Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 07-03-2008, 11:33 PM   #51
BusterBunny
perverted justice decoy
 
BusterBunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: unborn still in the womb connected via blackberry
Posts: 19,291
fiddy
__________________
my sig caught gonoherpasyphilaids and died
BusterBunny is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 11:38 PM   #52
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by woj View Post
That's pretty stupid, a user has no way of knowing who uploaded the content or if the clips are legit or not, for all they know the clips were uploaded by legit copyright holders... .maybe on stolen-copyrighted-videos.com something like that will stick, but certainly not on a mainstream site like youtube...
Not sure but I don't think ignorance of the law was ever an acceptable defense in court. People have a good idea if they are watching home produced content or Viacom content. AND they a pretty good when they post it on GFY if it's home produced or pirated.

Let's face it some here support piracy and the proof is here. They support it and want to see Google do everything they can to keep pirating content. YouTube is built on pirated content, we all know that. So when people flame AFF, Redtube, Megarotic, etc. are they annoyed only when piracy effects their income? When it entertains them they are all for it. What is the word for this???? Begins with a H.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 03:13 PM   #53
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
Taking the records of people does not imply any guilt. They need these records to find out whose guilty and whose innocent.
you realize your basically saying i should have a right to violate your right of privacy so i can prove your guilty when i really only have that right when i have proven you are guilty


people have a right to privacy and that should not be superseed for everyone just because some people are using to hide their illegal activity.

better that 9 criminals go free then 1 innocent man goes to jail.


Quote:
But it's good to know you want to make catching and stopping copyright infringer's as hard as possible. Must go see what you post in threads about stopping pirates.


copyright is a conditional monopoly not an absolute one, the difficulties are ones based on that conditional nature. I have a legal right to make a parody using your copyright material, i have a right to use your copyright material to for comentary purposes. Those rights have been established by the original copyright act. Additional fair use right have been established by the court. If you can't make money by and still respect fair use then you should not be producing content.

you should be monitizing the distribution method (product placement, process monitization, etc) rather then trying to fight if you can't see how to get around the problem of respecting fair use and catching the theives rather than arguing to destroy fair use completely.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 03:21 PM   #54
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
by the way you might want to read up a bit on it

google requested and got a protective order which would prevent the use of information against the users

since viacomm got around the video privacy act by claiming they were only going to use it to determine the statistical distribution of piracy to user generated.


then google has now "asking Viacom to respect users' privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court's order"

it perfect trap because if viacom refuses they can then appeal the current judges ruling demanding that viacomm prove that the extra information was need for their declared task since if the only reason for that extra (non anonymize information) has no necessary purpose to their analysis it would prove that the request was a fabrication to get around the video privacy act.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 03:35 PM   #55
_Richard_
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
_Richard_'s Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 30,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
by the way you might want to read up a bit on it

google requested and got a protective order which would prevent the use of information against the users

since viacomm got around the video privacy act by claiming they were only going to use it to determine the statistical distribution of piracy to user generated.


then google has now "asking Viacom to respect users' privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court's order"

it perfect trap because if viacom refuses they can then appeal the current judges ruling demanding that viacomm prove that the extra information was need for their declared task since if the only reason for that extra (non anonymize information) has no necessary purpose to their analysis it would prove that the request was a fabrication to get around the video privacy act.
thanks a lot for answering my questions about the ruling! good job for google.. again.
_Richard_ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 05:44 PM   #56
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIVMatt View Post
What are they going to do sue a bazillion people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetjet View Post
that is obviously a money grabbing technique
Quote:
Originally Posted by A1R3K View Post
they gonna try to sue users for watching clips or try to tally what youtube owes them in royalties for people watching the clips?
and the rest of you . . . Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.

They aren't trying to sue us. They are trying to prove a point.
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 06:03 PM   #57
Barefootsies
Choice is an Illusion
 
Barefootsies's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Land of Obama
Posts: 42,635
:2cents

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ View Post
PS: Youtube is truly one of the biggest violations of copyright in american history.

Historically there never has been such an operation of flagrant and vast copyright theft. The news and media outlets will be saying that soon.
Um, Napster?
__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"
Barefootsies is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 06:46 PM   #58
broots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
and the rest of you . . . Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.

They aren't trying to sue us. They are trying to prove a point.
Hmm... I have to wonder about that. Google's upload limit -- in terms of size and time-length -- as well as their craptacular flash decoder makes most of their content worthless. I think the folks behind Viacom want the stats for the purposes of marketing their products. That info is worth a lot of pesos, IMHO.
broots is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 10:58 PM   #59
Snake Doctor
I'm Lenny2 Bitch
 
Snake Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: On top of my soapbox
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
you realize your basically saying i should have a right to violate your right of privacy so i can prove your guilty when i really only have that right when i have proven you are guilty
That's not correct, you through a court order, or law enforcement through a warrant, has a right to violate my privacy when they have REASONABLE SUSPICION that I have done something wrong.

