You really think a jury will be able to differentiate between "it is"
and "it is called"?

Vicne wrote:
>
> Yea, but then it would be a lesser offence no? I'm not to familiar with
> the DMCA, or law for that matter, but wouldn't a simple name trademark
> violation be less then a DMCA violation?
>
> I don't think it would be to hard to catch people, it just takes a p2p
> client and a simple search for their titles, then just write down the ip
> addresses and report them.
>
> But I am curious now, would they be able to build a case without
> validating that the content is actually theirs, not just the name?
>
> On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 05:41, vodkaintoxicate.us wrote:
> > Vicne said:
> > > That could be porn you were hiding from your parents, so you renamed it
> > > to movies they hate, so they wouldn't look at it.
> >
> > If that was the case...
> >
> > You're still using their copyrighted movie titles on your porn and
> > distributing them as property of those movie companies.
> >
> > It's kinda like me taking bottles of water and putting "Coca Cola" labels on
> > them, and giving them out for free.
> >
> > I wonder how the MPAA is catching people though. Do they have like p2p
> > spider bots or something?
> >
> >
> >

-- 
James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
phone: (410) 684-6566

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]