Man Licenses His Video Footage To Sony, Sony Issues Copyright Claim Against Him (petapixel.com) 190
An anonymous reader writes: Mitch Martinez creates high-resolution stock video footage, and then licenses it out to people who need footage to go along with their creative projects. He has written an article at PetaPixel explaining his bizarre interaction with Sony Music Entertainment, and the hassle they put him through to fix it. Martinez licensed one of his videos to Epic Records, and they used it as background for a music video on YouTube. Less than two months later, his original video on YouTube was hit with a copyright claim from Sony. After figuring out that Epic Records was a subsidiary to Sony, he disputed the copyright claim — which is usually the end of it. But after reviewing the videos, Sony rejected it, saying their claim was still valid. Martinez then tried to contact the person at Epic Records to whom he issued the license. None of his emails got a response. Then he had to get in touch with Epic's legal department. After a lengthy series of emails, voicemails, and phone calls, he finally got somebody to admit it was his video. It still took a few more calls to work out the details, but the company finally released the copyright claim. Martinez concludes by offering some tips on how to resolve such claims.
You think it's bad now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You think it's bad now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahem. TPP is already "too big to fail." Your congress person knows that, and they'll pay you lip service and then ignore you when the vote comes. It will pass, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
What's really happening in this "vote"? Hint: It's a political power-renegotiation between legislative and executive branches that goes a little something like this:
Congress: "Give in to our demands, or we'll torpedo your legacy."
POTUS: "You wouldn't really do that. Half of you would lose your seats next term."
Congress: "Well you've seen the voting trend over the past 20 years. We're out in 2-3 cycles anyway, so we've got nothing to lose, and you know it. What'll you give us not to pull the trigger?"
POTUS: "Shit, okay, what do you want?"
Re:You think it's bad now? (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think that Obama is against this? Exactly which party do you think gets the most money from the entertainment industry?
Re:You think it's bad now? (Score:5, Funny)
Gosh, I just can't believe that Sony would ever do something wrong or underhanded or malicious or evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Before we know they can stop us from walking down the street because we would be violating their copyrights by appearing in a public place
See, on the surface that sounds like hyperbole, but it's closer to the truth than one might think: Remember, not too long ago at all, they tried to enforce copyright on Happy Birthday? We live in a world where if these dickheads had their wish, would have Copyright Police all over the place, maybe even audio surveillance, and would send you a royalties bill if they caught you idly humming or singing a popular song in a public place. There would be no such thing as 'fair use', everyone would own something, and even if you created something entirely unique, you'd have to defend your ownership of it tooth and nail, because some corporation would otherwise claim ownership of it (just like Sony did in TFA) and effectively take it away from you then charge you for daring to use it. There would be no such thing anymore as 'public domain' or 'open source'. Essentially there would be no such thing as 'freedom of speech/expression', either, and effectively no such thing as 'freedom of thought'. Now, someone is going to accuse me of spreading FUD, but go take a look at what's going on in the world: we're not that far from an outright, 100% corporate-owned-and-operated world already. The only thing right now that stands in the way of that is the same thing that has already been standing in the way of it for decade upon decade: people are still relatively free (more or less so, depending where you are in the world) to do as they please. You can still make a 'mix tape' for someone on a thumb drive and pass it around to people you know. Media still isn't so completely locked down that someone can't find a way to rip copies of it for 'fair use' purposes. And so on. Given their druthers, corporations all over the world would have us living in a full-on police state, complete with random warrantless public search-and seizures, just to make sure that 'pirates' aren't 'illegally copying' anything, and every last character transmit or receive on the Internet would be sifted and analyzed to make sure you're not even thinking of violating someone's copy'right'. We aren't 100% at that dystopia yet, but things like the TPP will bring us closer to it.
tips on how to resolve such claims (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or alternatively, include in the license fee an amount to allow for going to court with the company for their stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of unfortunate but I have a long memory. Sony makes some interesting products but I won't own one. No, I was never bitten by the rootkit crap but I know a lot of people who were and was here for the outrage. I said then, and I repeat, I will not knowingly pay for another Sony product or one of their derivatives and that includes media. I don't usually boycott much of anything but fuck Sony. I'll go without.
