they said they are making a court system that focuses just on copyright cases in the US. and setting up rules that stays it doesn't matter what the TOS says, if you have copyrighted material on your site, you downloaded it and put it on your site, your liable to be sued. fines of $2500-25,000 can be applied to you. this covers pinterest as well, unless the artist is well and dead for 50-75 years, or gave you actual permission, or declared it public domain, they can be sued.
companies are changing their TOS to get into other countries where those things are lax.
places like youtube and pinterest, facebook and such will probably be attacked first. i'm not sure how it works when you put the pin code on your page, how that would hold up. i put it there because they took it anyway.
No pop ups here, either. Learn to maximize your apps, peeps. It makes life much more enjoyable.
Great post and info, Mike. Thanks.
But all may be futile.
As is pointed out in the article, there isn't a chance in H companies like Pinterest will simply shrug their shoulders, say "oh, well. It was fun while it lasted" and unplug the server. Their whole business model is built upon infringement. There is a whole lot of money at stake. As I write this, many attorneys are working on ways for them to get around it. New TOS... move offshore... etc. The new rules and courts will be irrelevant unless provisions are made to reach them.
On another note, I find it very interesting how in great britain trends seem to be going against copyright holders, and in this country, toward them.
Edit: on a snotty note, it would have been nice if the article would have been authored by a person who possessed at least the writing skills of a third-grader. Unfortunately, Mr. George does not.
One other important point. I read nothing in the article that states the new courts, rules, whatever changes the relationship between a registered and unregistered copyright and the ability to collect decent damages in a suit.
New courts notwithstanding, if a copyright is not registered your ability to sue collecting substantial damages may very well remain greatly limited.
i use waterfox, which is a re-written version of firefox and handles memory better.
i think in the end, courts will rule that a company can't change their terms on a whim. and whatever it is they showed you (and they have to show you it), is the contract. a paper contract can't be changed later on unless both parties agree to it. online services shouldn't be any different and i think that will be the first ruling. no changes are allowed unless you clearly state what you changed and describe why you changed it so people have a chance to know about it. pinterest, you have to dig for the terms. if they wanted to be in the clear, they should state on every pin that they need to get the actual permission of the person for whatever they are pinning and verify the content is actually theres. but they don't.
i gave up fighting pinterest. on their terms, they say if the pin button is on the site then you can add it to your page. though they didn't say you couldn't change the link to your own site (and allow you to), or change the name or title of it. and they don't stop people from uploading the pictures directly, or taking it from google or some other source. so they are greatly to blame for some of it, and i think they will get in trouble (finally), for it.
i can see the US supporting it because i'm betting a part of that fine will some how go into the government's pockets. we are always about profit. i don't know what the deal is with Britain.
in the end though, you still have to sue. collect evidence and so forth. on pinterest it would be impossible and i don't know how repins work. (i'm avoiding posting anything but my own work). but you still need money to sue, so it's all kind of futile anyway.
This appears to be wishful thinking on the part of a photographer who has an ax to grind with the internet. I can find no references to an upcoming USCO "September" report proposing a "new federal court system to handle copyright infringement."
Thanks, Guys. Better articles. So far, though, nothing concrete. A "small claims" copyright court is one of many ideas on the USCO table. They don't make law, they only make recommendations. That particular recommendation would require changes to the constitution.
Yeah, right! Like that's going to happen with regard to small copyright holders.
Dan, wouldn't a small claims court also cover small infringements against big copyright holders? I gotta figure those add up, and having such a court might make it more worthwhile to go after a lot of them rather than just making examples of a few.