Under current law, if you copy a work that isn’t registered—meaning, the vast majority of things that are shared by users every single day—you’re only on the hook for the copyright owner’s actual economic loss. This is called “actual damages,” and very often, it’s $0. Under CASE, however, every copyrighted work will automatically eligible for $30,000 in damages—whether or not the owner has bothered to register it.
I have absolutely no problem with this. I don't share my photography much online because the actual damages of someone stealing my photos and reposting them is hard to prove.
Under current law, when I take a photo of my kids and someone shares it without my permission, the most I can sue them for is nearly always $0. The CASE Act is a radical departure from this sensible rule. If it passes, sharing most of what you see online—photos, videos, writings, and other works—means risking crippling liability.
My point exactly. These people are spreading far and wide things that don't belong to them. So what if Joe wants to treat his facebook feed like a virtual refrigerator, showing off his car or kids? He should be able to do that without fearing that someone else is going to copy and repost that all over the internet only for it to wind up in some company's hands and plastered on a t-shirt. As it stands, people repost things and companies literally cannot find the original owner and don't hear anything about it until the original owner shows up in court to sue them. This change to the law stops it in its tracks.
The CASE Act would also set a limit of $30,000 in penalties per proceeding. In a world where almost 40% of Americans would struggle to cover an emergency expense of $400, the Copyright Claims Board would have enormous power to ruin the lives of ordinary Americans.
Then don't steal what isn't yours. Simple.
Section 1201 bans circumventing of access controls on copyrighted works
Good. That will also apply to stripping the EXIF data from photos which can uniquely identify the owner if set up properly.
I see absolutely no problem with this law.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/ready-pay-30000-sharing-photo-online-house-representatives-thinks-you-are
>Under current law, if you copy a work that isn’t registered—meaning, the vast majority of things that are shared by users every single day—you’re only on the hook for the copyright owner’s actual economic loss. This is called “actual damages,” and very often, it’s $0. Under CASE, however, every copyrighted work will automatically eligible for $30,000 in damages—whether or not the owner has bothered to register it.
I have absolutely no problem with this. I don't share my photography much online because the actual damages of someone stealing my photos and reposting them is hard to prove.
>Under current law, when I take a photo of my kids and someone shares it without my permission, the most I can sue them for is nearly always $0. The CASE Act is a radical departure from this sensible rule. If it passes, sharing most of what you see online—photos, videos, writings, and other works—means risking crippling liability.
My point exactly. These people are spreading far and wide things that don't belong to them. So what if Joe wants to treat his facebook feed like a virtual refrigerator, showing off his car or kids? He should be able to do that without fearing that someone else is going to copy and repost that all over the internet only for it to wind up in some company's hands and plastered on a t-shirt. As it stands, people repost things and companies literally cannot find the original owner and don't hear anything about it until the original owner shows up in court to sue them. This change to the law stops it in its tracks.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/today-tell-congress-not-pass-another-bad-copyright-law
>The CASE Act would also set a limit of $30,000 in penalties per proceeding. In a world where almost 40% of Americans would struggle to cover an emergency expense of $400, the Copyright Claims Board would have enormous power to ruin the lives of ordinary Americans.
Then don't steal what isn't yours. Simple.
>Section 1201 bans circumventing of access controls on copyrighted works
Good. That will also apply to stripping the EXIF data from photos which can uniquely identify the owner if set up properly.
I see absolutely no problem with this law.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/ready-pay-30000-sharing-photo-online-house-representatives-thinks-you-are
I have absolutely no problem with this. I don't share my photography much online because the actual damages of someone stealing my photos and reposting them is hard to prove.
My point exactly. These people are spreading far and wide things that don't belong to them. So what if Joe wants to treat his facebook feed like a virtual refrigerator, showing off his car or kids? He should be able to do that without fearing that someone else is going to copy and repost that all over the internet only for it to wind up in some company's hands and plastered on a t-shirt. As it stands, people repost things and companies literally cannot find the original owner and don't hear anything about it until the original owner shows up in court to sue them. This change to the law stops it in its tracks.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/today-tell-congress-not-pass-another-bad-copyright-law
Then don't steal what isn't yours. Simple.
Good. That will also apply to stripping the EXIF data from photos which can uniquely identify the owner if set up properly.
I see absolutely no problem with this law.