No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about and I have no idea where you're getting this from. The term in the DMCA is not "good faith belief" but "statement under the penalty of perjury". 1) There are dozens of people here who have "good faith" that what they are using is not infringing because they don't know copyright law or "really believed in good faith" that a picture was "in the public domain." It doesn't matter - they still can be sued for infringement and will be liable, especially after they find out that their good faith belief was likely mistaken. 2) If you bought services from a third party, your swearing doesn't matter. You just found out that what you bought may not be what you think you bought. And once you know that you may not have been transferred appropriate rights from your Indian designer, then you can take the risk of being nailed for high damages or hope that your Indian designer will bail you out. We'll see how much faith you have. 3) There isn't a bona fide ISP that is going to take someone's word that they bought the photo without any backup documentation. Most of them can simply terminate your account for some reason or another and effectively shut you down. And if you want more proof that you need to reread the act: So what happened to all of this "good faith belief" stuff you're educating me with? So only the responder can have a "good faith belief" but if you're the author of a DMCA letter it doesn't work? Please... you were mistaken about some parts regarding the DMCA and knowledgeable about others. Better to just live and learn than continue to deny the obvious and be sarcastic about it. I can also quote you on some misinformation you have regarding suing and registrations.
ROFL... there is a difference between reading and comprehending. You've done the former. So what are you telling me - that if I write 25 different books over the course of 20 years I can put them all under the same $35 registration fee? I understand what you wrote. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again. What you wrote does not reflect what I did. It's obvious you haven't practiced law. 90% of cases either get settled or dropped before they go to court. Numerous other cases never go even to first bae because of costs, right or wrong. It's called "the unfortunate reality." Those that do go to court have money and representation and I highly doubt that most don't know what they are doing. Did they not explain this in the book you're suggesting? What are you talking about? I urge you go to wipo.org and pick a case - any case - and chances are you'll see how they do it there. And in copyright, you ought to read the news, including here, about people being sued. There is no "good faith" standard that wipes the slate clean. So now you're saying that you CAN sue in court but just can recover damages other than actual? Which is it since above I seem to recall you said that a victim of copyright infringement couldn't sue at all. I'm not here to pick a fight. My responses show that you've either (a) misread information, or (b) have read misinformation. None of these cases ever go to court. How many members here have a $5,000 - 10,000 retainer fee to pay just to get these cases started? Your quotes on the law aren't entirely accurate and the sad reality is that unless you know how to use the law, all your conclusions I've snipped above are nothing but a law school exam question and conclusion.
Wow, never in my right mind did I expect my first post to churn up such an argument... I do however appreciate all your input & after a bit of research I will be proceeding to get the content removed asap. Thank you again, -Teal