|
I'm not surprised. Vivid never had a case and they knew it.
They only filed the suit in an attempt to scare PornoTube into complying, or force them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves.
But it didn't work, and it wasn't worth the cost for Vivid.
Plus another court dismissed the Io vs Veoh case a couple of months ago, and that was practically the same thing. Veoh was accused of having infringing porn, some of which had copyright notices in them.
The Court said:
-they have a DMCA policy and respond to notices
-they are not required to spot check videos, and if they do, it doesn't constitute "actual knowledge" of infringement
-they can feature some infringing videos on their homepage and it doesn't constitute "actual knowledge" of infringement
-they can deal with users who upload infringing content any way they want
-a copyright notice is meaningless - Veoh doesn't have to watch the video, and even if they did it would still be meaningless
-and nobody can figure out what is copyrighted vs what isn't anyways because some user submitted content can be professionally produced, and some copyrighted content can be deliberately filmed to look like amateur
I think that Vivid knew about this decision. It would have been an easy defence for PornoTube (and will be for any other Tube site).
|