Re: (Score:2)
I know how you feel but all these companies are exactly the same; the same lawyers, managers etc float between them and so it's sheer luck that this or that company causes a problem in whatever territory at whatever point in time. I did remember the incidents you refer to at the point I ordered my Sony phone, but it was that or the Nexus (I've had build quality issues with them) or a HTC (usb socket failed 13 months in and they charged me to get it fixed), samsung (terrible android support for previous pho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will not knowingly pay for another Sony product or one of their derivatives and that includes media. I don't usually boycott much of anything but fuck Sony. I'll go without.
With Sony that means that you can not watch or listen to any entertainment of any kind, and just about any kind of medical imaging as well, especially if it is printed, Sony has it's roots that deep.
Re:tips on how to resolve such claims (Score:4, Insightful)
That's right up there with pick a different job. I you're in the business of licensing media to others then you will end up in this stupid situation. The only safe move is no to play, but then that move also means you don't get to eat.
Re:tips on how to resolve such claims (Score:5, Informative)
This. So much this.
More than a few years ago, Sony put rootkits on some of their music CD's. It was abhorrently wrong, they knew it, they did it anyway. That was the last straw for me. It came after SOE released Everquest II incomplete and broken. It came after proprietary audio formats (strong push against MP3) and proprietary media. It was during a time of suing grandmothers for music downloading. It was during a time of Sony's clear (ongoing?) campaign against its customers and fans.
Since that time, I have not purchased Sony music, will not buy Sony consumer electronics, and won't even see a Sony pictures movie. I boycott ALL Sony related products and services, and have for the last ten years. People need to wake up and exercise the only power they have by voting with their wallets. We have to keep these companies terrified that such missteps will lead to their ruin, or else sleep in the bed we made without complaint.
FYI - Here's a pretty comprehensive list of Sony's subsidiaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
License agreements need an automatic termination.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.
Re: (Score:2)
I would include a clause stating the original license fee increases 100x and is due 5 days from issuance of any fraudulent copyright claim instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not good at math Gorbachev.
$0 times 100 is still $0. He was licensing those visuals for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.
They would have benefitted from also taking Martinez's advice (FTFA):
2.) Have your licensing documentation organized and easily searchable.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright holders can submit DMCA claims but I suspect the vast majority of claims on
Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio (Score:5, Informative)
Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because he was completely ignorant and thus assumed his company was in the right.
Also, he explains in TFA that he did have such a clause in his terms of use with them and they did in fact lose those rights due to failing to remove the claim within the more generous 48hrs he gave them.
The only reason they're still allowed to use the video is because they accepted a secondary deal that explicitly credits him and his website on their video, even if it took them days to get that done.
Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is whether he got the $150,000 for wilful copyright infringement
You could read the fine article. The "or else" he gave them was that they'd have to take down the music video they'd used it in, losing its huge hit count. In marketing value that would probably have cost them far more than $150,000, and he had the right to demand it. He was being a nice guy by giving them the option to advertise his site on their video instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.
That is no excuse.
If he didn't have the information, he should have waited until he did.
And the original copyright holder is just too nice. He should have charged Sony the amount Sony would have charged him for copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Your clause wouldn't work since it was Epic's parent company that made the ownership claim. You would need to put something nice and broad in there about parent companies, partners, or affiliates. I'm sure a lawyer would know exactly how to close that loophole.
For Christ sake (Score:2)
He could have also taken the legal route (Score:2)
Couldn't he have sent a 'demand letter' (?) via certified mail, requesting that they either cease and desist, provide documentation of their ownership of the copyright, or accept the validity of their contract and his ownership of the copyright and give him due credit? It seems that phone calls and email, while civil, made him waste his time, while a physical letter (or a phone call from an attorney/paralegal on his side) would be something like a ticket to have their legal department give it priority.
