Quote:
Originally Posted by ebus_dk
No its NOT the same thing.
You can not compare shooting porn to distributing and facilitating the distribution of copyrighted content without the rights to do so.
|
you keep saying that they don't have a right to do so
if that was true you could shut down the porntube with a simple reporting them for criminal copyright infringement.
The fact that you can't proves that the safe harbor provision eliminates that liability.
what you are doing is called a circular proof, it a fundamental logical falacy.
Quote:
Its two totally different things.
If what you said was true, why do you think YouTube have had to GEO filter their content?
|
what the hell are you talking about
a US law gives them a pass, non US laws may not give them a similar pass
they have to geo- filter to make sure they are comply with each different countries laws
They geo- filter their content exactly because what i am saying is true, if they meet certain conditions what would normally be illegal is not illegal.
Quote:
and why do you think YouTube have payed a lot of money to stay out of courtrooms?
Do you really think their million dollar legal advisors would not have saved them those trouble?
|
there is no way to stop from getting sued, viacomm case is all about dredging thru youtube records to prove they are not fully complying with the dmca
either by
1) youtube employees uploading the content
2) youtube employees knowing (not just suspecting) that the content is wrongly posted.
youtube is making the liciencing deals because it more cost effective to take a deal then spend the money in court, if they were always backing down they would have handed viacomm a cheque for a billion dollars. They fight when the cost of going to court is less than the cost of settling and they settle when the reverse is true.
That just good business.