GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   legal discussion: DMCA's and tube sites and embed codes (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=887347)

fris 02-11-2009 08:12 PM
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?

:thumbsup

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! (Post 15480680)
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.

:2 cents:

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 (Post 15480706)
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.

:2 cents:

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! (Post 15480719)
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 (Post 15480721)
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 (Post 15481606)
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 (Post 15481627)
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
Statutory Damages
 
I am continually amazed at these threads, and that no one ever mentions getting registered copyrights and statutory damages.

:error

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 (Post 15481730)
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 (Post 15481685)
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 (Post 15483237)
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 (Post 15481606)
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 (Post 15484107)
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 (Post 15481730)
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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 PM.

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