Sony sues itself too (Score:5, Interesting)
Sony is a massively complex company, such that they have sued themselves over DMCA issues before. Literally one division has no idea what another is doing.
Samsung's rise in the 80s and 90s was fueled in part by a mission to destroy Sony. That was their driving goal, and they have in fact succeeded with that mission and then some. Part because Samsung is that good, but also because Sony literally invents ways to shoot themselves in the head.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds interesting, can you provide some links on Sony suing themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
The one instance that comes up most often is the RIAA (of which Sony has a signifiant controlling interest) suing Launch.com, which was operated by Sony Technology and Business unit.
The RIAA also went after manufacturers that "encouraged" music piracy activites with their products, such as portable music players, CD burners, etc. Sony of course also makes CD burners.
Re:Sony sues itself too (Score:4, Informative)
Your article was about RIAA suing Launch,com, so no it is not a case of Sony suing it self.
Guilty until proven innocent? (Score:2)
Why is it that authorities assume that the copyright claim is always valid? In fact, it’s often not, with these companies conducting drag net campaigns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't something like this also happen.... (Score:2)
This just happened to me (Score:3)
Youtube just took down two of my videos claiming they violate someone else's copyright. But they are animated films that I made in film school.
I can only imagine that maybe the music used is copyright, but the film is my work. And I don't have the freaking first clue how to fight this since the films were uploaded to youtube many years ago under a different account I don't have the password for.
As a result, I can't even login to READ the notice of why the films were removed. All I've got is the email notification that they were.
Re: (Score:2)
So dont't do business with Sony or Epic (Score:2)
So dont' do business with Sony Epc or any of the other companies Sony owns.
There, problem solved.
He should get damages (Score:2)
As I recall, under the DMCA, the copyright owner is entitled to damages for this type of abuse.
Re:So what the fuck is the story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, next time the automated system will imprison him. Why is he complaining now?
Re:So what the fuck is the story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, next time the automated system will imprison him. Why is he complaining now?
Automated imprisonment?!? Don't be so 1984, we have long since moved on to drone strikes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what the fuck is the story here? (Score:5, Interesting)
He got in touch with someone who sorted out the issue.
That's not the point. He filed a copyright dispute response with Youtube, including a quote from his contract explaining why he is in the right on this issue. And after that he just got a note:
A day or so after filing my dispute, I checked the status of the claim on YouTube and found a status update explaining that "The claimaint (Sony Music) has reviewed their claim and confirmed it was valid"
So Sony was apparently not required to substantiate any of their claims (at least not to him) even after he filed a counter-claim with evidence.
So the process is not biased at all...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what the fuck is the story here? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it is pro big business. Note that the actual copyright owner is the one who got his work taken down and then couldn't get it back up because Sony "confirmed" that their (wrongful) claim was valid.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, the DMCA process is biased pro complainant. You can do the same thing: File a complaint, await rejection, stand by your claim. Be prepared to have your pants sued off you though, and that's where the bias pro big business is: In the damages that you are awarded vs. the damages that Sony would be awarded. The complaint process is just a sequence of assertions by the complainant and the defendant which the hoster just has to believe or else they take their own stand for which they are then liable.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA says they should restore the work upon reciept of a counter claim and that the claimant's next step if to file suit and get a court order if they want it to stay down. The Youtube process instead favors the claimant but gives big business an express lane to file claims.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to CYA, they shouldn't allow the claimant to monetize the work (explicitly stated that they did in TFA).
Re: (Score:2)
"Youtube has no obligation"
Under the DMCA, YouTube does have an obligation to restore content on receipt of a counterclaim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what the fuck is the story here? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they were not correct. Sony did not own the copyright on the video they sent a notice on, they were merely a licensee.
