| ▲ | thaumasiotes 12 hours ago |
| Of course they had contact with the copyright holders. Prenda was the copyright holders; that's the only reason they got in trouble. |
|
| ▲ | ttyprintk 11 hours ago | parent [-] |
| Sorry, I should have clarified. In the context of interacting with ISPs, the most important detail about Prenda is that the law firm lied to ISPs that they represented copyright assignments. So, I think the GP comment brings up Prenda because these cases force an ISP to police its users and also to carefully validate legal forms from copyright holders. That’s a lot of work to run a series of tubes. |
| |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | They did represent copyright assignments. They owned the copyright. What do you think the ISPs needed to know? | | |
| ▲ | ttyprintk 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | So, specifically with Prenda, those copyright assignments presented in court were forged. Shell companies listed on those documents were also concocted with forged signatures. Should an ISP be expected to investigate claimed copyright assignment, including shell companies; or should Prenda prove that small civil stuff like this needs strong legitimacy or it will attract fraud? | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes an hour ago | parent [-] | | What do you think the ISPs needed to know? If they had done a comprehensive investigation, it would have shown that Prenda was fully authorized to act on behalf of the copyrights they asserted. Prenda wanted to conceal from the court that they were the copyright owners and not just hired agents. But that isn't a question of the legitimacy of the copyright assignment. Being threatened by the copyright owner isn't less legitimate than being threatened by a hired agent! |
|
|
|
