

#215201
Posted 16 April 2012 - 16:55

F O R T H E N S

#215203
Posted 16 April 2012 - 21:43

F O R T H E N S

#215205
Posted 16 April 2012 - 21:55

F O R T H E N S

#215209
Posted 16 April 2012 - 22:33
#215211
Posted 16 April 2012 - 23:16

F O R T H E N S

#215212
Posted 16 April 2012 - 23:34


kudos to Pasidon for this awesome avvy and siggy!
#215214
Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:58
Cunts gonna get bashed for wrecking that HJ one ton

I question the general assumption that i am inherently deficient in the area of grammar and sentence structure
#215215
Posted 17 April 2012 - 10:32
Bob, on 16 April 2012 - 22:46, said:
Very?
Wizard, on 17 April 2012 - 07:52, said:
Intellectual property law reform with special attention paid to the legal battles that have taken place over pirated music.
#215216
#215217
Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:01

Kyle Carter said:
#215219
Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:31
CJ, on 17 April 2012 - 11:09, said:
Haha, well aware of them. But could you effectively explain why no rights holders have litigated against copyright infringers in the UK, for example?
#215220
Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:42
AJ, on 17 April 2012 - 12:31, said:
Unfortunately, Americans haven't grasped this concept yet and frivolous litigation is widespread.
Edited by Alias, 17 April 2012 - 12:42.

#215221
Posted 17 April 2012 - 15:04
AJ, on 17 April 2012 - 12:31, said:
At a guess:
a) it isn't cost effective to commence civil proceedings against copyright infringers; or
b) we have a strange quirk, or quirks, in existing law and/or judgements that makes litigation either impossible or very difficult to conclude to a satisfactory level.

#215222
Posted 17 April 2012 - 17:31
Alias, on 17 April 2012 - 12:42, said:
AJ, on 17 April 2012 - 12:31, said:
Unfortunately, Americans haven't grasped this concept yet and frivolous litigation is widespread.
Not quite, they've certainly threatened plenty of people with court proceedings, just none of them have ever ended up there, because:
Wizard, on 17 April 2012 - 15:04, said:
AJ, on 17 April 2012 - 12:31, said:
At a guess:
a) it isn't cost effective to commence civil proceedings against copyright infringers; or
b) we have a strange quirk, or quirks, in existing law and/or judgements that makes litigation either impossible or very difficult to conclude to a satisfactory level.

b) is the correct(ish) answer. Basically, UK courts won't hear individual cases against people accused of digital piracy, and the bulk cases fall through because there's not a properly legitimate way to get ahold of user data. As for suing people like the owners of Kazaa/Napster, that will never happen in the UK because of the tort of authorisation. Basically, you can't be sued for your users' copyright infringement unless you gave them explicit permission to use your software for exactly that purpose.Welcome to the wonderful world of Uk copyright law. AKA why my dissertation is on American law

#215223
Posted 17 April 2012 - 18:18
#215224
Posted 17 April 2012 - 18:19

F O R T H E N S

#215225
Posted 17 April 2012 - 18:42

Kyle Carter said:
67 user(s) are reading this topic
2 members, 65 guests, 0 anonymous users