Copyright Infringers Rejoice And Beware

Google Allegedly Pays The Legal Costs Of Certain Alleged Copyright Infringers

On Vox Indie, Ellen Seidler (a copyright owner who has been ripped off multiple times) ponders why it is that Google will pay the legal costs of alleged uploaders of copyright infringing material to YouTube, but will not pay the legal costs of copyright owners who are forced to sue alleged uploaders of allegedly copyright infringing material.

Why are copyright owners "forced" to sue?  If a copyright owner sends a takedown notice, and if the alleged uploader posts a counter-notice to the original DMCA takedown notice (regardless of whether or not the counter-notice is bogus), then Google will republish the allegedly infringing material with no further recourse for the copyright owner other than to sue.

http://voxindie.org/youtube-covers-legal-costs-for-some-users/

Takeaway? The DMCA does a poor job of protecting copyright owners because there is no takedown-and-stay-down, and there is little downside for pirates if they file untruthful counter-notices.

When Insurance Policies May Not Cover Internet Service Providers For User-Generated Alleged Copyright Infringement.

Quoting an opinion piece... "Why is [an insurance company] denying coverage?  Because [the insurance company] quite correctly says it won’t insure [a Communication Company] for its intentional refusal to comply with the DMCA for largely the same reason that the DMCA has a repeat infringer requirement in the first place.  If you try to do it right and screw up, you can get insurance or you might be entitled to the safe harbor (and you can probably more easily get insurance if you promise to comply with the safe harbor).  You cannot insure your way out of doing something that is purposely bad behavior."....  Unquote.

Learn the names of the insurance company and the Communication Company by reading the full op ed here:

http://thetrichordist.com/2015/11/26/did-cox-communications-just-do-the-dirty-to-shareholders/

And just for good measure...

Digital Defamation Explored  (by Reed Smith LLP - Brian J. Willett and Justin H. Werner)

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=341b6c7a-95f7-4abb-a848-0295d9fcea7b&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2015-11-26&utm_term=

A hyperlink to an allegedly defamatory blog or tweet or website without quoting the allegedly defamatory content is considered a "reference" and not publication of the allegedly defamatory allegations.

That's over-use of "alleged" and derivations of "alleged", but I am following a bunch of lawyers. One can never go wrong, as a commentator, if one lards ones prose with "allegeds" and "IMHOs".


Have a safe week, bloggers and copyright owners!
Rowena Cherry