Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
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.
|
The difference probably has to do with the type of site. When e-books get posted illegally by users to filehosts (think Mega, MediaFire, etc.) they usually don't sue them but DMCA the file like with stuff on Youtube or Instagram. And a
lot of pirated e-books get posted to all the filehosting sites.
When the file is hosted on a site where the sole purpose is to share out illegal e-books (or videos, or music) then the site is likely to get sued, not DMCA'd. Or at least not just DMCA'd. They may try DMCAing the stuff first, but get fed up and sue the site later.
A lot depends on who's on the copyright holders' shit-lists though. They went after Hotfile and Megaupload even though both sides not only honored DMCA notices, but also had built special tools to allow copyright holders to take down infringing links without going through the DMCA process.