But Dragon Media argues that it is merely facilitating access to online content rather than providing pirated TV itself. "The entertainment industry for decades, even going back to Sony Betamax cases, have been fighting tooth and nail against innovation and technology and losing almost every single battle," Syverson said. "There is no reason for plaintiffs to be optimistic in any way."

"I remember a young company called YouTube whose business model was copyright infringement. It was sued, and it didn't turn out too badly for YouTube, did it?" Syverson also said. (Viacom sued YouTube in 2007, and the case was settled in 2014.)

"Generally speaking, linking to content online has been cleared by almost every court in the land," he said.

@Jason said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@Jason said:

@travisdh1 said:

@scottalanmiller Oh, I know and understand that.

I'm also not sure if the Fair Use would cover those under the teaching, scholarship, or research exemptions.

No, it's very obliously a company site for someone who sells products. This is not fair use.

How did you determine that they sold something? I was under the impression that it was like a botanical guide offered freely online. I guess I just read into that, though.

No, they just have a glossary section to help sell products, really still part of the sales.

https://www.precisionherbs.com/product-list/

Which is why I'm probably going to be getting the lawyer involved. It's outside my area of expertise now. Yes, we do sell products on the website, yet the pages they reference are information/education only.