Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
Quote:
Quote:
The content available on the H33T website is extensive. As at 6 July 2012, its index listed 241,477 torrent files. Dr Price's analysis of its distribution between different categories of content indicates that 21.04% of torrent files available on the H33T website fell within the music category. Dr Price has then analysed the proportion of this content which is commercially available (and therefore highly likely to be protected by copyright). In the music category, 97.1% of the torrent files related to content which is commercially available. Applying these percentages to the total number of torrents available as at 6 July 2012, this analysis implies that 50,806 music torrents were listed on the H33T website, of which around 49,330 were commercially available.
|
So that would be just under $2.5 million dollars to remove all the links to infringing music (just music, nothing else) on H33T.
Does that sound like a scheme they genuinely expect content holders to take part in?
Google process something like 4 million DMCA takedowns a week.
At the same rate of charging, that would be $10 billion dollars a year. |
The analyst said that "97.1% of the torrent files related to content which is commercially available", which doesn't imply that all of them infringe copyright (parodies would fall under this category), and commercially available doesn't necessarily mean that it is protected by copyright because public domain works are commercially available. The lawsuit is based on false statements, but the websites are not allowed to defend themselves because the court decided to circumvent them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
What you have linked to is nothing to do with filing an infringement case, it is a one-off fee for an OSP to designate who should be notified when a case is filed against them.
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ |
OK, the Copyright Office charges $135 to do nothing.
How much should a website charge to check a copyright infringement claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaenSidhe
He's answered that question before. IIRC, he owns that Dalek and he was the one who took the picture, so he doesn't need a license. He might have also asked permission, but not sure.
|
Yes, it has been discussed before. Legally he still needs permission to distribute the picture the way he does (because the picture is a 2D copy of a 3D object that is under copyright) but doesn't want to ask for it.