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that the Stock Video owner Mitch Martinez [youtube.com] makes high quality background videos. Martinez [mitchmartinez.com] enter into a licensing agreement with Epic Records a Sony subsidiary and supplied Epic Records with a background video for a videotaped music performance. The Sony bot crawling Youtube.com saw Martinez's stock footage posted there and correctly identified it as the same as in the Epic Records video, Sony then without performing adequate due diligence issued a take down notice with youtube and thereby
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking hell you are thick.
Raised by wolves? I should slap you and then I should slap your parents.
Now reread the thread and behold your own foolishness.
Re: (Score:2)
I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....
Which is exactly what Sony did. In your analogy, imagine the same make up artist posted her own picture of the model's face in her portfolio and you claimed to own the copyright on the make-up design.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're trying to twist your own damned analogy. Just quit digging while you can still see daylight.
Re: (Score:2)
If i would be photographing fashion-models....the clothing is copyrighted, and the work of the fashion-stylist is copyrighted and the work of the make-up-artist is copyrighted.....I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....
It also gets a bit more complicated depending on whether you have a model release [wikipedia.org] or not. IE, you could take the photograph, but whether you could publish it without a release varies by jurisdiction/country.
Re: (Score:2)
BULLSHIT yourself. Please re-read TFA. Because Sony re-affirmed their claim, the actual owner of the video was unable to monitize it, but Sony was allowed to.
Now, when you eat that "BULLSHIT" you posted, would you like some salt or sugar?
Re: (Score:3)
Under the DMCA, filing the counterclaim should have gotten the video restored and gotten YouTube out of the middle of the dispute. Any further claim by Sony would required them to take action against Mitch Martinez directly.
So among all of the other problems with this case, YouTube is in violation of the DMCA.
Re:So what the fuck is the story here? (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't the first time this happens. A Norwegian artist, Bjorn Lynne, had a similar problem where Sony used music that he had released for free usage as background music on one of their audiobooks. They then shut his Youtube channel down.
It was sorted out eventually.
The real problem is for those who aren't the original artist. If someone else were to use the music of Lynne as background music they too would be shut down by Sony.
Without being the original artist they will have a much harder time disputing it.
Re:So what the fuck is the story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is large corporations have it so easy to lay copyright claims and when you go to dispute it you have to jump through hoops. Not only was the onus on his to prove to YT that it was his own work even though somebody else is making the claim but he had to contact multiple people at Sony, multiple times just to wake them up. And here is a guy who licensed his work to a large multinational corporation for FREE and he gets screwed over by them. If he didn't waste his time fighting it then he would have been the one losing the rights to his own work. So how is that fair?
Re: add a clause. (Score:2, Informative)
RTFA, he did.
Re: (Score:2)
Where?
That I can see it's only ever hinted at, in I explained very clearly that if they did not comply with the conditions I stated that their only other course of action would be to replace or remove my footage from their video.
Re: add a clause. (Score:4, Informative)
The article also explains the following:
Unless the license for using the stock footage contained language allowing them to impersonate the author as the copyright owners, and deny him recognition in the video, this means that they were violating copyright law by doing just that.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world we live in the little guys got crushed, every. single. --freaking-- time
Not so. If there is a good claim, the little guy can win a decent amount of the time...
But it often isn't worth it.
Re: David vs Goliath (Score:3)
Except, to extend the metaphor, Goliath has a ton of endurance (legal funds) and David can't keep fighting indefinitely (has limited funds). So all Goliath needs to do is keep the fight (lawsuit) going until David collapses out of exhaustion (declares bankruptcy). Then Goliath wins, siezes everything David owned, and uses him as an example to scare future Davids into giving up (settling the lawsuit) quickly.
Re:add a clause. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd have thought that would have already been clear in the licencing contract.
"The material is licenced to the purchaser for the purposes stated in appendix A. Ownership and copyright of the material remains at all times with the seller".
