Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada It's funny.  Laugh. Media

Anti-Infringement Company Caught Infringing On Its Website 135

Posted by Soulskill
from the pot-meet-kettle dept.
danomac writes "Canipre, a Canadian anti-infringement enforcement company, has been using photos on their official website without permission. This company hopes to bring U.S.-style copyright lawsuits to Canada, and they are the company behind Voltage's current lawsuits. It says right on their website, 'they all know it's wrong, and they're still doing it' overlaid on top of the image used without permission. Multiple photos from different photographers are used; none of them with permission. Canipre's response? 'We used a third party vendor to develop the website and they purchased images off of an image bank,' they said, trying to pass the blame to someone else. Some of the photos were released under the Creative Commons, meaning they could have used the photos legally if they'd provided proper attribution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Infringement Company Caught Infringing On Its Website

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:22PM (#43735877)
    Does this sort of behavior still surprise anyone? The corporate world believes that it is immune from petty things like laws that apply to the rest of us. We've tacitly accepted "oh, some 3rd party messed up, not us" for so long that this is -- and will remain -- the norm (until governments start aggressively targeting corporations for violating the law).
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:32PM (#43735949)
      No, it's not surprising at all. The parasites and thieves that use this business method - extortion and threats of lawsuits over usage of IP that doesn't actually belong to them - tend to be all about threats over IP usage, and not actually care in the least about other people's IP unless it's in a way that they can get money from.
    • by lightknight (213164) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:52PM (#43736145) Homepage

      Not really. Think about it: businesses want website work done by the cheapest bidder. Who are the cheapest bidders? Well, there are hobby programmers, professional programmers doing some moonlighting, and a mega-ton of amateur / foreign programmers. The amateurs are unaware of the legal issues surrounding repurposing an image from Google Images...and foreign programmers do not care, as their country probably laughs at the idea of copyright violations. All this so some business, that 'really is going to make it big, honest,' can have a 40-page eCommerce website with the latest wizbang technologies for under $200.

      It's kind of like when that guy offers to sell you a new Apple MacBook Air for only $200...and you buy it. You know that there's something funny about the situation, you know that $200 is awfully low for a website / new MacBook Air, but you figure, hey, I'm getting a great deal, and if I don't ask any questions, maybe I can get away with this. But deep down inside, you know that what you bought is probably 'hot' or that someone got royally screwed to get you that deal. But better them than you, right?

      So where does this leave this company? Well, if the police are involved, they're going to get fined. They're protesting that they didn't know...but like a 'hot' MacBook Air, chances are they 'knew,' but chose not to 'know.' I believe there is actually something...some law...that the police have that covers this situation...doesn't come immediately to mind, but it does cover these kinds of circumstances.

      Now, I could be wrong. They could have paid top dollar over what the local professional firms are charging, and got screwed. Or they could have just relied on it being a common business practice (safety in numbers) as a defense if it ever came up.

      Disclaimer: I am a deeply bitter web developer, who has seen idiocy both in my own work, and in the actions of others.

      • RIAA don't give a fig for copyright violations. Sony's root disk infringed on LAME's copyright for commercial purposes. They also "can't find" "obscure" artists (like Dolly Parton) for 20 years worth of royalties. MPAA allows Hollywood Accounting.

        Each country will not pursue the claims of a foreign company for infringement of any "IP", see RIM vs Apple for example. And the government won't pursue corporations for copyright violations with any more than a wrist-slap (fined 30% of profits and a "naughty boy!"

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Does this sort of behavior still surprise anyone? The corporate world believes that it is immune from petty things like laws that apply to the rest of us. We've tacitly accepted "oh, some 3rd party messed up, not us" for so long that this is -- and will remain -- the norm (until governments start aggressively targeting corporations for violating the law).

      Surprising? No.

      But do I find it totally fucked up that this kind of behavior is coming from the very company who's in the goddamn business of enforcing copyright? Ah, yes, I do.

      • by Tanktalus (794810) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @07:36PM (#43736447) Journal

        I don't find it fucked up at all. This is expected behaviour. And it's not because it's coming from the very copyright trolls who want to better enforce these laws, it's because they're human like the rest of us (I can hear the collective gasp from here). They naturally treat digital media the same as the rest of us do - casually. Because there is no marginal cost - the same reason the rest of us have.

