Posted on 07/17/2019 4:31:42 AM PDT by Windflier
The Senate Judiciary Committee intends to vote on the CASE Act, legislation that would create a brand new quasi-court for copyright infringement claims. We have expressed numerous concerns with the legislation, and serious problems inherent with the bill have not been remedied by Congress before moving it forward.
In short, the bill would supercharge a “copyright troll” industry dedicated to filing as many “small claims” on as many Internet users as possible in order to make money through the bill’s statutory damages provisions. Every single person who uses the Internet and regularly interacts with copyrighted works (that’s everyone) should contact their Senators to oppose this bill.
TELL THE SENATE NOT TO ENABLE COPYRIGHT TROLLS
Do you have a license for that meme?
You're welcome. Sorry I bunged up the formatting. That's a first for me.
Refuse to pay. Good luck, I’ll go VPN, Anon, and you won’t even know it was me. Or the web goes dark. Idiots think they can run people’s mind. Legislative actions are already ignored or randomly enforced. But if they have no one to charge and no pockets to empty they are spinning their wheels in a grasp at nothing.
Last year my wife got a certified letter from an out fit saying that 6 years ago we had purchased equipment that allowed us to view Dish Network without paying for it. They offered to settle for something like $5000. I looked them up and found that they were a real company pursuing cable/satellite theft. Problem was we had never done it or done anything resembling it.
Cost something like $700 in legal fees to make them go away. We basically had to prove we didn’t do it, and proving a negative is tricky.
So if I make a snapshot of a bias CNN headline to post on Facebook I could be sue by CNN for copyright. This is a threat to the First Amendment.
If you proved that you didn’t do it, you have grounds to sue them and get your legal fees back. That’s horrible what was done to you both. There wasn’t some sort of legal window after which they couldn’t have sued you or threatened to sue you?
There wasn’t some sort of legal window after which they couldn’t have sued you or threatened to sue you?
They agreed to drop the claim in exchange to our saying we’d never do it again, which we refused to do. They then went away. Counter suing would of course make our legal fees even higher, so we just had to take the hit.
It’s good you refused to say that you’d ‘never do it again’. That would be taken as a tacit admission of guilt and then they would have you up the creek!
If you sued for legal expenses, you could absolutely tack on the costs of the legal expenses for THAT suit.
They’d be out 1400-1600, which, if three people did it, would end up cancelling out one person who folded.
People NEED TO DO THIS.
So, random copyright troll, PLEASE come at me bro.
I have nothing better to do than sue you. Maybe get 50,000 damages for emotional distress, too.
Bitches.
I’ve always wondered just exactly how the DS Swamp would “reach out” to the rest of the world as they become besieged.
EU is trying to avoid being Trumped.
Why not try to stop downloading of music from the Internet? Wait.... they tried that.
I’ll be right back, I have to go download some more music and videos.
Because a quasi-court worked out SOOOOOOOOOO well in the FISA cases...
You might want to check and see if someone is using your wife’s ID and social, the name misspelling freaks me out thinking about it.
“You might want to check and see if someone is using your wife’s ID and social...”
They used a PayPal account to pay, but they didn’t use my PayPal. PayPal doesn’t let you see records over a year old, but I have one credit card I use only for PayPal and I do have records going back that far.
That would be crazy... What good would any marketing be if no can even link to it? How would you make your publishings popular? The internet as you know is a great marketing tool for even copyrighted material, no links no marketing tool.
Thanks for sharing...
call your senators tomorrow!
Would Facebook and Google be liable for all the copyrighted material that they are sharing with the world?
Actually, it seems to me that was the get out of jail free card. I think I would have ignored the threat until they dragged me in to court and then told the judge that I don't know why I am here since there is no one with this name living at that address. It has worked before... legal documents have to be accurate - dot the i's and cross the t's.
Actually, it seems to me that was the get out of jail free card.
Well, I mostly represent myself where things seem cut and dry. I once faced three states in court- NY, NJ & RI. They stopped me outside the courtroom to put my mind at ease and make a deal so I wouldn't have to face the judge. I replied that I thought perhaps I should talk to the judge and showed them my well prepared paper work, said I feared I might need relief. I thought they were going to cry... dropped the proceedings.
Solid paperwork generally wins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.