Not fully relevant, but still a good precedent. With some effort it can be extended to our area of interest (copyright infringements), as most of the arguments that convinced the court in LV case will still be valid.

Doesn't mean jack until someone takes them to court. Sure it may set a precedent, but there is also a bigger precedent of bitching about them rather than taking them to court in this industry

You can?t extend it to copyright they are two spate things and that is why it is beneficial as they can?t claim safe harbor, once a host or advertiser is put on notice of the mark infringement or even if they merely should have know about the infringement they are liable from that point forward they can?t wait for the Tube owner to take it down.

Yes I agree they're two separate things and this case is yet another "arrow", as was said in another thread, one more weapon to throw at the offending site in court.

I didn't read the actual court case but from the magazine articles about it, it looks like DMCA and safe harbor were the part of the argument in court anyway. Don't know what was the exact reason for it, but it looks like the court found them connected in one way or the other.

Thus, if DMCA and safe harbor were parts of the reasoning anyway, that's what makes me think the decision can be extended into the copyright area. It will take one more legal battle, but having LV precedent behind you, a precedent that is portrayed as the one setting the limits of the safe harbor defense, will surely help.

Going after the trademark infringement is good, but not THAT good. For example, our older videos were not watermarked and they're still flying around at tubes and torrents, and we'll still need copyright laws and precedents if we're going to fight the offenders in court.

As it has been explained to me, by one of the best attorneys in LA, that if you are seeking protection under the DMCA by the letter of the law -- the tubes should leave the gates wide open and allow every video that comes through to go up on the site. It just basically says, "people just submit content up here, if someone wants it removed, we will remove it in reasonable time."

If an ISP is even NOT ALLOWING certain submissions to go straight up on the front page, then they are actually controlling what is going up there and the DMCA does not apply.

If the DMCA doesn't apply at this point, these weasels have left themselves open for all kinds of problems.

youtube exercises editorial judgment all day every day over their uploads and it does not nullify their safe harbor provisions.

You sure hang with a lot of criminals and shady individuals.

let's whine the tubes to death. nice plan
lol

http://www.whiningbitch.com/mod/main...ages/swine.jpg

What good is talking to all of these good lawyers if you're still doing nothing? You could save money by only talking about it on gfy.

I remember you used to have pictures with your tongue hanging out with a thumbs up about to do a line of blow off of a whore's stomach....Now even your avatar looks sad and defeated.....WTF?

Don't mean to be a total dick but .... I'll believe it when I see it :)

this just sounds right...............

he just got outa the hospital - give him a little time.........

thailand/laos/cambodia are extremely bad for this. they are selling 'armani' suits on every street corner lol. and i have seen several completely fake bmw's from china. i shit you not.

music too. load up your ipod, 20 gigs of music for 30 baht (less than a dollar). and it is everywhere. or if you are old school, you can buy 3 (sometimes 5) cds for around a buck. it's pretty crazy.

so they should allow cp to be uploaded too, and supporting that illegal activity is the only way that they can be protected by safe harbor.

There is no way "best lawyer" in la told you that.
while there are limits on what you can do to block access (partner accounts ala tgp would cause problems, because of the direct financial benefit) editorial control is not an automagic invalidation of Safe harbor.

You could restrict content via your terms of service, not only to prevent things like cp and beastiality but by niche etc.

You could even exclude all porn as youtube does.

Who says I'm doing nothing?

I didn't say that.

:winkwink:

It's a very gray area. Youtube also has pending litigation against it and has never made a dime.

Sign me up.

Very good news! But who know how long it will take till the major illegal tubs will be ass-fired...

No no, this below sound right.

And the ads they sell have no "direct financial benefit"?

Sadly this is what happens in countries where copyright is not respected.

I remember renting videos (back in the VHS days) in a regular video rental store in the Bahamas where every single video was an illegal copy and they had everything! Completely blatant with Avery labels on the tapes.

all i need is a plane ticket and a baseball bat

:1orglaugh

if you're willing and able get to it - if you need money for the ticket and bat i'm sure you'll have no trouble raising funds.

Nice, a step in the right direction!

Good point.

You need to have deeeeeep pockets to sue the ISPs...

Since the tubes are owned by various porn players themselves, why would they sue their own ISPs?

You need to find a producer that isn't also running a tube.

I wonder where's more chances to prevail in court, in sueing tubes themselves or their ISPs?

Sueing ISPs is a better route if we aim at reducing the amount of thieves out there, because ISPs are the bottleneck, if no ISP is willing to host the illegal tube = no illegal tubes. But I'm not sure which one is easier to win in court.

Sounds like a cracked out witch hunt to me, everyone settle down, next week some conspiracy to sue their grandmother will come up, come on guys, jay says he has the best lawyer of the land, and the best they got is to use this, jay needs to go back to that lawyer and say are you fucking kidding me, either way good luck with the hunt

Illegal tubes suck.
That is the extent of my contribution to this topic.

Happy Birthday, Jay :)