[arghwhat]

How in the world would the "innocent infringer" defense play out, considering that any and all copyrightable content is implicitly copyrighted at its conception? Especially considering that the declaration does not assist in distinguishing between copyrightable and non-copyrightable aspects within publication.

Saying that the user did not understand that content was copyrightable seems akin to claiming that they did not know stealing was wrong. It is the burden of the individual to know the laws they must follow, and not knowing them is not a valid defense to the best of my knowledge.

The U.S. has such a weird legal system.