Quote:
Originally posted by charly
I thought the case against Holio wa snot pursued because it was found, by the time they got to court, that the way Holio were operating did not infringe.
|
I believe the point was holio is a content provider and that content people are not infringing.. it's when a website uses their streams, etc, is where the claimed infringement is at.
the other point was as long as the website didn't have video previews, then they were in the clear...
...........except, um archive.org shows preview clips on the website.
Fight the WayBack Machine!