tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post7798337163241557029..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: For your delectation and possible dissection: a Copyright Troll InfographicMarie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-60530922991214793462014-01-09T22:04:35.891+00:002014-01-09T22:04:35.891+00:00U.S> copyright law protects the "expressio...U.S> copyright law protects the "expression", not the "idea" as suggested by the graphic.<br /><br />Also, it worries me that there is no mention of copyright older than 1978. In the U.S. works as old as 1923 may still be under copyright (assuming proper notice and renewal.)<br /><br />But on the whole, I can support the purpose of the graphic: know your rights, don't be bullied.Tighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11339273835882932676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-43733897124686906092014-01-09T11:00:32.475+00:002014-01-09T11:00:32.475+00:00The info graphic is misleading to the extent that ...The info graphic is misleading to the extent that it says that a troll owns the copyright, hence has standing to bring a cause of action.<br />In the best known cases of this sort (Righthaven, Prendalaw, Media CAT for instance) the problem was that the court found that the complainant/plaintiff was not the owner or lacked standing in some similar way. Since this deficiency generally only becomes apparent at the time of the trial, the pre-trial shake-down phase can be lucrative even for trolls with no legitimate claim to the copyright in the disputed work, provided that they avoid taking the matter to litigation. Andy Jnoreply@blogger.com