> just the key principles that underpinned other judgements.
The issue I take with such an analysis is the numbers game, the lack of intent that brings with it, and the lack of damages for very minor violations deep in an archive. It doesn't apply to the author of the linked article but at least in the US large archives of content generated by third parties would presumably fall under the DMCA takedown provisions.
> it’s worth noting in your example that folks are investing heavily in avoiding incidental copyright infringement
I think that's what you might call "reasonable precautions". If the technology is widely known about and cheaply available and yet you choose not to use it you risk taking on the appearance of any infringement being intentional.
> see for example dashcam footage on YouTube where songs on the radio are being either cut or pitched up/down or monetised to the rights holder rather than the publisher
I think that's a natural consequence of automated draconian enforcement of corporate policies that are arguably quite user hostile. Certainly the system is actively abused by trolls of various sorts. Even things that are clearly fair use can potentially get your channel demonetized or even banned. Granted, the platform is also rife with users who blatantly and repeatedly violate copyright. The entire place is a cesspool in that regard.
Which is to say that I don't think it's an example of the current legal situation as much as a status quo imposed by corporate policy. (Granted at the behest of various lawyers.)
The issue I take with such an analysis is the numbers game, the lack of intent that brings with it, and the lack of damages for very minor violations deep in an archive. It doesn't apply to the author of the linked article but at least in the US large archives of content generated by third parties would presumably fall under the DMCA takedown provisions.
> it’s worth noting in your example that folks are investing heavily in avoiding incidental copyright infringement
I think that's what you might call "reasonable precautions". If the technology is widely known about and cheaply available and yet you choose not to use it you risk taking on the appearance of any infringement being intentional.
> see for example dashcam footage on YouTube where songs on the radio are being either cut or pitched up/down or monetised to the rights holder rather than the publisher
I think that's a natural consequence of automated draconian enforcement of corporate policies that are arguably quite user hostile. Certainly the system is actively abused by trolls of various sorts. Even things that are clearly fair use can potentially get your channel demonetized or even banned. Granted, the platform is also rife with users who blatantly and repeatedly violate copyright. The entire place is a cesspool in that regard.
Which is to say that I don't think it's an example of the current legal situation as much as a status quo imposed by corporate policy. (Granted at the behest of various lawyers.)