        They, like many people, think that authors/artists should receive payment for their activities (instead of just for activities that their customers attribute some marginal value to), but, again, like many people, fail to see the disconnect that they prove with their own actions. We all do this - we say one thing, but when it comes time to do it, we take the easy way out, we cut corners. And then fail to see how hypocritical we are. However, most of us do this over trivial things and aren't trying to create a media circus around us about it. That doesn't mean we are less hypcritical, it means we just aren't caught, and the repurcussions are smaller.

        All this does is provide another example of why they're wrong.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          We all do this - we say one thing, but when it comes time to do it, we take the easy way out, we cut corners. And then fail to see how hypocritical we are.

          Speak for yourself. Some of us either wouldn't do this in the first place, ideally - or we'd be horrified to find out that we have done this, and would take whatever steps were necessary to correct it and prevent its reoccurrance. What we *wouldn't* do is excuse it, cover it up, and justify it on the basis that lots of people visibly do the same (like you are doing). What other people do or don't do does not excuse/justify what I do.

          Perhaps *you* are a hypocrite. That confession is yours to make, or

          • by Tanktalus (794810) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @08:40PM (#43736849) Journal

            And this... is a surpremely arrogant self-delusional response. If you can't admit your faults, that doesn't mean you don't have them. We all do. We all have our areas of extreme intelligence/specialty, and areas of extreme ignorance. Only the supremely ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.

            Of course, you completely missed the point as well, too focused on your righteous anger that someone called you a hypocrite, like everyone else.

            The point is that since the behaviour they are so opposed to is just simple human behaviour, and that this is the marketplace we're talking about (they want us to buy their offerings even though we place no value on them, that's the marketplace), they're simply wrong, and they, themselves, are the evidence of it.

            I'm not justifying their hypocracy. I'm pointing out that it, too, is completely normal, and thus not surprising. If you're surprised at it, it's most likely due to your denial of your own hypocracies, no matter how small. Only once you admit to your own normalness at hypocracies can you stop being surprised at this type of behaviour and then possibly find an antidote to it.

            That they try to dodge their responsibility for behaving hypocritically shows that they, like you, are in denial of their own hypocracy. The difference is that they are having it pointed out to them very specifically, whereas with you I'm being general since I obviously don't know who you are. But you're human, I'm assuming, so that means that you therefore must be ignorant in some facets of life, like the rest of us. You must be tempted to act other than how you wish at times, and you must fail at that temptation at times. That's guaranteed. It's part of being human.

            This dodge of responsibility also shows how complete their faith in their business model is, that they attempt to rationalise away and trivialize their misdeed instead of learn from it. While this, too, is normal, and thus unsurprising, again, that doesn't make it acceptable.

            Maybe that's part of your point, too, that I'm somehow saying that just because it's unsurprising due to its normalcy it must therefore be acceptable. No. Just because one can understand a thing doesn't mean they have to agree with it or condone it. Just because I can understand that they, like myself, are hypocrites, doesn't mean I have to accept or condone their, or my, hypocracy. But understanding it may give an opportunity to combat it. Telling them they're wrong to their faces obviously isn't working.

    • by djlowe (41723) * on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @08:12PM (#43736685)
      Hi,

      The corporate world believes that it is immune from petty things like laws that apply to the rest of us.

      The corporate world believes that, because it *is* immune to the rule of law, especially here in the US. Having bought off politicians, who then create laws to benefit them, how could they believe otherwise?

      (until governments start aggressively targeting corporations for violating the law).

      That will never happen: Governments are now so co-opted by corporate interests that they are, in effect, simply tools for them, to further their goals.

      The game isn't just rigged, it's now completely controlled. The people that governments were created to represent are now ignored, for the most part, and all of your representatives are corrupt, in one way or another.

      Sad, but true.

      But, you ALL deserve it: You've gotten exactly what you deserve, here in the US: By your neglect, lack of attention, care, towards your government, at all levels, you've allowed this to happen.

