They're supposed to be internally consistent. "I had no way to know the distributor of the content didn't have the rights to it" isn't an excuse most IP holders will accept, regardless of whether or not you happened to pay for the content.
It's almost as if IP rights for content in the modern era are incredibly complex, and it's very difficult to actually be certain you have the rights for anything, making it kind of absurd to threaten people and take them to court for minor violations that could be resolved through other means!
>It's almost as if IP rights for content in the modern era are incredibly complex, and it's very difficult to actually be certain you have the rights for anything, making it kind of absurd to threaten people and take them to court for minor violations that could be resolved through other means!
Yes, although this is not exactly the case.
It's not like they are getting people to court for cases like this -- which could be legitimate ignorance.
They do it for people downloading and sharing copyrighted content knowingly. Now, if somebody else was using their wifi, that's another thing (and it can be shown in court).
But they don't really do it for cases that are analogous to "i trusted a website company and they used pirated stock photos".
> But they don't really do it for cases that are analogous to "i trusted a website company and they used pirated stock photos".
No? At least Getty Images does [1]. You can try and sue your website company for damages, but that's another story. The copyright owner will sue you since you're using the images without permission.
The owner of a stock photo can charge any price they want. Canipre is just as hypocritical when they ignore stock photo violations. They should have a receipt for every copied resource on their site, or proof that it's free.
> It's not like they are getting people to court for cases like this -- which could be legitimate ignorance.
How do you know they aren't? It might be very easy for someone who's not technically knowledgeable to plug in a wifi router without configuring it, leaving their Internet connection open.
So if I buy a music player and it comes with 40g of music on it I should assume it's fine and trust the company that sold it to me.
Sweet.
No, the poster above had it right. It's not the specific remedies that're needed, it's them throwing open the door the way they would want if they were investigating.
Sure, this may be a mistake, but if it's an important issue as they make it out to be, they shouldn't brush it off.
It's almost as if IP rights for content in the modern era are incredibly complex, and it's very difficult to actually be certain you have the rights for anything, making it kind of absurd to threaten people and take them to court for minor violations that could be resolved through other means!