Quote:
Originally Posted by ebus_dk
uuhhmm, no. It's simply because you dont know the routines and procedures when you find unlicensed content. You cant take a site like that down with no warning
Let me describe the flow
Some user with a tube account get their hands on some content
Said user uploads the content to a tube <- here the USER comits a crime
|
ok i will conseed this point (even though i could make some fair use arguements that justify this action)
i can do that since this is arguement about the criminal activity of the tube site not the criminal activity of the user of the tube site.
Just like if little jim steals his dad credit card to signup to your site, your not guilty of distributing porn to minors, even thou you did distribute porn to minors.
Quote:
Tube start to convert the video to their format
Tube PUBLISH the content and make it avalible <- here the TUBE comits a crime
|
absolutely false
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/27...eoh-porn-case/
search for veoh on gfy you will find that predicted they would lose, while many people made the same bogus arguement you are making now.
Guess what titan did lose so this is
still not a crime
Quote:
Copyright holder finds out about their content being on the Tube and notify the Tube
The Tube now have two ways to deside on
a - take the content down <- Tube is now in the Green again
|
and this is where every tube site you are complaining about stops, their actions have not, nor will they ever become illegal because they take the content down.
that the point they comply with the laws
they are legal
avnads is supporting a legal tube site
Quote:
b - take it to court <- If tube lose the case, they must take the content down, OR THEN the site can be shut down
THAT is the only reason ILEGAL tubes are still online.
|
but that my point as long as they don't break the law (go into the red)
they are not illegal anything
they are a 100% legal tube site
if they do become illegal their illegal act will shut them down so there is nothing to advertise on.
Quote:
Now back to the Viasat Youtube case - its STILL being investigated if Youtube is doing ENOUGH to prevent ilegal content being uploaded.
IF they agree that Youtube do to little about this, Youtube have two doors again
a - new procedures for upload
b - close youtube as we know it today
|
actually no they are not
viacomm is trying to prove that youtube current policy does not fully comply with the takedown procedures
every arguement made so far can be group into three catagories
(i) does have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
- trying to prove youtube employee are doing the uploading
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
- arguing that anything with john stewart in the keyword list must be copyright infringement (ignoring parody and other fair uses like baby john steward)
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
- arguing that porn filtering technology and procedures should be applied to all copyright material
something i already pointed out was not the youtube killer that paul markham though it was