Copyright Infringement Destroys Lives
There’s a single mom with four kids who just got nailed for $1.5 million for songs she illegally downloaded online. As an Internet marketer, I’m appalled. As a Web lawyer, I know that’s the law at work (fair or not) and it’s best to recognize instead of fight reality.
The music industry is “only” going to get $62,500 per song she downloaded (actually, jack squat because she doesn’t have it). Under copyright laws, they could have been awarded up to a 150,000 per song.
This woman’s life has been ruined. She’s been dragged through the court system and will probably end up in bankruptcy because of copyright infringement.
Do You Have The Bucks to Pay For Copyright Infringement?
What would you do in her shoes?
As a website owner, how do you handle claims of copyright infringement? Got that type of moolah sitting in your spare change jar?
Reduce Your Copyright Infringement Liability Exposure
Long before the Internet existed, Benjamin Franklin talked about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. That’s true today. Protect yourself so you’re not worrying after-the-fact about how much you owe and whether you can afford the damages for copyright infringement.
To your online success!
-Mike the Web lawyer
P.S. If you can’t afford to pay thousands to an Internet lawyer, Website Legal Forms Generator Gold software is an affordable way to reduce your potential liability, including a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice and a special report on how to designate a copyright agent for your website. Don’t take copyright infringement risks lightly because you can’t afford to.
Related posts:
- Internet Attorney: Beware of the lawsuit-happy copyright troll
- Is your copyright agent missing in action?
- Web Lawyer: DMCA Abuse – How to Nuke False Copyright Infringement Claims
- Porn Industry Joins Hollywood in Attacking BitTorrent
- Internet Attorney: How to Create Content that Doesn’t Violate Copyright Law
Regarding the downloading of copyrighted material from the internet without paying for it, this seems to be a very contentious issue at the moment and politicians are struggling to decide which side of the fence they should be seen to be on. The law, quite fairly, says that such material should be paid for – how else is an artist supposed to make his or her living? However, big institutions which are seen as a “force for good” such as Wikipedia appear to be disagreeing, which is causing those with political careers trying to impose the law, pause for thought. The internet is a world with no precedents to fall back on and it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.