      The US was founded upon one simple idea: The rights of the individual should be paramount. The Constitution, its Amendments, were crafted towards that. And of course, it's not the exact fault of any one of you reading this that this has failed. Rather, it's the culmination of YEARS of work, on the part of the greedy, the power-hungry, the mad, to erode the foundation of our country, which was, and IS: The belief that WE, as human beings, CAN, and SHOULD, be able to be free, to live our lives, exercise our skills, knowledge and intelligence to benefit ourselves, our families, our friends, first and foremost,as good people, kind people, with the idea that, in so doing, as good, decent human beings, we would ALL benefit, as we did so, EACH of us, then, now, and in the future, as we lived, trusted, and grew.

      Our Founding Fathers created something beyond themselves, and gave it to us, and we as a people, as citizens, neglected it, let it pass into the hands of people that care only for themselves. That framework, as crafted and captured, however imperfectly, within the US Constitution and its Amendments, to permit us our lives, liberties, our pursuit of happiness, has been pre-empted by those that we've elevated by election, time and time again, to the point where such election is no longer under our purview or control.

      We are now a nation of servitude, indebted by design, by laws crafted to create and ensure such.

      But, all is NOT lost, even at this late date. Trust yourselves, and as you do so, believe in the gift of your life, each of you. And as you do so, KNOW that you share this moment in time, with so many others, so gifted, and that while life in general may not be fair, nor kind? You, each of you, can help make it so, if you only choose to do so.

      Ignore those that promote fear, so that they may control you. They cannot help you, and seek only your subjugation. They want you to be afraid, so that they can offer the hope of release from that. Security, if you only give up your liberties, your free will, to them.

      Theirs is the certainty that comes from slavery, and you'll only know it, when it is too late to mourn what you have lost.

      Regards,

      dj

  • $5k limit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:26PM (#43735911)
    The limitation of liability in Canadian cases is $5k for all infringement in a court case for non-commercial copyright infringement, but the more likely "get" is just $100. When their first "successful" case goes through the court system with a judgement of $100, it will make the news headlines and their business model will be destroyed.
    • Re:$5k limit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:41PM (#43736035) Journal

      The point of this is to frighten the foolish into paying. The foolish will not be aware that for the price of a letter from a lawyer stating "Send all further correspondence to the Firm of XXXX, YYYY and ZZZZ" (the first time I used a lawyer to do that, it cost me $150), these copyright trolls will go away. This is about extorting money from those ignorant of the legislative limits to damages.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        these copyright trolls will go away

        If we prosecuted people for hypocrisy the same way we prosecute them for drug usage we could fix lots of things. Switching from the War on Some Drugs to the War on Corporate Hypocrisy would still keep the private prisons nice and full so their powerful lobbyists should be satiated.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MightyMartian (840721)

          Look at this way. If you get a letter from anyone threatening legal action and demanding some sort of a payment to avoid it, you are a fool not to seek legal council. Whether this is a copyright troll, or a mean-spirited neighbor, even if you can't afford a lawyer, you can't afford not to retain one.

          • by peragrin (659227)

            um if you can't afford a lawyer then you can't afford to retain one.

            Lawyers are only for the rich, if your not rich you are going to get screwed.
            Same goes for health insurance. if your rich enough that you don't need health insurance you can actually afford to pay for it.

            • It's $500 to retain a lawyer. It's cash well spent.

            • um if you can't afford a lawyer then you can't afford to retain one.

              Lawyers are only for the rich, if your not rich you are going to get screwed.
              Same goes for health insurance. if your rich enough that you don't need health insurance you can actually afford to pay for it.

              I presume you're talking about the US -- this is all happening in Canada, where everyone has health insurance and cases like this would go to small claims court where you have to represent yourself, and loser pays (no lawyers fees involved).

              The fact that these would end up in small claims is why their campaign for bulk suits will fail... that and the fact that Canadians have a very different cultural view of using/abusing the court system (which is already overloaded) than is generally held in the US -- and

            • um if you can't afford a lawyer then you can't afford to retain one.

              And yet you have enough money to pay off the ridiculous extortion demand?

          • Re:$5k limit (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ganjadude (952775) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @07:14PM (#43736289) Homepage
            I would say you are a fool to not just throw the letting in the trash and forget it ever happened. Unless you get served, you have no legal obligation to even acknowledge the existence of the company let alone the letter they sent out.
            • re: Unless you get served, you have no legal obligation to even acknowledge the existence of the company let alone the letter they sent out.
              .
              Is that really true? Just avoiding service / delivery of the message is enough to keep you clear of trouble? That doesn't sound quite right or sane, but then again, nothing in this world of lawsuits and copyright is on this side of the sane/insane dividing line...
              • by ganjadude (952775)
                if it can not be verified that you in fact got said letter, how can it be used against you?

                it wont keep you out of trouble because eventually it will catch up with you (if legal and not just a strong arm email)
              • I believe the thought was:

                Threats are not notices of suit. That is, the company has not yet filed suit against you. Therefore, you have no legal obligation to respond.

