Quote:
Originally Posted by stocktrader23
Your lawyers want you to sue so they make money. I'm not familiar with these sites but I am assuming that anyone can submit and they can approve or disapprove each video? If this is the case then that is not going to be enough to make them liable. Someone is going to have to show proof that they are uploading stolen content themselves which I doubt is possible unless the owners are retarded.
|
Whilst you are partly right, this is still a very debated aspect to the DMCA. The Youtube case particularly though, leans to say that (in Youtube's case with adult content) that staff can actively monitor certain types of content, and still not be liable for copyright works they don't necessarily remove. However there are a lot of terms in the DMCA around this issue that are open to a lot of interpretation, and as you say a lot of money for lawyers to argue back and forth.
Generally speaking, staff having specific knowledge (one of those debatable terms) of infringing content and not removing it (even without a take-down notice) puts the site outside the law. However, Youtube successfully argued that at times their staff can't determine what is sanctioned material (they noted how a lot of companies go for a 'viral' look and feel now days) and what is infringing material, hence their reason for not actively removing files their staff notice.
The truth is though, any tube site owner who *wants to run want the industry calls an 'illegal' tube, but wants to cover all their basis to remain/seem compliant can pretty much do so.