Claim you’re in the middle of a really bad break-up.
And again. I understand if the tone of their letter rankled you. You are human after all.
Basically, if this goes to court, you are wounded lamb in a tank of piranhas. You’d have to hire a lawyer, and any lawyer with any sense whatsoever will say, “Settle.”
You hold no cards. Copyright holders never lose this sort of suit. In your case, the fact that you’re selling the items make it even more egregious (not that giving them away for free would matter).
And do you know that you can be required to pay CBS’s legal bills in addition to any statutory damages?
You got off lucky. You better hope that CBS sticks by their word and doesn’t try to sue you for the previous violation.
No matter how you rationalize it, according to the law, you have violated CBS’s copyright. Any excuse is like saying “I shot him because I didn’t like his hat”: meaningless, and certainly not anything a court would consider (except for any "I had a client so stupid that … … " website).
CBS has law and precedent on their side. You have . . . nothing.
Aw, c’mon. How could anyone whose logo is a giant frickin’ eye possibly not be nice?
If it got that far hopefully he literally has nothing. Credit? Kiss my ass. Money? I have none. Get in line. A house? BAHAHAHA. What am I? Rockefeller? Garnish my wages? Have fun garnishing my $2.13 an hour waiter wages.
NOW how are you going to recoup that $250,000 on lawyer fees you spent CBS? Yeah, next time look at my credit history.
(Thank God we have no debtor’s prisons)
That’s an eye…?
Its not so much that intellectual property rights holders always win. (Although in this case they definitely do). It’s like this: You can paint a picture of an orange and copyright it. But you haven’t copyrighted all paintings of oranges. A direct copy Would be infringement, as in copy and paste. What this person has done is blatant infringement. Even going so far as to create packaging and suposedly dvd menus etc in his forgery. That Would be considered in the case as forgery. This case would be a sure thing for cbs. I’m suprised the letter wasn’t more aggressive since most of these letters are designed to make you shit down both legs and just comply.
As far as damages or settlements go, it is true that a company wouldn’t spend the money that apple and Samsung do to fight this kind of thing because they know that the people who are doing this typically have nothing to lose. However it can become a criminal case for that exact reason.
NM
Case in point: Star Trek originally aired on NBC, but is now owned by CBS. In fact, CBS originally turned it down because they had Lost In Space.
@ Kamakiri: The leaps in your logic are so flagrant, the mere mention of your name by Capt. James T. Kirk is sufficient enough to short-circuit an android.
The stuff the OP is doing is not only wrong but ridiculous–it doesn’t cost a lot of money to do a single digital transfer, and if you want to make it available, you could put it on YouTube, where CBS, if they cared at all, might monetize it. It’s only because you are selling it that they are so upset. And, even then, it’s a cease and desist because that’s the only thing they can send to you. There is no DMCA notice for selling things.
That said, I completely disagree with the idea that digitizing the film and releasing it is wrong. It’s illegal, but it’s in that area of copyright that is stupid. If it’s been released before, and you are no longer selling it, it should be okay.
The Disney Vault argument is a new one I haven’t seen in these cases, but it’s hardly a defense for most items. Disney actually has a reputation for doing that. You know that certain Disney stuff is only temporarily not for sale, so that’s different.
And, no, it’s not the same thing as taking the stuff I didn’t want publicly released and showing it. But say I had publicly released something. Would I be okay with someone else putting it up somewhere? Sure.
But if they sold it, I would not be okay unless they gave me a cut.
Right, and for a 2015 example CBS studios produce the period piece Reign, but it airs exclusively on the CW.
[quote=“cochrane, post:88, topic:712626”]
Case in point: Star Trek originally aired on NBC, but is now owned by CBS. In fact, CBS originally turned it down because they had Lost In Space.
Which is ironic, given the circumstances of this thread. Because CBS lets people use Star Trek characters as long as they don’t make a profit by doing so.
I hope the OP belongs to the “millions for defence, but not one penny for tribute” school–he very well may have a chance to test that.
True, but they always win cases of actual infringement – which is the case here. If you take a work and make a copy without permission, there is no way you have a case in court. If you lawyer says so, it’s time to find a new lawyer.
There’s at least one huge reason why three separate juries awarded gigantic damages against Jammie Thomas-Rasset and that is that she was a huge fucking liar who changed her story a dozen times and the juries believed she deserved serious punishment.
Heck, they don’t even have to sue. Can’t one be prosecuted for copyright violation? I seem to recall something about “civil and criminal penalties” in the nifty FBI notice.
I might be wrong. But, hey, at least I’m not out selling someone else’s property.
There is criminal copyright liability, but it is nowhere near as broad as the civil copyright statute — it has a threshold — and it also depends on a U.S. attorney’s office choosing to prosecute, which does not happen in minor cases.
Criminal charges would go against someone who is specifically trying to cause damage to the company or otherwise repeatedly made available for free or otherwise, a copyrighted work by that company.
It was aired on ABC, but it was produced by Paramount (which apparently kept the rights). Through a number of mergers & splits, CBS now owns Paramount’s properties.
There used to be rules limiting the amount of programming a network could self-produce and requiring them to buy programs from other sources (cite). It’s very likely that a show that originally aired on one network is now owned by the parent company of a different network.
I agree that copyright laws in this country have gotten ridiculous and major reforms are needed. But the question is how that problem should be addressed.
Spreading the word about the problem and seeking to get the laws changed? Good idea.
Breaking existing laws and then taunting somebody who’s in a position to enforce them? Bad idea.
Ah yes, the classic “It’s not violating a copyright if I don’t charge money”.
There was a time, in the US, in which that was kinda sorta true.
It stopped being even remotely connected to “true” with the re-write of the 1990’s (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act - the copyright on *Steamboat Willy (Mickey’s first appearance was about to expire.
Sounds like the actions the OP described.