Quote:
Originally Posted by koland
Some of the sites do give the appearance of permission, but I could not find any permissions at monoskop, but instead a very old (and often non-US hosted or college student) attitude that anyone that had an objection to their "hosting" files could file a takedown. The implication that anything still hosted there was by permission (rather than just not discovered, yet).
<snip>
|
My perception is that if someone posts a copyrighted video or image on, say, YouTube or Instagram, the onus is on the copyright owner/holder to make the host take the item down. Then
the copyright owner/holder has to constantly monitor the site(s) to make sure that someone (else) doesn't post the same item again. The host is never subject to any kind of legal action (unless he doesn't take the item down when asked).
But it seems that when it comes to posting copyrighted
ebooks, it's somehow a different situation. The hosting person or organization is legally liable and can be sued to the high heavens, even if he or it quickly responds with a takedown when the copyright owner/holder advises him of the problem. They are cut no slack.
At least that's the way that it seems to me. If my perception is reality, my question is "why the difference?" I think that I can say that it has nothing to do with the relative value of the video/image versus the book. For example, a blockbuster movie hit can make far more money than the book that it might have been based upon.