开云体育

Dano,

But a person with enough money or will to afford a lawyer can make an
issue of such use and require removal, even if no monetary damages are
assessed.

In the cases at hand (email list archives) the copyright owner may not need a lawyer, at least in the U.S. - the take-down provisions of the DMCA/OCILLA may suffice. But not if the poster is equally steely-eyed and demands a put-back. At that point the copyright holder must decide to file suit or let it go.

I can see why Mark has continued to let posters retain control of
their content, since he has the most to lose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that he has. But given the TOS's license provisions he doesn't really need to. At least not in straightforward cases.

On the other hand it might spare him an infringement notice if a user infringes a third-party's copyright, and the user himself comes to understand/regret their action and chooses to delete the offending content him/herself. The user might rightly fear having their own account closed for the TOS violation, and thereby lose control of their own content.

By the way, registration is no longer required for most copyright
issues as long as one can prove they are the original source.

Registration is not required to make use of the DMCA's take-down provisions.

But it is required (in the U.S.) to file the actual infringement suit, and as I said prompt registration ("before the infringement began or within three months after the first publication") is required to be awarded statutory damages. And I see, also attorney's fees:


Oh, and the usual IANAL disclaimer goes here. But I have done my reading and this is far from my first rodeo where concerns arguing about how copyright applies to email list postings.

Shal


--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list