Is Redtube a Legal or Illegal Tube Site?

[FreeHugeMovies]

I was talking to a sponsor today and he said Redtube was a Legal tube site. He then said that GFY was a bunch of bla bla bla and didn't know what they were talking about or something close to those lines. So the question is. Legal or Illegal?

[WiredGuy]

Does RedTube respond to DMCA requests to take down videos in a timely fashion?
WG

[stevo]

*Stollen content
*No licenses
*No 2257 info

[Iron Fist]

Blah blah blah

[seeric]

i don't know but they are going around trying to sell it right now, i do know that. several people that i know have gotten inquiries from them.

[SleazyDream]

if you see illegial content then they are theives.

it's that simple.

[FreeHugeMovies]

I agree it's illegal and I told him that. He didn't believe me.

[d-null]

thieves love to claim that they are not theives


I saw a guy once offering for sale a "content package" for a website which was basically a bunch of gigs of pirated rips and vids etc and claimed that it was not illegal because it was all user uploaded.

[FreeHugeMovies]

So far 29 illegal 3 legal

[Zorgman]

Illegal. Theives.

[tony286]

does this sponsor happen to have ads on red tube?

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by FreeHugeMovies

I agree it's illegal and I told him that. He didn't believe me.

Who is it?

[XMaster]

i dont think they own licenses. from my point of view this is 100% illegal until they have deals with content producers.

[gideongallery]

if they comply with DMCA take down request then the safe harbour provision of the DMCA makes them legal even if the content is not personally licienced to them.

Just like your filming the content turns the act of prostitution into a legal enterprise.

Anyone who claims any different is just whining because they don't like the way the law is written.

Originally Posted by XMaster

i dont think they own licenses. from my point of view this is 100% illegal until they have deals with content producers.

I think even content producers don't allow more than 2 or 3 minutes of the full video posted on free pages (or am I wrong here?)

[CarlosTheGaucho]

Yeah we got the enquiry too, here is a thread about it:

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/818312-redtube-sale-check-received.html

[seeric]

repealing the DMCA and congress re-writing it for the times is the only way to stop these criminals.

law or not, doesn't make what they are doing right.

stealing from content producers to fund parasitic entities that feed off of the adult industry isn't right and doesn't lend to a healthy industry with a future.

[Joe BrainCash]

sooooooooooooooo illegal!

[Tom_PM]

You tube will remove a video that is copyrighted, IF the owner complains.
Google street view will remove images of your posted private property, IF you complain.

As I heard a lawyer on a video news clip today say, "it's like you slap me in the face and my only recourse is to demand that you not slap me in the face". Obviously his case against google street view is going to be that they shouldnt be placed online UNTIL explicit permission is given, not the other way around (current method).

Perhaps that case will set precedent. Perhaps it wont. The point is that people are banking (and making bank) that it wont, and things will remain the same. It's one of those newfangled digital/internet legal areas.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

repealing the DMCA and congress re-writing it for the times is the only way to stop these criminals.

law or not, doesn't make what they are doing right.

stealing from content producers to fund parasitic entities that feed off of the adult industry isn't right and doesn't lend to a healthy industry with a future.

so you actually want to go back to having to sue in court, wait for your day in court to get an injunction before any of your content is taken down.

The safe harbor provision is designed to protect fair use. As i pointed out to lady mischief in the previous thread. If i were to take your video, layer in a song "tubes killed the pornstar" and release it as a parody/commentary. The take down request granted by the DMCA would censor my legitimate free expression, if not for the safe harbor provision.

[boneprone]

Hey look. It is perfectly LEGAL..

You GFYers are a bunch of blah blah blah's..

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if they comply with DMCA take down request then the safe harbour provision of the DMCA makes them legal even if the content is not personally licienced to them.

Just like your filming the content turns the act of prostitution into a legal enterprise.

Anyone who claims any different is just whining because they don't like the way the law is written.

Spot on. There are a lot of whining bitches on another thread saying YouTube and Myspace type sites should not be held responsible for the content they have. Yet when it's a porn Tube site they do have to be responsible. Not sure why one is right and the other wrong.

[Socks]

I'm blah blah blah, are you blah blah blah?

[CurrentlySober]

If a blah, blah blah, falls over in a blah, blah, blah, and nobody hears it,,, is it still a blah, blah, blah???

[XMaster]

Originally Posted by Socks

I'm blah blah blah, are you blah blah blah?

I'm not - i'm just blah blah blah

[spooky181]

The legal tubes list my 2 minute vids when I submit them, whereas the illegal ones dont, and Redtube is one of the ones that dont.

[gideongallery]

you may want to argue that tube sites are bad, immoral or whatever else you want to say

but the 90% plus who claim it is illegal are idiots. The safe harbor provision of the DMCA makes them legal, no matter how much you hate them.

who ever you talked to was 100% right they are legal.

[aico]

I don't know enough about internet laws to vote. If you want my opinion, I'd guess it was illegal.

[SomeCreep]

I voted both "legal" and "illegal" for the sole reason that the poll allowed me that option.

[SomeCreep]

Depends on who you ask. Redtube is legal to the sponsors that are profiting from their site. Redtube is illegal to the sponsors who are not profiting from their site.

[nikki99]

I think the "Illegal" option is ahead

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you may want to argue that tube sites are bad, immoral or whatever else you want to say

but the 90% plus who claim it is illegal are idiots. The safe harbor provision of the DMCA makes them legal, no matter how much you hate them.

who ever you talked to was 100% right they are legal.

Um..... it's not quite that simple, actually.

