Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
The reason I harp on Gideon is because he points out every little loop hole that makes illegal downloading okay. It is like he supports the pirates and loves to see them succeed. to hear him say it you would believe that only about 2% of the torrent users are doing anything wrong. I won't get into that though, let's talk about Youtube and torrent sites.
I agree, the Youtube/Viacom lawsuit will have dramatic effect on the internet. If Youtube loses it will open a can of worms that will fundamentally change the way the internet operates at least as far as that type of stuff goes. The question at hand is this: Does Youtube filter their content before it gets on the site? They say they do not that anything can be uploaded and that the users flag it and it gets removed then. Viacom is arguing that they have some sort of pre-filter in place. Porn is a great example. There is never any porn on that site. But you know a lot of people are trying to upload it. So this means one of two things are true. Either the Youtube users flag it so fast it is removed before it is seen by hardly anyone, or they have some kind of pre-filter in place. If it is discovered that they have a pre-filter in place then it will most likely null and void thier DMCA status and they will now be responsible for every clip on that site and anyone who has stuff on there that they don't want on there will be lining up to sue them.
|
paul tried to make this arguement before and i proved it was wrong
even if they have pre-filtering for porn does not mean that DMCA would be null and void.
Anyone with eyes can tell the difference between porn and not porn. If you see the naughty bits it can be blocked.
Despite the fact that viacom has some very expensive lawyers they have sent take down notices to things that were ruled fair use
http://www.eff.org/cases/moveon-brav...films-v-viacom
Quote:
|
Viacom initially denied sending the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice that resulted in the removal of the video from YouTube, while saying it had no objection to "Stop the Falsiness." However, Viacom later conceded it was the source of the demand and admitted error in taking action against the parody.
|
which means if viacom own lawyers can't get it right then there is no way to expect every day grunts to get it right even though they are smart enough to tell the difference between porn and not porn.
Fair use would require highly qualified lawyer to review each and every video before it was uploaded and that would be cost prohibitive.
Quote:
Much the same can be said about a torrent site. some argue that they have no real knowledge of what is on the site. I disagree. I think they just use that as a cover. They sell ads on the site. They look at the site. They have to at least be moderately aware of what is on there. If somehow they aren't then this poses a good question. Should a site that allows and encourages illegal activity be allowed to exist?
|
telling the difference between fair use and infringement is not an easy thing. Look at how hard people are arguing what isn't and is fair use.
you yourself ignored all of the court created fair use rights even though they are just as valid as the original explictly defined ones.