, and had no standing to sue. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/copyright-troll-righthaven-finally-completely-dead/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/copyright-troll-r...