So a copyright claim by Epic/Sony would be breach of contract, and hopefully there would be a clause in the contract that the licence is immediately cancelled should there be such a breach of contract.
At least, that's how I would licence any material of mine.
Sony has obviously sent a copy of the video to their legal/enforcement division (did they have a licence to copy the material for that purpose?), who proceeded to scour youtube/vimeo/liveleak for it, without bothering to check who *actually* held the copyright in the original footage.
Re:add a clause. (Score:5, Insightful)
It can easily go a step further.
The license is not necessarily exclusive to Epic Records, which means he can license it to other people as well.
So now it may happen that Bob has licensed the same video, and is using it legally, and then Epic Records via Sony tries to sue him over copyright infringement. That's bad not only for Bob, but also for Mitch, as he may get a bad name and can't sell his material any more. Bob will also have no idea what's happening to him, as he knows he properly licensed the video from Mitch, who is not related to Sony, yet it's Sony that comes with the infringement claims.
A big, big mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:add a clause. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a good idea, but there's something else interesting. DMCA is under penalty of perjury, and he has documentation to prove it. This is the point at which you send them a settlement letter. Especially if that contract had the clause you mentioned, if it goes to court, then SONY is not in a happy place.
If SONY loses the license, then every view from then on is an instance of copyright infringement. That's stupid amounts of money. Courts tend to look down on such clearcut cases of perjury too.
Re: (Score:3)
The DMCA perjury clause simply requires that the claimant is a legal representative of the copyright owner — whether that copyright ownership conjecture is accurate or not is beside the point. The test for ownership is merely good faith and Sony has a lot of wiggle room there due to the widespread use and acceptance of automated flagging systems and the similarity of the licensed use and the original footage.
Re:add a clause. (Score:4, Insightful)
The real issue here is not that some automated system flagged the video, but that after the counter claim some human still insisted that Sony still owned the entire copyright. Granted, the person who handles these counter claims probably sees hundreds a day and basically is trained to say "nah, we still own the copyright and no it's not fair use". Which probably is correct most of the time. The shame lies with Sony that fails to do is due diligence when reviewing counter claims made by the automated systems.
Re:add a clause. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's shameful but Sony has nothing to lose by saying they own everything 100% of the time. This phase of the YouTube copyright claim process doesn't even involve the horrible DMCA. This prelude is all copyright enforcement theater. The bitch of it is going to be clearing YouTube's copyright strike against the owner of the footage. If this happens a couple more times, his channel could be shutdown permanently, even if the strikes are bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the person who files the claim is not a legal representative of the copyright owner. Sony did not own the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the person who files the claim is not a legal representative of the copyright owner.
No, they are a legal representative of the organisation asserting the copyright and making the complaint. That's all that matters. It's about misrepresentation. Read the clause and use your head. It doesn't matter that they are wrong about copyright ownership, they can't perjury themselves that way. Do you think everyone on the losing end of a copyright dispute is charged with perjury in a court of law?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the unanswered question is, why is Sony searching for and flagging content that they don't own? Is it because it's "mixed" content with Sony-owned and non-Sony-owned content alike, and the only easily-searchable/scannable part is the one they don't own?
Re: (Score:2)
If you run a totally automated flagging system with no personal followup, then it's not credible to state that Sony acts in good faith to prevent false positives.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in that case, the person who filed the claim committed perjury because SONY didn't own the copyright to the video—they only had a license to use/redistribute it.
Whether or not they actually own the footage is beside the point. It's not perjury unless you can show that the person who filed the DMCA doesn't work for Sony. It's that simple and toothless.
And he might kill his business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And he might kill his business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Might not be a problem. Cite in court the fines that Sony has asked for non-commercial copyright infringement. Say that you're willing to be generous and only ask for the same for their commercial infringement. You should get a few million...
