Like if two people happens to draw the same exact map, then what? Who gets to sue who? First come first serve? Literally does not make sense.
In many cases intention matters. Two people can take the same picture and that would be fine, but if the intention was to copy someone’s work, then this is bad.
Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn’t, which inverts the burden of proof. Copyright as it works right now, serves more the wealthy then the little men, as it is with so many laws under the current system.
Copyright itself needs to be reorganized fundamentally.
Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn’t, which inverts the burden of proof.
I’m not sure that that claim is accurate.
To my knowledge it is not usually the case that someone who is sued for copyright infringement needs to prove their innocence before the court. Normally it is the accuser who needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the copyright infringement took place.
Could it be that you might be conflating it with YouTube and their ContentID system?
That system is not strictly a legal requirement, but rather YouTube covering their ass so they don’t get sued into oblivion for the many cases of copyright infringement that people upload to that platform on the regular
Edit: However, I do agree that the copyright system needs a pretty significant overhaul to better suit the digital age.
Under the DMCA a copyright holder can send out a take-down notice.
This is essentially the copyright holder telling you that they believe you to be in violation of their copyright. They are requesting you take down the content they believe to be infringing on their copyright, backed up by the threat of legal action.
The take-down notice is not forcing you to take down the allegedly infringing work. You have the option to send back a counter-notice, saying that you believe no copyright infringement took place. However, then the copyright holder might take you to court to determine whether this is a case of copyright infringement or not.
When the case is taken to court it is still up to the copyright holder to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is a case of copyright infringement.
(I’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of how the DMCA works)
In many cases intention matters. Two people can take the same picture and that would be fine, but if the intention was to copy someone’s work, then this is bad.
Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn’t, which inverts the burden of proof. Copyright as it works right now, serves more the wealthy then the little men, as it is with so many laws under the current system.
Copyright itself needs to be reorganized fundamentally.
I’m not sure that that claim is accurate.
To my knowledge it is not usually the case that someone who is sued for copyright infringement needs to prove their innocence before the court. Normally it is the accuser who needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the copyright infringement took place.
Could it be that you might be conflating it with YouTube and their ContentID system?
That system is not strictly a legal requirement, but rather YouTube covering their ass so they don’t get sued into oblivion for the many cases of copyright infringement that people upload to that platform on the regular
Edit: However, I do agree that the copyright system needs a pretty significant overhaul to better suit the digital age.
The DMCA takedowns work like that, AFAIK.
Under the DMCA a copyright holder can send out a take-down notice.
This is essentially the copyright holder telling you that they believe you to be in violation of their copyright. They are requesting you take down the content they believe to be infringing on their copyright, backed up by the threat of legal action.
The take-down notice is not forcing you to take down the allegedly infringing work. You have the option to send back a counter-notice, saying that you believe no copyright infringement took place. However, then the copyright holder might take you to court to determine whether this is a case of copyright infringement or not.
When the case is taken to court it is still up to the copyright holder to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is a case of copyright infringement.
(I’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of how the DMCA works)