I haven’t read the full thing yet but this part sure sucks: “once a claim is filed, the accused infringer has 60 days to reject the process, forcing it to be heard in federal court instead.”
This seems like a huge loophole, like basically you can only use this "small court" to go after people who can't afford federal court. So it's more likely that big media will use it to more cheaply go after small infringers who won't be able to afford defending themselves in federal court. But if you're a small artist, and try to go after a big company, they'll just reject the process and go to federal court, which the accuser can't afford and we're back at square one.
Anyhow, I hope I'm misreading this, or there's missing details here, cause if not, this seems like a step in the wrong direction.
This seems like a good thing my. Copyright protections are way more important for small artists than huge companies but our system has it backwards. The fear isn’t that someone’s gonna make an unauthorized print of your art at Kinkos ans hang it in their room but that a huge company is going to steal and sell your work only for you to find out later. I know HN probably isn’t super in tune with the small inde artist community but it’s rampant and super frustrating because companies know you can’t afford to fight them.
But this law seems to undermine itself by allowing the accused to decide whether to opt-out. The point of this is to enable copyright holders to protect their works who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford a case going. Why wouldn’t the accused always opt-out hoping that the accuser drops the case due to it not being worth the legal fees?
Like I want to use Hanlon’s razor here but if this is true then this seems like too big of an oversight and that the real reason for the bill is to enable well-funded copyright holders to go after people cheaper. Which is, ya-know, exactly the bullshit evil side of copyright that everyone hates.
5 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 20.9 ms ] threadAnyhow, I hope I'm misreading this, or there's missing details here, cause if not, this seems like a step in the wrong direction.
But this law seems to undermine itself by allowing the accused to decide whether to opt-out. The point of this is to enable copyright holders to protect their works who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford a case going. Why wouldn’t the accused always opt-out hoping that the accuser drops the case due to it not being worth the legal fees?
Like I want to use Hanlon’s razor here but if this is true then this seems like too big of an oversight and that the real reason for the bill is to enable well-funded copyright holders to go after people cheaper. Which is, ya-know, exactly the bullshit evil side of copyright that everyone hates.