RawAlex

Smokey, I think that you are really missing is that there are a few areas of the business that are legally defined, at least to some extent. Common Carriers, and the exemption granted to companies in that position is pretty strong in law.

It only works if those companies aren't doing anything other than offering disk space. Once you cross the line into content manipulation, repackaging, redistribution... there are 101 ways to name it, the companies stop being hosts and start being content providers. The rules change.

Remember the theory: You can call a tail a leg, but your dog still can't walk on it. You can call anything you want "hosting", but it is the methods used that would define what the business truly is.

Most of the lawsuits that companies like youtube face will help to redefine the legal ground that they stand on. I think all copyright holders agree that the DMCA notification / content removal process is good in theory, but in reality it creates a huge hole that you can drive an entire business model through. The results of these legal actions may turn those business models into junk pretty quickly.

No, the argument doesn't change - if you were a host (in the common carrier sense) you would need a large staff to keep up with potential DMCA complaints, as this would really open a can of worms. But once you cross the line to content manipulation, adding links and offering a redistribution method for the content with commercial intent, you are no longer a host so the DMCA issue becomes secondary. The issue is no longer "oops" but one of income made on leasing out ( or providing for profit) the content that you didn't have the rights to for that purpose. That is the difference between giving a copy of a CD to your friend or opening a table at the flea market and selling copies for $2 each.

Good luck with it. Don't let the potentials of technology run you down a dark road.