No need at all to worry about this. Its just another wall that will be too high for legitimate streaming services to climb over.
The end result is that the illegal ones will flourish, we all get it for free, and they get no money what so ever.
You have to hand it to the lawyer who drafted this. What a way to keep themselves in litigation work for life. The only party who stands to profit from this./div>
What most people do not realise, this type of default judgement, with large minimum awards, actually encourages DRM circumvention.
How so? Lets just put aside the whole is it right / wrong argument to start with.
As it stands right now, the financial impact of a small infringement is of such magnitude that it is for all intensive purposes, no different from a massive infringement.
So, if you are intending to infringe, infringe BIG.
Secondly, when any judgement, uncontested or not, involves that large a sum of money, there are realy only 2 outcomes. The first is all the assests are overseas and can not be touched by the US court system. The second is it goes to appeal and gets tied up in the courts for several years.
So, if you are intending to infringe, infringe BIG.
But it is a detterent I here you say. Not realy, if it was we wouldnt keep hearing about these kind of cases.
All these type of laws do is encourage the very thing they are trying to prevent, provide great fodder for blogs sites, and give plaintiffs flase hope of riches that will never appear./div>
Nothing to see here (as zem)
Building Walls
The end result is that the illegal ones will flourish, we all get it for free, and they get no money what so ever.
You have to hand it to the lawyer who drafted this. What a way to keep themselves in litigation work for life. The only party who stands to profit from this./div>
Re:
They went on to form coalition governments./div>
Re: Re: The unpleasant truth
Strawman reply. I see no default judgement or DRM violation here./div>
The unpleasant truth
How so? Lets just put aside the whole is it right / wrong argument to start with.
As it stands right now, the financial impact of a small infringement is of such magnitude that it is for all intensive purposes, no different from a massive infringement.
So, if you are intending to infringe, infringe BIG.
Secondly, when any judgement, uncontested or not, involves that large a sum of money, there are realy only 2 outcomes. The first is all the assests are overseas and can not be touched by the US court system. The second is it goes to appeal and gets tied up in the courts for several years.
So, if you are intending to infringe, infringe BIG.
But it is a detterent I here you say. Not realy, if it was we wouldnt keep hearing about these kind of cases.
All these type of laws do is encourage the very thing they are trying to prevent, provide great fodder for blogs sites, and give plaintiffs flase hope of riches that will never appear./div>
Short Term Thinking
If this keeps up we may just see the return of the 18th century privateer. ie state sponsered software piracy./div>
What next?
I heard someone else tried that in the past to great success./div>
Monkey See Monkey DO
Still dont get it
The crystal ball game
Not because they can make a proffit in the digital age. But because the only way to stop their heresy is to buy them and then shut them down./div>
Just waiting for it
So if we are vigalent, watch and wait, we too can use this new tool.
Imagine the fun to be had when a major studio gets locked out after their 6th strike./div>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Zem.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt