GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   PinkVisual Sues Brazzers for 6.75M (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=954117)

lazerbunny 08-01-2010 09:28 AM
error
 
Ummm, you forgot about boats.
and the only reason any of those items were ever refered to as "piract"
was when people use them to steal copywritten content , for instance..
or in the case of a BOAT .. the jewels hidden behind the captains locked door.
Its not rocket science... technology doesnt really have much to do with it.
Thievery does, and people who want to steal will always figure out new and unique ways
to pirate. items are not pirates, technology is not piracy
the act of being a thief is in itself the piracy.
So, politicians are intellectual pirates.. some of the time.
Some of the time they are just riding the language between
right and wrong, only one word away from changing the entire meaning of what they are saying.. which is not illegal.
Stealing however, in most places in the world
IS ILLEGAL.
excpet for the place that people go to steal,
the internet.
:1orglaugh:error:error:error:error:error:error:err or:1orglaugh


[QUOTE=gideongallery;16940018]and your not getting it
NO THEY WONT

every technological shift that has radically expanded the income capacity was CALLED piracy

the printing press
cable television
vcr
mp3
cd/dvd burners

and now torrents

stocktrader23 08-01-2010 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 16860625)
did any of the big networks have proof youtube employees were uploading stuff to sue youtube ? nope..

Did the content suddenly dissappear after being sued ? yes

Does gideon know law ? no

Here is a tip to keep yourself on the straight and narrow. DON'T STEAL SHIT :)
Did YouTube win the lawsuit?

Yes.

Also, no the content did not 'disappear'. Some did but there has been stolen shit on YouTube for as long as any of us remember YouTube.

stocktrader23 08-01-2010 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SleazyDream (Post 16861118)
proof is they are choosing what goes up. They don't post all uploads. You have to post all to get blanket protection. The second you start choosing - you know what's on the site - you know it's not legit. :2 cents:

why am I replying to an idiot.....
That is absolutely incorrect. As a site owner (host) you can decide what content you want to allow or disallow on your site. This is a completely separate issue and has fuck all to do with whether or not the person posting it has the right to post it. It is not your responsibility to verify this under the current law. :2 cents:

stocktrader23 08-01-2010 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxxjay (Post 16862737)
Sleazy nailed it right on the head there.

Lawyers have told me the same thing.
Your lawyers want you to sue so they make money. I'm not familiar with these sites but I am assuming that anyone can submit and they can approve or disapprove each video? If this is the case then that is not going to be enough to make them liable. Someone is going to have to show proof that they are uploading stolen content themselves which I doubt is possible unless the owners are retarded.

stocktrader23 08-01-2010 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent 488 (Post 16864082)
so youtube isn't covered by dmca because they don't allow uploads of cp and murder videos?

sorry man you need some new lawyers.
Thank you. Once again everyone on GFY is letting their emotions cloud their judgement. Filtering what content you allow on your site (or host) has not a fucking thing to do with copyright laws.

Odin 08-01-2010 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stocktrader23 (Post 17379639)
Your lawyers want you to sue so they make money. I'm not familiar with these sites but I am assuming that anyone can submit and they can approve or disapprove each video? If this is the case then that is not going to be enough to make them liable. Someone is going to have to show proof that they are uploading stolen content themselves which I doubt is possible unless the owners are retarded.
Whilst you are partly right, this is still a very debated aspect to the DMCA. The Youtube case particularly though, leans to say that (in Youtube's case with adult content) that staff can actively monitor certain types of content, and still not be liable for copyright works they don't necessarily remove. However there are a lot of terms in the DMCA around this issue that are open to a lot of interpretation, and as you say a lot of money for lawyers to argue back and forth.

Generally speaking, staff having specific knowledge (one of those debatable terms) of infringing content and not removing it (even without a take-down notice) puts the site outside the law. However, Youtube successfully argued that at times their staff can't determine what is sanctioned material (they noted how a lot of companies go for a 'viral' look and feel now days) and what is infringing material, hence their reason for not actively removing files their staff notice.

The truth is though, any tube site owner who *wants to run want the industry calls an 'illegal' tube, but wants to cover all their basis to remain/seem compliant can pretty much do so.

Odin 08-01-2010 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bossman (Post 16940605)
Politicians donīt give a shit about minorities - in europe most of these angry "teens" would voted for socialists anyway, so they are not a big loss. Once they get older and actual have to work for a living, then their view changes/modifies, since they figure out that compromises get things done.

In Europe politicians are working on attacking both supply and demand at the same time by both blocking internet access and sueing for damages. Its only going slow, because the EU has not harmonized the IP (intellectual property) area.

However with ACTA it will (and even if ACTA fails, then there will be a push for EUs own version). The 3 strikes rule target at surfers (demand), and blocking of entire businesses urls (supply). The french already have the 3 strike rule, and it ment less P2P traffic, but more downloading from illegal sites hosting the files (ex. rapidshare etc.). In other EU countries they have blocked sites (ex. Piratebay, AllofMP3 etc.) at the ISP level. At some point (ex. with ACTA) they will connect these sanctions, and it will be open season on pirates.

There is no way that western politicians will abandoned intellectual property - its one of the core function the state sells to the market, a basis for tax revenue, and product safety. Some college kid or business with piracy at their core will never be able to make up for that in "creativity" (which in reality doesnīt mean creativity, but their need to mass consume the latest entertainment garbage like everyone else).

Start reading what the people who are working on ACTA are thinking, and not those college kid blogsheads whining about ACTA.
I suggest you read the latest ACTA releases :2 cents:

3 strikes has been dropped. At this point ACTA is looking like a global DMCA and not a whole lot more.

Agent 488 08-01-2010 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stocktrader23 (Post 17379642)
Thank you. Once again everyone on GFY is letting their emotions cloud their judgement. Filtering what content you allow on your site (or host) has not a fucking thing to do with copyright laws.
clean your glasses.

Tickler 08-01-2010 11:32 AM
YouTube won because the lawsuit was filed based on them not removing the copyrighted material automatically.

But they never got to the "smoking gun" which was documents showing the owners were uploading the stolen content themselves.
Quote:
In a July 19, 2005 email to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, YouTube co founder Steve Chen wrote: ?jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We?re going to have a tough time defending the fact that we?re not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we the co-founders is didn?t put it up when one of blatantly stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it.?

stocktrader23 08-01-2010 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tickler (Post 17379747)
YouTube won because the lawsuit was filed based on them not removing the copyrighted material automatically.

But they never got to the "smoking gun" which was documents showing the owners were uploading the stolen content themselves.
So we're right back to the "unless they have proof that the owners are uploading illegal content then the tubes will win".


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 PM.
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123