It actually wouldn't give people more things to sue over. If you have a copyright, say a song, and someone uses your song at all, even just one second of it, you can sue them for using your song without your permission. The suit would go to the appropriate trial court and you and the infringer duke it out in front of the judge. You're at the advantage since you hold the copyright and there are very few defenses for copyright infringement. And even then the defenses are essentially a toss up as to whether they'll hold or not since they're essentially flimsier than any other defense to any other type of suit -- fair use is not a guaranteed defense as there is no judicial test, to my knowledge, that is used to determine if the infringement actually was fair use. In other words, it's all up to the judge.
With the CASE act, a new court would be created that deals explicitly with copyright matters. The court that's set up would be helmed by attorneys who have extensive experience on both sides of copyright matters -- "defense" and "offense". It would also open up an easier avenue for people to fight back against DMCA claims since right now big copyright holders, think Universal Media Group, throw them around like confetti and have the money to drag out cases till the other side goes bankrupt. With the CASE act though, those copyright holders would probably be a lot less likely to litigate as fiercely since the payoff is exceptionally small compared to the attorneys fees; the potentially maximum 30k compensation in damages can quickly dwarf the tens or hundreds of thousands they have to pay their attorneys.
To address the McDonald's thing again, yeah there are plenty of really stupid suits out there, but if it's a little guy against a massive corporation, don't be too quick to side with the Corp
Thx about the McD’s thing, I didn’t know cuz I hear all the time about people suing for stupid shit so it just jaded me.
Why exactly would we want to give them more things to sue over/a greater ability to sue people?
It actually wouldn't give people more things to sue over. If you have a copyright, say a song, and someone uses your song at all, even just one second of it, you can sue them for using your song without your permission. The suit would go to the appropriate trial court and you and the infringer duke it out in front of the judge. You're at the advantage since you hold the copyright and there are very few defenses for copyright infringement. And even then the defenses are essentially a toss up as to whether they'll hold or not since they're essentially flimsier than any other defense to any other type of suit -- fair use is not a guaranteed defense as there is no judicial test, to my knowledge, that is used to determine if the infringement actually was fair use. In other words, it's all up to the judge.
With the CASE act, a new court would be created that deals explicitly with copyright matters. The court that's set up would be helmed by attorneys who have extensive experience on both sides of copyright matters -- "defense" and "offense". It would also open up an easier avenue for people to fight back against DMCA claims since right now big copyright holders, think Universal Media Group, throw them around like confetti and have the money to drag out cases till the other side goes bankrupt. With the CASE act though, those copyright holders would probably be a lot less likely to litigate as fiercely since the payoff is exceptionally small compared to the attorneys fees; the potentially maximum 30k compensation in damages can quickly dwarf the tens or hundreds of thousands they have to pay their attorneys.
To address the McDonald's thing again, yeah there are plenty of really stupid suits out there, but if it's a little guy against a massive corporation, don't be too quick to side with the Corp