PDN Article on ELI, Copyright Extortionists, and my position on the matter

[SoylentGreen]

Interesting article and discussion.

The consensus on ELI has been that people shouldn't ignore accusations of infringement, and to make a reasonable settlement offer as good faith.
Additionally, willful, and repeat infringement is really frowned upon by most participants here.
I don't feel that ELI is as "rogue" as some would like to make it appear.
However, I think that I speak for most of the regulars when I say that nobody wants to sell a kidney in order to pay off Masterfile so that Steve Pigeon can retire in the Bahamas.

Something in the article caught my attention as follows:
"The U.S. Copyright Office is studying the possibility of establishing a small claims court for copyright infringement, to keep the growing number of claims from clogging federal courts."

I really can't imagine the Copyright Office having any interest in getting into the middle of this melee.
It just sounds so absurd to me.  Does anyone else know anything about this?

Not very many of these cases have ever made it to "court", and they've failed for the most part.
... are the trolls looking for a more sympathetic venue?

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

@SG, just my opinion,but I think you're somewhat correct, the trolls are looking for a more sympathetic system, as well as a "cheaper" solution, as it is now the trolls spending 350.00 to file is just not economical for them..they would just love to find a way around that, much like the P2P asshats, that file one suit with hundreds of IP's, they think they ae getting more bang for their buck..it's all about the bottom line...

[Matthew Chan]

I would like to say that I think more was gained than lost by David Walker's article in PDN. Having communicated with David before agreeing to the interview, I believe David was doing his best to give a balanced view.  If there are any perceived imbalances, they were well within my tolerance sensibilities.

When you engage the press, however small, you have to assess whether their will be a net gain or net loss from participating. You also have to assess whether the reporter/writer is trying to do a fair job with your position. It is unreasonable to expect for any reporter/writer to entirely support your position.  I knew this going in.

Certainly, there was far more interview material I gave than made it into the article. But I am satisfied that my position was balanced enough to offset the propaganda offered by the opposing side.

If David were to contact me again to do another PDN article on any follow-up issues regarding ELI or ELI involvement, I would certainly participate again.

[SoylentGreen]

It's a good article, and I enjoyed reading it.

I think that most of the responses that might be construed as negative relate more to what the people in the stock image industry said.
But, I know that for many of those people, these programs and the defense of such practices is their full-time job.

S.G.

[Lettered]

Wow.  I had to go back an re-read it.  Still seems unbalanced to me.  The author's statement:

"Not surprisingly, agencies are unwilling to let thieves set the terms."

unmistakenly betrays the bias.

I do think the article was "restrained".  My opinion is that the restraint was likely used to give the illusion of balance.