legal discussion: DMCA's and tube sites and embed codes - GoFuckYourself.com

fris · 02-11-2009, 08:12 PM

Curious about people sending DMCA's to sites that "spider" other big tube sites like redtube/youporn/pornhub/etc/etc/etc

arent the DMCA's suppose to goto the site that is hosting the content?

Any legal people wanna step in?

seeandsee · 02-11-2009, 08:16 PM

would be interesting to see

Barefootsies · 02-11-2009, 08:17 PM

Cue gideongallery the asshat esquire in 5,....4,....3,...

sandman! · 02-11-2009, 08:21 PM

i think if you are hosting the thumb / image of the video you can get a dmca

i dont think you can get a dmca for linking to a video tho using text

Sands · 02-11-2009, 08:21 PM

Bump for serious business.

Barefootsies · 02-11-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandman!

i think if you are hosting the thumb / image of the video you can get a dmca

i dont think you can get a dmca for linking to a video tho using text

Refer to the 'distribution' and 'reproduction' clauses.

Just because you are not hosting it physically doesn't mean shit when taking the above two things into account.

Lemme find some links. There might be some cases on it I recall.

sandman! · 02-11-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Refer to the 'distribution' and 'reproduction' clauses.

Just because you are not hosting it physically doesn't mean shit when taking the above two things into account.

Lemme find some links. There might be some cases on it I recall.

if you are hosting the thumb of the movie you would be infringing i would think nothing with reproduction at all.

Barefootsies · 02-11-2009, 08:29 PM

Interesting read...

Quote:

Linking to infringing content

The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM (digital rights management) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.[4]

There have been no cases in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances.

Quote:

IO Group Inc. vs. Veoh Networks Inc.

On June 23, 2006 IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District.[8] IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by Io Group to be accessed through Veoh’s online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22.[9] Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content. IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became a direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection. The ruling judge disagreed with the argument stating that "Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software... But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users." The Court has granted the Veoh’s motion for summary judgment, on the basis of the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision.[10]

..and there you have it. Gideongallery's usual shtick not needed.

Barefootsies · 02-11-2009, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandman!

if you are hosting the thumb of the movie you would be infringing i would think nothing with reproduction at all.

fris · 02-11-2009, 08:32 PM

good info

$5 submissions · 02-11-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Interesting read...

..and there you have it. Gideongallery's usual shtick not needed.

Thanks, bro.

KillerK · 02-12-2009, 12:09 AM

The porn on redtube is time-shifted, so it's all 100% legal.

d-null · 02-12-2009, 12:23 AM

as far as the legality goes though, as long as the site takes that thumbnail down if they do get a dmca notice, then they are ok by the law anyways, aren't they?

how soon after must they by law remove material they receive notice on?

doridori · 02-12-2009, 12:32 AM

why in anyone's fucking mind would they go after ppl for hosting preview thumbs of 2 hour long videos? isn't the 2 hour long video hosted, being watched by thousands of ppl every second on the tube sites more important issue provided that there is evident proof that it was an unwelcome upload by someone ? use a little common sense.

d-null · 02-12-2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doridori

why in anyone's fucking mind would they go after ppl for hosting preview thumbs of 2 hour long videos? isn't the 2 hour long video hosted, being watched by thousands of ppl every second on the tube sites more important issue provided that there is evident proof that it was an unwelcome upload by someone ? use a little common sense.

not sure what you are saying, but if you are saying why don't they go after the tubesite itself, I think they would as well as anyone that is posting a thumbnail link to it too

and there is the possibility that the tubesite itself is in some far away country, whereas the lesser sites are on u.s. jurisdiction

doridori · 02-12-2009, 12:42 AM

right, but going after thumbnails is not really delivering the point is it?

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE · 02-12-2009, 12:58 AM

Google will remove links if you DMCA them..

d-null · 02-12-2009, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doridori

right, but going after thumbnails is not really delivering the point is it?

well according to the post Barefootsies made, no-one has been found liable for text links, but if you post a thumbnail you are directly infringing and could be held liable according to that train of logic

RevTKS69 · 02-12-2009, 02:16 AM

I am continually amazed at these threads, and that no one ever mentions getting registered copyrights and statutory damages.

Blazed · 02-12-2009, 03:15 AM

Linking to the content is fine in the US and most of the world, only a few countries (i think UK) has a court said otherwise. And if you own a tube and people submit stolen content to it that is also fine legally because of the safe harbour (look at the veoh case), so id imagine if you embed a tubes videos you dont have much to worry about either so long as you remove the embeds on request.

Barefootsies · 02-12-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-null

well according to the post Barefootsies made, no-one has been found liable for text links, but if you post a thumbnail you are directly infringing and could be held liable according to that train of logic

True dat

tiger · 02-12-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Clark

Google will remove links if you DMCA them..

That's funny because google images basically does the same thing with everyone's images.

Barefootsies · 02-12-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger

That's funny because google images basically does the same thing with everyone's images.

They fall under some provision. Lemme find it. I wanna say it's safe harbor (i.e. search engines).

Barefootsies · 02-12-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Fair Use

The court applied the 4 statutory factors from 17 U.S.C. 107 and held that Google's caching was fair use. The first factor, "the purpose and character of the use" weighed in Google's favor. The court stated that Google's use was transformative and did not merely supersede Fields use. The court explained that Fields use was to enrich the lives of others through poetry, while Google's use was to facilitate the operation of search engines. The court identified multiple characteristics that distinguished Google's use from Fields including: Google's use is for archival purposes; (2) Google's use allows users to track changes in websites; (3) Google's use allows users to figure out why a particular page resulted from a search. The court further held that Google's commercial status was of little importance because the Google's use was transformative.

The second factor, "the nature of the copyrighted works" also weighed in favor of Google because the works were available for free on Field's website.

The third factor, "the amount and substantiality of the use" weighed equally for both parties. Although Google cached the entire website, the fact that Field made the works available on his website and the difference in the use of the two made this factor neutral.

The fourth factor, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" weighed in favor of Google. There was no market for Field's works and the caching did not impact any potential market for his works.

The court considered an additional factor, "Google's good faith in operating its system cache," which favored fair use. Google used industry standard procedures that allowed website operators to prevent caching. Google promptly removed the cache's to Field's work when it learned that Field did not want them.

[edit] DMCA Safe Harbor

The court held that Google qualified for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions in 17 U.S.C. 512(b).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google

tranza · 02-12-2009, 11:33 AM

Here goes a bump

babebuns · 02-12-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doridori

why in anyone's fucking mind would they go after ppl for hosting preview thumbs of 2 hour long videos? isn't the 2 hour long video hosted, being watched by thousands of ppl every second on the tube sites more important issue provided that there is evident proof that it was an unwelcome upload by someone ? use a little common sense.

Beacause they're spreading around the exposure of these sites. Stop trying to defend your retarded ideas, you idiot code stealer.

doridori · 02-12-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babebuns

Beacause they're spreading around the exposure of these sites. Stop trying to defend your retarded ideas, you idiot code stealer.

you better have solid proof of that accusation about stealing codes. reported.

gideongallery · 02-12-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-null

well according to the post Barefootsies made, no-one has been found liable for text links, but if you post a thumbnail you are directly infringing and could be held liable according to that train of logic

that in an inferance not what the court case stated. it is currently untested arguement

that being said, a single thumb image from the movie, could very likely covered by fair use of sampling. And the linking would be covered by the court case footsies quoted.

02-11-2009, 08:12 PM	#1
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	legal discussion: DMCA's and tube sites and embed codes Curious about people sending DMCA's to sites that "spider" other big tube sites like redtube/youporn/pornhub/etc/etc/etc arent the DMCA's suppose to goto the site that is hosting the content? Any legal people wanna step in? __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

02-11-2009, 08:16 PM	#2
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	would be interesting to see __________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

02-11-2009, 08:17 PM	#3
Barefootsies Choice is an Illusion Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Land of Obama Posts: 42,635	Cue gideongallery the asshat esquire in 5,....4,....3,... __________________ 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?"

02-11-2009, 08:21 PM	#4
sandman! Icq: 14420613 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: chicago Posts: 15,432	i think if you are hosting the thumb / image of the video you can get a dmca i dont think you can get a dmca for linking to a video tho using text __________________ Need WebHosting ? Email me for some great deals [email protected]

02-11-2009, 08:32 PM	#10
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	good info __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

02-11-2009, 08:21 PM	#5
Sands Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: 418194907 Posts: 3,134	Bump for serious business.

02-12-2009, 12:09 AM	#12
KillerK Confirmed User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,406	The porn on redtube is time-shifted, so it's all 100% legal.

02-12-2009, 12:23 AM	#13
d-null . . . Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: NY Posts: 13,724	as far as the legality goes though, as long as the site takes that thumbnail down if they do get a dmca notice, then they are ok by the law anyways, aren't they? how soon after must they by law remove material they receive notice on? __________________ __________________ Looking for a custom TUBE SCRIPT that supports massive traffic, load balancing, billing support, and h264 encoding? Hit up Konrad! Looking for designs for your websites or custom tubesite design? Hit up Zuzana Designs Check out the #1 WordPress SEO Plugin: CyberSEO Suite

02-12-2009, 12:32 AM	#14
doridori So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Canadia Posts: 2,222	why in anyone's fucking mind would they go after ppl for hosting preview thumbs of 2 hour long videos? isn't the 2 hour long video hosted, being watched by thousands of ppl every second on the tube sites more important issue provided that there is evident proof that it was an unwelcome upload by someone ? use a little common sense. Last edited by doridori; 02-12-2009 at 12:34 AM..

02-12-2009, 12:42 AM	#16
doridori So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Canadia Posts: 2,222	right, but going after thumbnails is not really delivering the point is it?

02-12-2009, 12:58 AM	#17
Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE North Coast Pimp Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 304-534-757 Posts: 9,395	Google will remove links if you DMCA them..

02-12-2009, 02:16 AM	#19
RevTKS69 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: West Texas Posts: 231	Statutory Damages I am continually amazed at these threads, and that no one ever mentions getting registered copyrights and statutory damages. __________________ www.sexyschiava.com - Amateur BDSM www.adultblogreview.com - Starting a new review site, positions available

02-12-2009, 03:15 AM	#20
Blazed Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: London Posts: 1,701	Linking to the content is fine in the US and most of the world, only a few countries (i think UK) has a court said otherwise. And if you own a tube and people submit stolen content to it that is also fine legally because of the safe harbour (look at the veoh case), so id imagine if you embed a tubes videos you dont have much to worry about either so long as you remove the embeds on request. __________________ ☻

02-12-2009, 11:33 AM	#25
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	Here goes a bump __________________ I'm just a newbie.