it takes about two seconds to realize what paysite vids come from these days.
lol
its not rocket science... half the vids have urls in em lol
lol
its not rocket science... half the vids have urls in em lol
-
Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?
Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com -
recent work - About me -
For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
(consider figuring out the email as test #1)
All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202Comment
-
Last edited by borked; 02-20-2012, 01:13 PM.
For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
(consider figuring out the email as test #1)
All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202Comment
-
Tell that to mininova they obeyed the american DMCA and ignored their own countries process
They lost the safe harbor protection of their country and didn't gain the american version so they were fucked over because they decided NOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
Same basic principle here.
If that were true the product liability insurance for this a service would be dirt cheapBut why would a false positive even result in legal action? A user doesn't have a civil right that entitles them to have their uploaded porn video displayed on a privately owned tube. Nothing in the original post talks about taking legal action when a video is flagged. So false positives have no place in this discussion.
This is NOT a censorship issue. Not allowing a user uploaded video to be displayed on a privately owned tube is not a free speech, censorship, or discrimination issue. You can use the TOS to say that anyone agreeing to use the tube understands their video is subject to automated approval before being displayed or not.
Of course if it was total bullshit and there was a potential liability then insurance would kill such an offering.
There is no liability for false positives and the eHarmony suit has no relevance here. Sexual orientation is a protected class in many states, that's why eHarmony choosing to refuse gays or lesbians was violation of state law and not something they could legally deny via a TOS.
easy way to prove who is right, try and get product liability insurance for the service
if it dirt cheap your right, if it not your wrong.
That why i asked about insurance and who accept the liability for false positives.
If your correct borked could buy insurance dirt cheap and say i accept all liablities for false positives knowing that the insurance will cover those liablities.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
???
Just reading up on them, and I don't see how they ignored their own country's process:
In May 2009, the Dutch copyright enforcement organization BREIN started a civil procedure against Mininova demanding that Mininova filter torrent files pointing to copyrighted works. During the proceedings, Mininova stated that it was not feasible for the site to identify such files, but said that it would remove torrent files that BREIN identified as infringing copyright. On May 6, 2009, Mininova began a trial of a content recognition system, which was intended to remove any torrents that were flagged as infringing copyright.Later this month (May, 2009) BREIN hopes to convince the court that Mininova has to filter its search results, so that all .torrent files which may point to unauthorized content are removed. Up until now, Mininova refused to interfere with the search results, claiming that the DMCA take-down procedure they have is good enough.So, this is a torrent that was forced by court to implement fingerprinting into their site, to which they did, but initially refused to scan their back catalogue. Hence they were forced to remove all illegal content, which they did. As a consequence they traffic dropped instantly, because that traffic was after illegal content.On August 26, 2009, the court in Utrecht ruled that Mininova should remove all torrent files pointing to copyrighted material within three months or face damages of up to ?5 million.[11]
On November 26, 2009, Mininova announced that it could not find a foolproof filtering system against copyrighted content, and limited its platform to Content Distribution torrents only, in compliance with the ruling of the Utrecht court. This resulted in more than 99.3% of the torrents on the site being removed. As a consequence, the website traffic dropped by 66% in a few days, and daily downloads fell down to 4% of the previous total.
How were they fucked over again?
For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
(consider figuring out the email as test #1)
All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202Comment
-
they accepted DCMA rather then telling people who sent those notices that they should file the appropriate equivalent. By definition that ignoring their own countries process.
had they told them to use the appropriate equivalent they would have been entitled to safe harbor protection (like you tube... etc). The content would not have been illegal until after the take down had been filed.So, this is a torrent that was forced by court to implement fingerprinting into their site, to which they did, but initially refused to scan their back catalogue. Hence they were forced to remove all illegal content, which they did. As a consequence they traffic dropped instantly, because that traffic was after illegal content.
How were they fucked over again?
which means the court would not have been able to force them to do shit.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
oh and btw mininova didn't just take away "illegal" content but also took away fair use authorized and independent artist authorized stuff as well.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
And take 100 still frames of those videos, and create a composite overlay and the video blurs away into a dark fuzzy background, leaving the URL/logo prominently visible for logo recognition... been there, done that, too easy 
Comment