Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
I agree that the system IS lacking for "The Little Guy" (but only to a certain extent). But on the other hand, "The Big Guys'" advantages are already too many. The ability to initiate takedown notices (either manually, or or auto-bot-ically) that are then acted upon with no investigative oversight (a la the Hugos' live stream being shut down for showing a clip of the Dr. Who episode they were giving an award to) is a step too far already. A rights-holder-friendly committee in D.C. would grant them even more autonomy in being able to "self-police" their own interests, in my opinion.
I understand that the legal system can seem to move too slowly in this digital rights age. I just don't believe that making it even easier/quicker for rights-holders to move against possible infringers is the right answer. There's too much room for abuse the other direction. Such as the bullying or villification of consumers over fair-use disputes. The takedown notice is already too often the beginning and the end of any dispute in my mind. Which 3-man tribunal does the consumer turn to when their fair-use rights get stomped on by an ISP who's just blindly honoring a takedown notice initiated by a party who is the least capable of exhibiting any impartiality on the subject?
It is my opinion that these issues should never be handled quickly and/or easily. Matters of rights-infringement should be exhaustively deliberate, IMO. Get to the right decision, not the fast one. There are always at least two parties involved in any copyright infringement dispute. Any legislation that makes it easier for the same "side" to always get its own way is fraught with peril in my book.
|
The article does say that use is voluntary by both parties and does not supersede the right to a jury trial. My question is what problem is this suppose to solve? Is there really a big need for this?