DavidNYC – so, because it’s easier to post or publish material, people should have the freedom to be less careful? Because, that’s what it is. when it was more “difficult” as you point out to publish, people were more careful because the process of publishing required more indepth study. Now that any “Joe” can “publish,” the same care and investigation on the copyright status of a work is not taken.
You say you have a problem with “copyright bullies,” well, I have a problem with people thinking they can take and use without consequence. Sorry, there’s a consequence when one steals. Even when one steals “on accident.” “oops, my bad” doesn’t cover it.
And, I’m not sure what you mean by “bullying.” The thought that someone is making “outrageously high demands for payments for publishing copyrighted material” is kind of, bull! I’m sorry, it is. Under the law, they can ask for either actual damages, which they have to show cause, or statuatory damages, which are outlined in the law. And statuatory damages can only be sought if the copyright owner followed the legal procedures to qualify for them.
Now, can an attorney or firm send a legally threatening letter asking for more than they should get? Sure. They can. And if the threatened person doesn’t know the law, which they probably don’t since they infringed someone’s copyright, well, IMO, their ignorance has reaped its just reward.
But, all of this is avoidable. If one doesn’t break the law, one won’t have to be subject to such invoices.
Since publishing is easier now and things get “out there” so much quicker and so much more wide-spread, people should be MORE careful, not less.
And, fyi, the Report Abuse option is not a valid use for roadfood.com to protect itself at this point – even if the mods started using it a takedown/reporting (c) issues. The DMCA requirements are clear as to what needs to be done. Morally would be good, as it would help curb pirating, but doesn’t protect roadfood.com, which, imo, should be their primary concern.