Heavyweights Clash Over Policing Repeat Copyright Infringers 107
SolKeshNaranek tips a story at TorrentFreak about an ongoing copyright case that revolves around how much effort websites need to expend to block repeat infringers after responding to DMCA requests. In 2011, a judge ruled that a website embedding videos from third parties had correctly removed links to infringing videos after receiving a DMCA request, but failed to do anything to police users who had created these links multiple times. For this, the judge said, the website would be required to adopt a number of measures to prevent repeat infringement. Google and Facebook wrote an amicus brief opposing the ruling, as did Public Knowledge and the EFF. Now the MPAA has, unsurprisingly, come out in favor. They wrote, "Contrary to the assertions of myVidster and amici Google and Facebook, search engines and social networking sites are not the only businesses that desire certainty in a challenging online marketplace. MPAA member companies and other producers of creative works also need a predictable legal landscape in which to operate. ... Given the massive and often anonymous infringement on the internet, the ability of copyright holders to hold gateways like myVidster liable for secondary infringement is crucial in preventing piracy."
RIP MAFIAA (Score:2, Funny)
I look forward to the day subhuman's like Chris Dodd, and his pack of thugs are hunted down like the vermin they are.
I don't hate them for supporting their (dying) industry, I hate them for their lack of ethics.
Edit: Captcha is "Burglars".
Re:Time for the MPAA to gasp it's last breath... (Score:4, Funny)
Here's what the MPAA is really after:
FTFY
Re:You mean infringers like China? Or IBM? (Score:2, Funny)
Silly wabbit, corporations are more of a person than humans are. The law says so.