                The problem (or the threat) being, if you do want to settle, the company then files the suit and may say "too late, we're making an example of you now."

                Your choice, but be aware of where preemptive settlement ends and legal recourse begins. Myself, I'd get a lawyer's advice when the threat comes in. At the least, I'd feel more comfortable

                • by cdrudge (68377)

                  Myself, I'd get a lawyer's advice when the threat comes in. At the least, I'd feel more comfortable sleeping assured. At best, you've already found someone to handle it if you DO get served.

                  So what reassuring words will your lawyer tell you so that you can sleep assured? That the other party has a case and your in trouble? Or the other party may or may not have a case, but can still file a case anyways and cost a non-trivial amount of money just to start to defend against it.

                  It's doubtful any lawyer would

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Whether this is a copyright troll, or a mean-spirited neighbor, even if you can't afford a lawyer, you can't afford not to retain one.

            Absolutely not true! We have a lot of services setup to help people settle disputes without resorting to lawyers. Your first step should always be to contact the agency related to the area of dispute and see if they can help. You've already paid for it through your taxes so might as well use the service, and thank your fortunes you're not living in the States.

          • by socode (703891)

            > If you get a letter from anyone threatening legal action and demanding some sort of a payment to avoid it, you are a fool not to seek legal council.

            Not really, since you have "judgement" which is free to exercise. Getting legal counsel is however a good way to rack up a bill, whilst your lawyer may spend as little time as possible on your case, or even give completely incorrect advice.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ledow (319597)

            The point is that threatening legal action costs the person you're threatening. Not everyone even has a few hundred dollars to retain a lawyer no matter how briefly. Yes, you might "get it all back" but at great risk even if you are completely innocent and the charges are groundless.

            A threatening letter from a lawyer doesn't have to go through another expensive lawyer. Sure, if you try to get clever, you can dig yourself in deeper, but the fact is that if you can't afford to fight the case, then you sure

      • Quagmire.

        I suspect that anyone in the business would do well to pull down a snapshot of their site and this discussion.

        One can clearly challenge their valuation and subpoena their payment records for content they have not complied with.

        It makes sense to "Be Safe in a Dark Movie Theatre"

    • This is not non-commercial, right? The $5,000 limit shouldn't apply. Where to read about that limitation?

      • by Vhann (1862350)

        I think what your Parent meant was that illegally downloading movies is non-commercial (in the cases we are talking about at least) and that the worst those people would face should they decide to go to court is 5000$ (with a likely fine of 100$).

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Well guess what? These guys are already trying the "but it's actually commercial infringement" crap up here. Because it was traded through various P2P services. Being realistic though CIPPIC will be the one arguing the case between Teksavvy and Voltage which will be the case law precedent.

      • by Mashiki (184564)

        Always nice to see a mod out there with an agenda. I wonder if it's a CANvampire troll or a Vontage troll with mods points today.

    • The limitation of liability in Canadian cases is $5k for all infringement in a court case for non-commercial copyright infringement, but the more likely "get" is just $100. When their first "successful" case goes through the court system with a judgement of $100, it will make the news headlines and their business model will be destroyed.

      A COMPANY violating the copyrights of artists by using their images without permission on their BUSINESS website doesn't sound like non-commercial copyright infringement. What's the penalty for commercial copyright infringement in Canada? According to Canada's Justice Laws website [justice.gc.ca] section 35.1 states:

      35. (1) Where a person infringes copyright, the person is liable to pay such damages to the owner of the copyright as the owner has suffered due to the infringement and, in addition to those damages, such part

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:27PM (#43735917) Homepage Journal

    Every artist with any IP on the web should send letters to Canipre, informing them that they will be sued for potential copyright infringement if they do not fork over $7,500 immediately.

    In other words, give them a heaping helping of their own medicine.

    • by gandhi_2 (1108023) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @07:44PM (#43736483) Homepage

      The Canadian way:

      Lobby your local Canadian MP to place a tarrif on all Corporate websites by pixel. The tarrif goes into a fund which is paid to Canadians who own cameras.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      I'm trying not to fall for the hype as everyone does, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

      They claim they bought the photos from an image bank: if so, at least they tried to do the right thing, by paying for photos. I myself have been looking into buying stuff for my web site that way - didn't do it as it didn't have the material I wanted.

      So if they really did buy from an image bank, and the original photographer did not license the image bank to sell their images for them, then the image bank should be

      • by statusbar (314703)

        They haven't said which image bank they used. It doesn't matter how they got ahold of stolen material, right? The photographers need to sue the infringing party. The infringing party can then sue the image bank or the employee or whoever was responsible.

        • by wvmarle (1070040)

          They may have good reasons to not splash those names around on general news sites, for risking defamation suits or so. That is something for them to settle with the copyright holder. Let them first figure out what happened really before naming and shaming people.

      • I'm trying not to fall for the hype as everyone does, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

        They're lucky they're not being treated the same way that they treat others.

        • by wvmarle (1070040)

          And there are obviously people who don't like to hear reason - hence my comment was down modded.

          I for one treat them the same as I treat everyone else in this matter. Found to be infringing - be informed - they take down the offending material & come with a plausible explanation on how it came to be; case closed for me. If copyright holders don't think so, let them take action. That's how it should be.

          Unfortunately those organisations themselves don't tend to be reasonable... the ridiculous fines they h

  • by idontgno (624372) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:38PM (#43735999) Journal
    "If you aren't paying me, it's wrong. If I'm not paying you, it's just sharp business."
  • by kinthalas (102827) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:40PM (#43736017)

    I see it's spelled "Canipre", but one flip and it's Canpire. Canada-vampire. Canpire.

    For a copyright organization. That wants to pull fees from everyone for ever.

    Did no one think of this?

  • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:43PM (#43736055)

    And then they posted the complaint about it on their website and publicly ridiculed the copyright holders while leaving the material up, after moving it to a different server, citing that they're not actually hosting the files so the copyright holders should complain with whoever owns random-server-in-the-Seychelles, right?

    Oh. They removed the images. Well, crap.

    Still, hypocrits! Clearly they condone piracy and I feel justified in downloading Tears of Steel through TPB just now!

    • by Zaelath (2588189)

      Yeah, no. If you're going to be holier-than-thou, you need to actually be holier. Just because American politicians can campaign on family values then take their mistress on a shagging holiday, then still get re-elected after a contrite "sorry I got caught", doesn't make it less hypocritical.

      Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, that's just your straw man.

      • No, if I were to be holier-than-thou I wouldn't be working toward the abolition of copyright (see comments from waaaaaaaay long ago, but they still hold. Copyright needs to go.)

        I'm also not saying it's not hypocritical. Of course it's hypocritical. On the other hand, there's a difference between, and let's roll with your example here, the politician shagging a mistress once, getting caught, admitting it to their constituents, typically going into family counselling and all that.. and the politician calli

        • by Zaelath (2588189)

          Well sure I have. But, on the other hand, one illegal copy is made for personal use, one is made for commercial gain. I think, generally, in the eyes of the law, the later is more serious, isn't it?

          You know, like how manslaughter during a robbery is a capital crime, but drunkenly running down half a dozen children in your car is few months in prison.

    • I think you've got one too many loose screws, buddy.

    • by Jorgensen (313325)

      Go ahead. Download Tears of Steel. From wherever. You're allowed to - it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attributions 3.0 license, so you're allowed to! Be sure to read the license before re-sharing though - you'll have to give credit where credit is due.

      See http://mango.blender.org/sharing/ [blender.org] for details.

  • by hduff (570443) <hoytduff@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:44PM (#43736059) Homepage Journal

    It's OK when the champions of rights actually abuse and ignore those same rights when honoring those rights is inconvenient for them because, you know, they are champions of those rights.

    Move along, citizen, there is nothing to see here.

    • by lucm (889690) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:51PM (#43736125)

      It's OK when the champions of rights actually abuse and ignore those same rights when honoring those rights is inconvenient for them because, you know, they are champions of those rights.

      Move along, citizen, there is nothing to see here.

      It's called the Jack Bauer principle

    • It's OK when the champions of rights actually abuse and ignore those same rights when honoring those rights is inconvenient for them because, you know, they are champions of those rights.

      Move along, citizen, there is nothing to see here.

      I hate companies like Canipre as much as anyone else, but there are much more important things to criticize then for other than using a couple of Creative Commons photos without proper attribution.

      • by ganjadude (952775)
        It is the same thing as the FBI and IRS going after capone for tax evasion. You go with what you can. yes there are better things (in our slashdot minds) to go after them for, but if you can go after them for breaking the same laws that they claim to be going after others for breaking, it really throws a wrench in things. Capone killed people, sold (at the time) illegal booze and probably numerous other illegal activities, but in the end, it was taxes that took him down, because eventhough it was arguably t
      • by Ignacio (1465)

        Sure, but if you're going to throw the book at them, make sure you've highlighted all the relevant sections first.

      • by hduff (570443)

        I hate companies like Canipre as much as anyone else, but there are much more important things to criticize then for other than using a couple of Creative Commons photos without proper attribution.

        It speaks to their character.

        • by idontgno (624372)
          And the thing it says about their character is "We will get away with anything we think we can. And if caught, we'll do the absolute minimum to get out of trouble. Not 'make it right'. Just 'make it go away.'"
      • by jonbryce (703250)

        If a company's entire business model is enforcing copyright, then they ought to be very careful when respecting other peoples' copyright.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      They removed the offending material (which they bought from an image bank, a very reasonable claim), so apparently they do care.

  • I, for one, find this an eminently plausible explanation. I used to produce unique content, and found people ripping me off all the time. Every time I contacted the site owner, they were genuinely unaware that they had infringed. Either their worker had copied & pasted, or the company they hired for the website copied & pasted. Usually it just took a polite letter to get the infringing material taken down, and the other site owner replied that the guilty party had been scolded or fired.

    Ah, but h

    • by Sique (173459)
      Of course it is plausible that a firm whose business is copyright has no clue about copyright.
    • by ganjadude (952775) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @07:19PM (#43736335) Homepage
      its also plausible they just told you what you wanted to hear to make you go away, knowing the entire time they took your work
    • by vux984 (928602) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @07:58PM (#43736587)

      Of course its plausible. It happens all the time and yes it usually just requires a polite letter to fix the issue.

      That's PRECISELY the point. This companies entire business model is to go after people who make the same sort of slip they themselves made and threaten them with giant extortion style lawsuits with settlement offers to extract a payment.

      Yet, when its pointed out that they have made the very same of slip up on their own website, suddenly an "oops somebody else did it, we didn't know, we'll take it down" is supposed to be ok?

      Do you think they accept that sort of response when they sue someone else for exactly the same thing?

      Not only are they "the villain" but they appear to be a pretty hypocritical one too.

      • Again, nobody said anything about extortion, you put that in there. The company said they contracted the website out and the contractor was responsible. Nobody seems to be able to understand this because everyone is SOOO caught up in the delicious, savory chanting of the Two Minutes' Hate. Hypocrisy requires intent. Intent that is very plausibly absent.
        • intent? What about "agency"? They hired a company to do some work for them: they effectively made this other company and that other company's workers their "agent" to get that work done. So why should the original company be indemnified from the wrong-doing performed by their agents on their behalf? Do they have a contract saying "do work X, but if you do it wrong or illegally, you are fully to blame and we shall be held harmless"?? Because if they don't have such a contract, did they possibly induce so
          • Where the F did Bain Capital come in to this? Enjoying the Two Minutes' Hate, are we? We do know that Romney lost, right? I hope you know he lost.
            • random neuron firing after the "corporate personhood" comment reminded me of Bain. Not " hatin' "; 'twas just a mere memory and recollection. But seriously, discuss the concept of agency and whether or not a corporate person can disavow "intent" through the hiring of an "agent" as their actor. That's the crux of my comment; don't get sidetracked by my random neuron firings!
              • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate

                The "see also" part may be particularly informative. You may have fallen victim to forces beyond your ken, who are trying to manipulate you into aiding their cause. Look at "Struggle Session" and contemplate if you would like to see that happen to people who don't share your political beliefs. That looks pretty cool, doesn't it? Read this and think about if you would like it to happen to anyone associated with Bain Capital. [worldandischool.com] Substitute the word "Romney" for "

