Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
That's not really true.. it just hasn't gone to court yet. The law is written to protect a site owner from users uploading copyrighted content with out their consent. Sites like tube8 upload much if not most of the content themselves under fake user names. They are knowingly stealing copyrighted content.
The owner of tube8 would have a hell of a hard time proving he didn't know copyrighted content was getting uploaded. In fact I would bet you anything server logs would prove him guilty.
|
And why hasn't it gone to court, if they are so clearly illegal it would be an open and shut case, easy pickings for whoever sues them? And whether tube8 use fake nicks or not that is only your opinion, they may well do but there is definitely no shortage of surfers willing to upload.
Quote:
|
The owner of tube8 would have a hell of a hard time proving he didn't know copyrighted content was getting uploaded.
|
And to quote a post from a different thread which puts that one to bed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wootpr0n
I think that Io vs Veoh Networks settled that matter for good.
DMCA says that the host is not liable for infringing content. It never said anything about checking.
The Court said that checking is not required. And checking once does not create an obligation to check again.
The Court also said that the host is not expected to be able to distinguish between infringing and non-infringing even if it were to check regularly. Actually, the court specifically said that even if (a) the host checked, and that (b) the video had been professionally produced, and that (c) it was watermarked with the logo of the producer, the host wasn't liable and wasn't expected to assume that it was infringing.
|