GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Brazzers is stealing your money.. Plain and simple theft.

Tempest · 07-10-2008, 06:04 PM

The entire safe harbor provision is being abused... Once some people start to take these sites to court and the law can answer, I'm sure there will be some changes.. For example..

It can be argued that these sites do not qualify at all for the following reasons.

(c) The Internet user, not the service provider, must select the origination and destination points of the communication [512(a)(3) and 512(k)(1)(A)]; I suspect that tube sites simply have the videos being "uploaded".. there's no recipient being selected. Unlike a file sharing site where you have to know where the content is in order to access it (as the uploader has to share the link with you), tube sites also promote that uploaded video such that other people besides the intended "recipient" are gaining access to the material. Thus, they're not adhereing to the following.

No copy of the communication is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients [512(a)(4)]; Again... Who is the recipient? Why are others besides the intended recipient being able to view it?

(g) No copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, and provision of connections [512(a)(4)]. Again, who is the recipient? If you don't know that, then you can't determine the period required to transmit to them. Regardless, it's clear that there is a time limit to how long the SP can store the material.

Is the user uploading a WMV and the tube site converting it to Flash? Then they no longer quality for the Safe harbour provisions.. (e) The service provider must not modify the communication selected by the Internet user [512(a)(5)];

This can also be argued the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. This would imply that anyone could notify them of specific infringing material and if they didn't investigate and remove it, they could be held liable.

Depending on how the videos are presented, using SERP results etc. this can also be argued The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)]

And of course this is a big one (a) The service provider is an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications [512(k)(1)(A)]; How is it that tube sites are actaully routing and providing communications?

If you're hitting a tube site with take down notices, you need to keep track of who the "user" was that was uploading.. If you can show that those users are constantly uploading infinging material, then the tube site can also be found liable since they're are supposed to The safe harbor provisions require the service provider to include in its copyright infringement policies a termination policy that results in individuals who repeatedly infringe copyrighted material being removed from the service provider networks. [512(i)(1)(A)] This termination policy must be made public in the terms of use that the service provider includes in its contracts or on its web site.

Bottom line, this was never written so that tube sites, file storage sites etc. can do what they do. It will take court cases and legislation in order to fix it. I see plenty of ways these sites could be taken to court but no one is doing it.

By the way.. Nice way to deflect attention away from what this thread was supposed to be about.

07-10-2008, 06:04 PM
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	The entire safe harbor provision is being abused... Once some people start to take these sites to court and the law can answer, I'm sure there will be some changes.. For example.. It can be argued that these sites do not qualify at all for the following reasons. (c) The Internet user, not the service provider, must select the origination and destination points of the communication [512(a)(3) and 512(k)(1)(A)]; I suspect that tube sites simply have the videos being "uploaded".. there's no recipient being selected. Unlike a file sharing site where you have to know where the content is in order to access it (as the uploader has to share the link with you), tube sites also promote that uploaded video such that other people besides the intended "recipient" are gaining access to the material. Thus, they're not adhereing to the following. No copy of the communication is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients [512(a)(4)]; Again... Who is the recipient? Why are others besides the intended recipient being able to view it? (g) No copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, and provision of connections [512(a)(4)]. Again, who is the recipient? If you don't know that, then you can't determine the period required to transmit to them. Regardless, it's clear that there is a time limit to how long the SP can store the material. Is the user uploading a WMV and the tube site converting it to Flash? Then they no longer quality for the Safe harbour provisions.. (e) The service provider must not modify the communication selected by the Internet user [512(a)(5)]; This can also be argued the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. This would imply that anyone could notify them of specific infringing material and if they didn't investigate and remove it, they could be held liable. Depending on how the videos are presented, using SERP results etc. this can also be argued The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)] And of course this is a big one (a) The service provider is an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications [512(k)(1)(A)]; How is it that tube sites are actaully routing and providing communications? If you're hitting a tube site with take down notices, you need to keep track of who the "user" was that was uploading.. If you can show that those users are constantly uploading infinging material, then the tube site can also be found liable since they're are supposed to The safe harbor provisions require the service provider to include in its copyright infringement policies a termination policy that results in individuals who repeatedly infringe copyrighted material being removed from the service provider networks. [512(i)(1)(A)] This termination policy must be made public in the terms of use that the service provider includes in its contracts or on its web site. Bottom line, this was never written so that tube sites, file storage sites etc. can do what they do. It will take court cases and legislation in order to fix it. I see plenty of ways these sites could be taken to court but no one is doing it. By the way.. Nice way to deflect attention away from what this thread was supposed to be about.