You're modded "funny" but this is *exactly* what I'd do in the situation. The RIAA has extorted some 7 figure settlements for non-commercial infringement and by doing so they removed every single defense that a company like Sony has in a case such as this one. While you wouldn't get statutory damages (you would literally own Sony after the court case if full damages were awarded) you would likely be able to extract retirement money from them pretty easily.
Sony v. Tenenbaum (Score:3)
Cite in court the fines that Sony has asked for non-commercial copyright infringement.
Is Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum [wikipedia.org] close enough?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with small guy, is that if he does that, he will black listed by the sony alike. If he does not do his business with sony alike corp, then go for it. But if he does, it would be the quickest way to dry up.
So include a monetary penalty in the contract that will account for that; instead of merely "cancelling the license", spell out a financial amount to be paid for that kind of breach, And "No further usage is licensed, except after the penalty is paid".
The idea being, the mandatory monetar
Re: (Score:3)
So include a monetary penalty in the contract that will account for that; instead of merely "cancelling the license", spell out a financial amount to be paid for that kind of breach, And "No further usage is licensed, except after the penalty is paid".
The idea being, the mandatory monetary penalty would be large enough to compensate/offset for the expected loss of future business.
Then be prepared to get no business. This guy isn't James Cameron: he's licensing stock footage. No company lawyer would allow their organization to be put on the hook for that kind of liability for such a trifling benefit. They'd just find someone else to get similar footage from with less onerous terms or make it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a DMCA request. This is sony requesting youtube to takedown content. Youtube plays nice with copyright holders, especially the big labels, and takes down on request. No one is swearing under oath for this to be considered perjury (in DMCA you are).
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube plays nice with copyright holders, especially the big labels, and takes down on request.
Need some Youtubers to file lawsuit against Google/X for antitrust violations over this shady practice however --- still taking actions against creators after they filed a counterclaim, which have not been found by court to be infringing.
Re: (Score:2)
still taking actions against creators after they filed a counterclaim, which have not been found by court to be infringing.
Not been found as in the court heard arguments and rendered an opinion, heard arguments and decline to offer an opinion or never heard arguments?
Re: (Score:2)
Sony would have to knowingly and willfully be misrepresenting themselves. Not only that, but the prosecution would need to prove this beyond reasonable doubt.
The perjury clause only really prevents outright deliberate fraudulent abuse of the provisions.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a good idea, but there's something else interesting. DMCA is under penalty of perjury, and he has documentation to prove it.
No, he doesn't. Sony's movie has a copyright and he's Sony's legal representative. The clip also has a copyright, but they're not falsely representing to own that. They're mistakingly claiming the clip infringes on the movie's copyright, when in fact the movie is a licensed derivative of the clip. But that part isn't under penalty of perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If SONY loses the license, then every view from then on is an instance of copyright infringement. That's stupid amounts of money.
Aside: copyright infringement damages are per work infringed, not per view.
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to the MPAA and RIAA; it's per act of distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to the MPAA and RIAA; it's per act of distribution.
Nope, it's per work infringed, both according to the statute [cornell.edu] and according to the RIAA [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. I was under the impression that they were targeting users based on how many other users received parts from them. Thanks for the correction!
Re: (Score:2)
As the other commentator mentioned, it's per work infringed, which is why they can bring claims of huge damages against a file sharer even if they don't have any evidence that the file was shared with anyone other than the MPAA/RIAA/whomever is checking.
Re:Sony's claim was actually valid (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't say that at all. The article very clearly indicates it was a non-exclusive license.
I had issued a license for the claiming party to use my footage but they have no claim to any copyright for my content.
4. Copyright: Mitch Martinez, retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Stock Files not expressly granted by the License Grant above. Such rights are protected by the United States and International Copyright laws and international treaty provisions. You may be held legally responsible for any copyright infringement that is caused or encouraged by your failure to abide by the terms of this Agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
If you RTFA you'll see the exact opposite of what you claim. Would you please stop misinforming people?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see that part, I did see
Re: (Score:2)