JK would need to show that you did (or are likely to have) read HP to suceed in an infringement claim. And would have a much easier job than the guy who has to try and claim 'this person definitely listened to one of the billion short clips on my obscure website that has been visited by exactly zero (0) people.
I'm more sympathetic to the point MrWilson made above, that even without a successful copyright claim there's still costs imposed from claims that couldn't stand up in court, but aren't worth defending against.
I'm all for leaving copyright as an incentive for human creativity, not machine regurgitation.
"If my billion songs are now copyrighted, then every musician who composes a song from today forward has to check that their composition isn’t in my catalog of a billion variations – and if it is (which, mathematically, it probably will be), they have to pay me."
This isn't really how copyright works though - there needs to be actual copying to be an infringement, so there needs to be some connection between one author's publication and the allegedly infringing work.
The quoted understanding is more like patent law, where you can infringe whether or not you know that the patent exists.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JB.
Fair point - there's a lot of cost relative to gain in trying to defend against unsupportable claims at the low end of the system.
JK would need to show that you did (or are likely to have) read HP to suceed in an infringement claim. And would have a much easier job than the guy who has to try and claim 'this person definitely listened to one of the billion short clips on my obscure website that has been visited by exactly zero (0) people. I'm more sympathetic to the point MrWilson made above, that even without a successful copyright claim there's still costs imposed from claims that couldn't stand up in court, but aren't worth defending against.
I'm all for leaving copyright as an incentive for human creativity, not machine regurgitation. "If my billion songs are now copyrighted, then every musician who composes a song from today forward has to check that their composition isn’t in my catalog of a billion variations – and if it is (which, mathematically, it probably will be), they have to pay me." This isn't really how copyright works though - there needs to be actual copying to be an infringement, so there needs to be some connection between one author's publication and the allegedly infringing work. The quoted understanding is more like patent law, where you can infringe whether or not you know that the patent exists.