                • dude, it looks like you're exerting a lot of effort into your own "Two Minutes Hate". I actually made a real point, and instead of replying to the point about agency and intent, you seem lost and confused and circling back to hating on with ramblings about "Two Minute Hate". Why don't you take the same amount of time and effort into actually responding to my point, which I remind you (in case you've lost focus and attention in the last two sentences, you seem to do that...) is about "agency" and "intent".
      • by wvmarle (1070040)

        Is it so strange to buy photos off an image bank for your web site? I'd say that is normal practice for someone that actually DOES care about copyrights, becuase they paid for the stuff. Image bank claims they have the rights to the stuff; while they didn't; then image bank is bad. No simple copy/paste done.

    • It is entirely plausible that it was a honest mistake. But a mistake does not overturn a crime, it does not matter if you had no idea who if anyone owned a song you downloaded or not.

      So the question remains, does this corporation think that it deserves to pay 5000 times cost of the items it infringed on, or do they think they should get off scot free?

    • by mark-t (151149)
      That's fine... they've been informed. They claim to have received rights from a third party. If they've actually named the third party, then the obvious thing to do is go after the third party (the company still loses their rights to use infringing content, however, and can reasonably sue the party that they obtained the illicit license from). If they will not or cannot name the third party they obtained if from, then accountability stops with them, and they are held 100% responsible.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      I, for one, find this an eminently plausible explanation. I used to produce unique content, and found people ripping me off all the time. Every time I contacted the site owner, they were genuinely unaware that they had infringed.

      And you believed them? Your credibility has just taken a major dive, sir. Further, in what way is it relevant whether the site owner knows or not? At best they are hiring without scruples or discernment.

  • by Tamran (1424955) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @06:55PM (#43736171)

    I believe this is a trap to get everyone to enforce full justice in order to give them a case study for which to use as a basis for future lawsuits.

    Tread carefully folks.

  • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @08:01PM (#43736599) Homepage

    Or do most websites have at least some infringing content?

    • Or do most websites have at least some infringing content?

      The OP makes it sound like they deliberately did this to stir things up. I don't get it.

  • ...the perfect way to determine when bad laws cannot be applied to real life.
  • by mark-t (151149) <`markt' `at' `lynx.bc.ca'> on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @08:34PM (#43736817) Journal
    Trying to shift the blame to somebody else does not diminish one's own involvement in the situation. Much like knowingly purchasing stolen property is crime, knowingly possessing works that are known by the possessor to be infringing on copyright (that is, any copies that can reasonably be known to be unauthorized, and are also known to not fall under any exception covered by fair dealing) is also quite actionable by law.

    So really, their best course of action is to simply identify the third party that they obtained the infringing content from, because at least then the regular penalty for infringement would be applied to the third party and they themselves could then at least argue that they did not previously realize they were infringing (they would still lose license to use the works, however, since they would still be infringing, and if they continued to try to use them, they would be guilty of knowingly possessing infringing content).

  • As they are based in the province of Quebec, they must have a French version of their website. It's the law and they seems not caring about it at all. There is not even a "Under construction page". Then why they would care about the owner of the pictures?!
  • Is it okay if I post copyrighted material if I go through a 3rd party to do so?

  • It's not just their understanding of licensing. The appalling 'playground language' within the statement, "they purchased images off of an image bank" suggests general incompetence.

    "Miss! Miss! He stole my football off of me!"

    *Shudder*

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The reason that businesses get away with things and individuals don't is the businesses set up a web of plausible deniability where everything they do goes through a third party which uses other parties and there is no way to untangle the finger-pointing. There's always someone to throw under the bus. The world is set up that way, on purpose.

  • I think they'll find there'll be some resistance to that.

  • I don't understand how Canipre intends to be effective against the endpoint downloader. Canada's legal environment is significantly different from that of the US.

    Criminal punishment is very limited by the recent legislation and civil judgements are limited to actual concrete losses. If somebody illegally downloads a song worth, say, $1 then the civil loss is $1. The plaintiff is not necessarily likely to get court costs either, especially if the judge feels the $1 could have easily changed hands witho

The two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

Working...