Site owners - Would you sue a member for sharing your content?

[tical]

Would you go after your members if you could prove they distributed your content? Has anyone tried to do this & been successful?

[stickyfingerz]

Yes I would.

[d-null]

cue gideon to explain how your member wasn't actually sharing your content, merely timeshifting it and then someone else stole it from them

[Aussie Rebel]

Yes, it might send a message to all the other content thieves

[JD]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Yes I would.

"dear your honor... username mr8incock shared my paysite content titled "dumb white slut take 5 monster black cocks" to all his friends on teh intarnets... i want fidy tousand dorra"

good luck with that

[V_RocKs]

Yes you could if you had proof. If his computer is accessible by his family, friends, etc you could have a hard time proving WITHOUT A DOUBT that HE DID IT. If he has wifi maybe it was someone else... etc..

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by JD

"dear your honor... username mr8incock shared my paysite content titled "dumb white slut take 5 monster black cocks" to all his friends on teh intarnets... i want fidy tousand dorra"

good luck with that

Have this cool thing where the user signs up using their real name, and it logs that ip. Also have ways of tracking content should it appear out in the wild that shows me what username and ip viewed the content. No less likely than them going after mp3 theft.

[Sly]

Can you prove monetary damage?

Where are they located? What will it cost you? Do they have the means to pay you any judgment they may face? What are you realistically hoping for as far as results?

Somebody will say "you need to do it on principles!" Yeh, principles are great and all... but the multibillion-dollar movie and recording industry have been having a hell of a time... how will you do?

[jmcb420]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Have this cool thing where the user signs up using their real name, and it logs that ip. Also have ways of tracking content should it appear out in the wild that shows me what username and ip viewed the content. No less likely than them going after mp3 theft.

I'm sending you an e-mail, I wanna know more about this.

[Raym]

If I could prove it .....fuck yeah. Definitely.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by d-null

cue gideon to explain how your member wasn't actually sharing your content, merely timeshifting it and then someone else stole it from them

funny funny!!!!!!

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by tical

Site owners - Would you sue a member for sharing your content?

Yes I would.

If I can prove it, no gideongallery is going to save you.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Sly

Can you prove monetary damage?

Where are they located? What will it cost you? Do they have the means to pay you any judgment they may face? What are you realistically hoping for as far as results?

Somebody will say "you need to do it on principles!" Yeh, principles are great and all... but the multibillion-dollar movie and recording industry have been having a hell of a time... how will you do?

Film thousands of dollars worth of content over years.. Actually, create ANY kind of intellectual property. Then have it stolen.

I am sure you will change your tune then toots.

[CamTraffic]

they all do it!

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

No less likely than them going after mp3 theft.

Well other than the fact that it costs for lawyers. Now the RIAA did in fact have money. You in fact do not. So yeah, forgive me if I take your posturing lightly.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Hell yes I would, but first check to determine if you have a reasonable chance of recovering costs.

[woj]

start with trying to scare them first.... could make an easy grand or 2, with minimal investment in time/money...

but probably best talk to a lawyer first, would kinda suck if it turned out to that a stolen card was actually used and you were trying to extort $$ from an innocent guy....

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by d-null

cue gideon to explain how your member wasn't actually sharing your content, merely timeshifting it and then someone else stole it from them

at least get it right when you quote me

uploading is backup

downloading is timeshifting

both are only legal if you paid for the content

in the case of uploading since you would not have the content unless you bought the membership that a given

in the downloading case it only valid if you bought a right to view the content and were getting it again to view it at another time (after the membership expired).

[WiredGuy]

If i could prove it, then sure.
WG

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

at least get it right when you quote me

uploading is backup

downloading is timeshifting

both are only legal if you paid for the content

in the case of uploading since you would not have the content unless you bought the membership that a given

in the downloading case it only valid if you bought a right to view the content and were getting it again to view it at another time (after the membership expired).

Uploading to a private space on the web and NOT sharing access to that space with anyone is backup

downloading the copy only by yourself, and not anyone else, and not sharing access to the private space, is timeshifting

providing you paid for the original content

what you say is just semantics to justify theft - next time you say this remember to include the 'private' and 'not sharing' parts and I will have some respect for your way of thinking

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

Uploading to a private space on the web and NOT sharing access to that space with anyone is backup

We live in a networked world, the same exact copy of the file could be use to recover the files for multiple potential users.

By your definition ghosting machines in a corporate network would be illegal, SMS servers would be illegal.

The site owner refuses to setup a private network swarm (private tracker) so that only people who paid for the membership could recover the missing files then a user has a fair use right to use the only available (all be it public) tracker to accomplish the same functionality. (x redundant backup)

when you take into account the fact that the function of a torrent prevents me from giving away a single working copy of the file (if you played the content i gave you it would not work)

the file is only completed when the leechers combine all those individual pieces together into a working copy.

downloading the copy only by yourself, and not anyone else, and not sharing access to the private space, is timeshifting

in 1960 if my vcr failed to tape a show(power went out etc), i had a legal right to go to my friend and say can i borrow your tape so i can watch "knight rider"

IF timeshifting had to be private space, then universal would have been able to force sony to implement a recording key that would have prevented the tape from playing in any other vcr. Some sort of id that would have been recorded at the begining of the tape that would have had to be matched to a machine specific id.

You would have only been able to play the shows you personally taped in the Privacy of your own home.

They did not get such an injunction, because like all fair use rights they supercede the exclusive right of distribution of the copyright holder.

providing you paid for the original content

agreed fair use rights only exist for content you paid for
you can't timeshift viewing rights you were never given.
You can't recover/backup viewing rights you were never given.

what you say is just semantics to justify theft - next time you say this remember to include the 'private' and 'not sharing' parts and I will have some respect for your way of thinking

what i am saying comes down to justifying not being forced to pay for the same content twice. To buy viewing rights multiple times , for the same exact content.

That is fair use.
Recovering content i paid for,
backing up content i paid for,
timeshifting viewing rights to the future time and place, instead of being forced to what them when the copyright holder delivered them.

[tical]

I am in the middle creating something that will allow the user to:

1. Watermark a video with a username, ip & timestamp (or any string - such as a database record #) in multiple locations at different, random intervals in a way that is practically unnoticeable to the naked eye.

* Every major codec / format is supported.
* Watermarking can be done on streaming as well as downloaded (right click, save as) video - IN REAL TIME.
* Watermarks are not lost if the video has been re-encoded.
* Watermarks are not lost if the quality is changed (to a certain point).
* Watermarks are not lost if the video has been cropped or modified.
* It is nearly impossible (but mainly, not worth it) for anyone to try to locate & obstruct the watermarks.

2. Detect watermarks & provide you with a report of the findings.

3. Allow multiple "layers" of watermarking to support the producer -> website -> member model.



The solution is most likely going to end up hardware based, with very minimal integration requirements & NO VIDEO RE-ENCODING NEEDED!

What you do with violating members is up to you - I will just provide you with a way to find out who is doing what.


Anyone interested in something like this?

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Film thousands of dollars worth of content over years.. Actually, create ANY kind of intellectual property. Then have it stolen.

I am sure you will change your tune then toots.

Change my tune? I agree with your sentiment and your point of view. It totally sucks to have somebody steal your intellectual property. However, spending $XX,XXX on lawsuits and research and everything else involved... what do you think you are realistically going to accomplish? If you have the money to blow, go for it and fight... hopefully you win. If you don't have the money to blow, I don't have an answer... I wish I did.