Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 7661358" data-attributes="member: 19675">Damn, was I having a bad day or what?&nbsp; That's wrong and I know better.&nbsp; Better proofreading is clearly required on my part.The doctrine of laches means that a failure to act to enforce your copyrights in a timely fashion can lead to a loss of them.&nbsp; According to the Supreme Court's 2014 case, Petrella v. MGM, the window to act is 3 years.&nbsp; Beyond that point, you snooze, you lose. Furthermore, the duty to police your copyrights is essentially a self-help thing- there is no universal method of seeking out all copyright violations, and modern tech makes it much easier to access, copy and distribute copyrighted content without permission than it is to protect it.&nbsp; Since it IS the IP holder's responsibility to find out who is doing what with their stuff, it is understandable that many seek to use certain cases as examples to other would-be infringers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 7661358, member: 19675"] Damn, was I having a bad day or what? That's wrong and I know better. Better proofreading is clearly required on my part. The doctrine of laches means that a failure to act to enforce your copyrights in a timely fashion can lead to a loss of them. According to the Supreme Court's 2014 case, [I]Petrella v. MGM[/I], the window to act is 3 years. Beyond that point, you snooze, you lose. Furthermore, the duty to police your copyrights is essentially a self-help thing- there is no universal method of seeking out all copyright violations, and modern tech makes it much easier to access, copy and distribute copyrighted content without permission than it is to protect it. Since it IS the IP holder's responsibility to find out who is doing what with their stuff, it is understandable that many seek to use certain cases as examples to other would-be infringers. [/QUOTE]

Verification