Quote:
Originally Posted by A1R3K
ccbill has no idea if the content was given to the site in question unless it is challenged by DMCA.
|
Which is a very tolerant point of view, but isn't it also somewhat naive and in fact the very basis on which Google/YouTube is about to be sued by Viacom?
If I put up a site which displays content bearing a couple of hundred different watermarks from sponsors who are not being advertised, then anyone in the industry, however peripherally, knows exactly the business model on which my site is based. Surely it cannot be acceptable for anyone who wants to be considered legitimate by the industry at large, to hide behind the inadequacies of the law and refuse to act unless specific instances of copyright theft are reported?
Anyway, what is usually the next step (as we have seen with AFF's handling of similar situations)? The site doesn't lose its affiliate status or whatever, it is given time to remove the specific content which was reported. It complies and carries on with business as usual, still based entirely or in large part on stolen content. It may even replace the reported content with other material from the same source!