There's more to fitting into the liability exceptions than you think. Beyond responding to take down requests, you have to have a "designated agent" to receive those take down requests, and that agent's information has to be filed with the Copyright Office, as well as listed on the website in question.

A tube site (or any other manner of user-posted content site hoping to avoid liability under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA) also cannot modify the content that is uploaded to their site by third parties. It's not entirely clear whether translating files into a new format would be considered a "modification" under the statutory language of the DMCA, but certainly one can reasonably argue that translation is a form of modification.

My point is, this isn't as simple a question as you think it is.... to assert that all tubes are "legal" just because there is a safe harbor provision within DMCA for ISPs and OSPs is a major oversimplification of the legal questions involved here.

- Q.

[ucv.karl]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Spot on. There are a lot of whining bitches on another thread saying YouTube and Myspace type sites should not be held responsible for the content they have. Yet when it's a porn Tube site they do have to be responsible. Not sure why one is right and the other wrong.

They are both wrong you dumb fuck. They should be held responsible and it's lame that an entire business model is built around this 'I didn't know they uploaded that (wink, wink)?. Youtube, Veoh, etc... it's all built around stolen content and after it got that initial traffic surge, then they tried to be more vigilant about policing the stolen material. And I don't get why these sites are 2257 exempt.

And why would anyone buy porn when you have redtube, or tube8, etc...? What is the average video length of the top rated section on these sites? So there's thousands of 15+ minute videos and people are going to pay money to get a membership to site X ?

Do people not realize that the business model of youtube doesn't map back to the porn industry. Youtube is selling advertisements, they are not selling samples to get memberships. The youtube porn clones are going to just sell ads and the legality of the content on the site doesn't matter.

[hungry hungry hippy]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Anyone who claims any different is just whining because they don't like the way the law is written.

watch out. the truth gets you crucified here.

[ucv.karl]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you may want to argue that tube sites are bad, immoral or whatever else you want to say

but the 90% plus who claim it is illegal are idiots. The safe harbor provision of the DMCA makes them legal, no matter how much you hate them.

Those > 90% people realize that the anachronistic DMCA is retarded and the current DMCA loophole actually fosters the stolen content business model (e.g. youtube, redtube, veoh, etc...).

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Um..... it's not quite that simple, actually.

There's more to fitting into the liability exceptions than you think. Beyond responding to take down requests, you have to have a "designated agent" to receive those take down requests, and that agent's information has to be filed with the Copyright Office, as well as listed on the website in question.

http://www.redtube.com/dmca

A tube site (or any other manner of user-posted content site hoping to avoid liability under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA) also cannot modify the content that is uploaded to their site by third parties. It's not entirely clear whether translating files into a new format would be considered a "modification" under the statutory language of the DMCA, but certainly one can reasonably argue that translation is a form of modification.

first of all every form of tcp/ip based communication converts the file into a new format during the transmission of the file, so you are attempting to significantly change the definition of "modification".

Secondly no court has upheld this definition of "modification" so as of right now, they are still covered by the safe harbor provision of the dmca which means they are still legal.

[tony286]

Why do yall bother going back and forth with gideon. He lives for this shit. lol

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://www.redtube.com/dmca



first of all every form of tcp/ip based communication converts the file into a new format during the transmission of the file, so you are attempting to significantly change the definition of "modification".

Secondly no court has upheld this definition of "modification" so as of right now, they are still covered by the safe harbor provision of the dmca which means they are still legal.

Fair enough - although having the statement posted at that URL does not ensure that the same information is also on file with the Copyright Office, right?

You're right about no court having upheld the definition of "modification" that I suggested was one possible interpretation - hence my use of the word "argue." I would also argue that there's a pretty substantial difference between the kind of conversion that happens as a function of TCP/IP and the translation by a tube site script of all files submitted to that tube site into another format.

I also didn't say that all tube sites are "illegal," and I didn't say that RedTube was an illegal site. What I said there was more to being legal than honoring take down requests. On that much I think we do agree, no?

I'm just saying that I think the legal waters here are murkier than you believe they are. You say it's all perfectly clear under the law -- I say it's not so clear. That's the essence of our difference of opinion here, I believe.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by ucv.karl

Those > 90% people realize that the anachronistic DMCA is retarded and the current DMCA loophole actually fosters the stolen content business model (e.g. youtube, redtube, veoh, etc...).

but the question was not should it be illegal it was are they illegal

as in right now

90% who think the DMCA "loophole actually foster the stolen content b usiness model" should realize that "loophole" does in fact make their actions legal.

BTW many fair use proponents have argued that the DMCA goes to far, and is in fact a censorship tool, because there is no significant penlty for making a false take down request. If using the example i gave to lady mischief about layering in "Tubes killed the pornstar" for me to keep my content online i would have to respond to the take down request, you could then sue me, and i would have to spend 100k to defend my fair use right of parody/comentary. Since fair use is an affirmative defence, i would have to pony up the doe to protect my rights.

If i am mistaken about my fair use right, i am liable for massive statutory damages, if i am right i just get to keep my fair use content online.

my god people it a single page form letter per tube site.
They list the videos that were added today so you only have to review a couple of pages of content /day max.

There are dozens of services which will do the reviewing for you, and get your content removed.

[Wagerboy]

I'm gonna go with illegal.

[$tandaman]

Illegal according to www.TubeResource.com ;)

[uno]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Spot on. There are a lot of whining bitches on another thread saying YouTube and Myspace type sites should not be held responsible for the content they have. Yet when it's a porn Tube site they do have to be responsible. Not sure why one is right and the other wrong.

Last I checked, both youtube and myspace removed copyrighted content without much fuss.

[V_RocKs]

A wall of videos 10 - 60 minutes in length...

You decide.