"Mr. French states that "There simply is no 'reasonable basis' language in the safe harbor created" by the bill. While this is literally true as there is no such language in the actual safe harbor, section 514(a), there is, as he admits, such language in 514(d), the remedy for "wrongful impairment". According to the language of 514(d), a file trader can only recover damages (and only if they are in excess of $250), if the copyright owner has "NO reasonable basis to believe that such distribution, display, performance, or reproduction" is an infringement. Thus, in order to recover damages for harmed files, an affected "file trader" must show that (1) he has suffered "economic damages" in excess of $250, and (2) that the copyright owner did NOT have a "reasonable basis" to believe that his copyright was infringed. While the safe harbor, at least technically, is not "expanded" by this language, the remedy is limited, which amounts to the same thing." Responses to the Berman post on Politech. Some are better then others. Some are highly flawed. But, together they convey the technical community's perspective. The quote above cleanly disects one of the central lies in the Berman post. I'm not satisfied with the answers offered for the question I raised. politechbot.com: Politech members reply to Rep. Berman on anti-P2P piracy bill |
