Y'know, with Google's Search by Image, there's really no excuse whatsoever for this.
I think it goes "we are the good guys, you are the bad guys."
Please, piracy is something the enemies of Big Content do. If Big Content does it it isn't illegal. Just like when bankers commit fraud and money laundering. Or when senior government officials leak classified information. It is only when other people do it that it is a problem. Duh.
That being said, I do look forward to the BSA handing over the $30,000 to $150,000 statutory fine over to the person who's copyright was infringed. Estoppel prevents them from claiming they don't owe statutory damages. Even though I know that will never actually happen. :-p
The BSA will probably blame a freelance graphic designer working for the online engagement consultant contracted by the web marketing consultant employed by their advertising agency.
True - though that isn't an excuse they accept. Hell, they literally don't accept original boxed media with all of the original SNs, discs, docs, holograms and other authenticity seals as proof of ownership of software. :-0
It wont be long before corporations have non-corporations declared as non-people.
Are there no pro-bono lawyers out there who are prepared to invite these people to pay for the image which they stole? Surely there must be...
Yep, exactly this. Happens every time this happens, like a canned response.
If you're gonna steal someone's work then at least give it a decent treatment.
Here's mine, nopiracy doucebags.... just go ahead and steal it and we'll continue to pirate stuff and call it even.
Many many years ago I knew this guy...who was contracted to edit radio spots for the newly formed BSA/Microsoft alliance that warned small business about the dangers of using pirated software and how easy it was for them to catch you.
The penalty was $500,000 per pirated copy, per machine.
The laptop that those commercials were edited on was housing $7,500,000 worth of pirated software. Allegedly.
Its only illegal if you do it.
Bring the pot in front of the copy box and I'll sign off on it.
Hows that, fella?
There are no statutory fines over copyright, although there are statutory damages (fines imply enforcement by the government, while in reality the copyright holder must sue in order to realize statutory damages). I don't see why they would be estopped from claiming they don't owe statutory damages, especially since the reason they might not owe statutory damages is that the original image must have been registered within three months of the infringing publication in order to receive statutory damages.
I made a version just for you!
You are correct. I was being flippant and playing fast and loose with language. The BSA should still pay $30,000 to $150,000 on principle (my principle, so you can't argue with that).
I guess they would steal a car...
next page →