• fine_sandy_bottom
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.

    Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court’s perspective, it’s not a clear breach of copyright.

    • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees.

      Just because they haven’t been sued directly for this doesn’t make it infringement.

      • fine_sandy_bottom
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They’ve had a year to think about it.

        • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It’s usually around 5.

          They can wait, see who’s made the money, then target them for a payout.

          • fine_sandy_bottom
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            A court wouldn’t look favourably on that.

            Rights couldn’t have been very b important if you just let it run.

            • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              They really don’t care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you’re better off having a solid case than a quick trial.