And again to reiterate baddog's point (can't believe I'm doing that) there's a limit to what this data can be used for. They're not trying to initiate lawsuits against end users, they're trying to prove a point.
__________________
sig too big
Snake Doctor is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 12:04 AM   #60
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor View Post
That's not correct, you through a court order, or law enforcement through a warrant, has a right to violate my privacy when they have REASONABLE SUSPICION that I have done something wrong.

And again to reiterate baddog's point (can't believe I'm doing that) there's a limit to what this data can be used for. They're not trying to initiate lawsuits against end users, they're trying to prove a point.
Pointless arguing with him. He wants people to be able to break the law, take food out of our mouths and then hide behind "Rights of Privacy". It's like turkeys promoting Thanksgiving dinners.

As for initiating lawsuits against criminals. Why not?
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 12:17 AM   #61
Snake Doctor
I'm Lenny2 Bitch
 
Snake Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: On top of my soapbox
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
As for initiating lawsuits against criminals. Why not?
I can't believe I'm actually getting into a discussion with you, but here goes.

Do you really think that someone who goes to youtube and searches for "funny video" and then gets a results page with say some Chris Rock videos, that he watches and laughs at, and then later it's found out that those videos were there in violation of the owner's copyright...then the person who watched it should be liable for damages?

That's going a bit too far IMO. Also consider how impractical that is. The vast majority of people watching or downloading copyrighted work on the internet are kids, and by kids I mean 12yrs-25yrs old. People with no assets to sue for anyways.

Add to that the fact that the end user really has no idea whether the content was licensed by youtube or not....there are really just too many problems with this scenario, you obviously haven't thought it through.

Setting a precedent against a giant like youtube and maybe even making a statement by going after the biggest uploaders of copyrighted work will be more than enough to stem the tide of this problem.
__________________
sig too big
Snake Doctor is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 12:32 AM   #62
xmas13
Confirmed User
 
xmas13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: GFY
Posts: 5,176
Since when do Americans care about privacy? Oh yes, you do when you fear it may hurt your wallet.
__________________
ICQ 557504926
xmas13 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 12:38 AM   #63
xmas13
Confirmed User
 
xmas13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: GFY
Posts: 5,176
Viacom is doing the right thing. Keep up the good work.
__________________
ICQ 557504926
xmas13 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 12:41 AM   #64
xmas13
Confirmed User
 
xmas13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: GFY
Posts: 5,176
Hey mother fuckers, you can receive a million dollar settlement for being served a cup that was too hot in a restaurant, and millions can be fined thousands each for downloading Viacom shit. Enjoy!!!! You can mess up with business, business can mess up with you.
__________________
ICQ 557504926

Last edited by xmas13; 07-05-2008 at 12:43 AM..
xmas13 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 02:39 AM   #65
D Ghost
null
 
D Ghost's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9,820
Interesting discussion
D Ghost is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 02:42 AM   #66
NiftyStats Jenna
Confirmed User
 
NiftyStats Jenna's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,236
google spied, that's all
__________________
Affiliate Stats Tracking SoftwareYour success comes from knowing the market situation well!
NiftyStats Jenna is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 06:23 AM   #67
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor View Post
That's not correct, you through a court order, or law enforcement through a warrant, has a right to violate my privacy when they have REASONABLE SUSPICION that I have done something wrong.
the key is the "reasonable suspicion" that you have done something wrong, as it was originally posted that would be the equivalent of me asking for all the bank records at a bank (for every person) because somebody in that bank was laundering money. You have a right to violate the privacy of the person who you have a "reasonable suspicion" of laundering money, you don't have a right to do it for everyone to try and catch that guy.


Quote:
And again to reiterate baddog's point (can't believe I'm doing that) there's a limit to what this data can be used for. They're not trying to initiate lawsuits against end users, they're trying to prove a point.
i was the one who pointed out what they could and could not do with the data BEFORE baddog made his post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery

by the way you might want to read up a bit on it

google requested and got a protective order which would prevent the use of information against the users
since viacomm got around the video privacy act by claiming they were only going to use it to determine the statistical distribution of piracy to user generated.


then google has now "asking Viacom to respect users' privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court's order"

it perfect trap because if viacom refuses they can then appeal the current judges ruling demanding that viacomm prove that the extra information was need for their declared task since if the only reason for that extra (non anonymize information) has no necessary purpose to their analysis it would prove that the request was a fabrication to get around the video privacy act.

I understand exactly what they can do with the data, i am also smart enough to see the function of googles request. I feared that they would abuse the information because that the SOP of the RIAA/MPAA. Thank god google is smart enough to throw it back at them.
If they try and demand the extra information that proves they are fabricating the statistical evidence arguement to get around the video privacy protection act.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.