Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger
Just by selecting what uploads see the light of day is enough to "otherwise manage the sexually explicit content" and any kind of selection process at all that delays the appearance of uploads for review is enough to call what they do insertion on a web page. There are arguments they can make about CDA and copyright, but I think that, given what the selection process actually appears to be, in breaking the hearts of all those male masturbators whose submissions are routinely deleted, the tubemasters lose and face prison time if 2257 survives.
|
Well, orchestrating the prerequisite sting operation could certainly be accomplished easily enough.
I still question whether the DOJ would be so motivated given that the tubes are effectively decimating the industry however.
Then again, if the tubes drive all of the mom & pops out of business, prosecuting the big players alone would be a far more costly proposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger
And BTW it's not some magical "user uploaded status"; they lose their argument that they are a _mere host_. They do that, too, in many other ways by their promotional activity, especially in using videocaps from the submissions.
|
Interesting.
It would be nice if some tort lawyers were to explore that latter avenue right now.
.