Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
I've got a quick question (well.. ok, a few questions, technically) for you, not related to this case or decision, but related to tube sites and their conduct, generally, and the legal disposition thereof.
Is it your position that a tube site operator who knowingly and willfully uploads content that he has no rights/license to (or has one of his employees, agents or assigns do so on his behalf) is engaging in activity covered by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA? Or is it your contention that they are engaging in "fair use" of said content? Or is it your position that in those circumstances, the behavior in question would constitute infringement, either direct or contributory?
For the purposes of this hypothetical, let's assume the content uploaded is full, unedited scenes ripped from either DVDs or websites.
Just curious. It seems to me that there are limits to both fair use and the extent of the DMCA safe harbor provisions, and I'm just wondering if you also think there are such limits.
IMO, one of those limits is that the safe harbor protection is out the window if you knowingly and willfully upload the content yourself. At that point, it is my opinion that you are also engaged in activity that would trigger the need to comply with 2257, assuming you and/or your company have a "U.S. nexus," to put it in the language that Chuck Joyner of the FBI used when I interviewed him on the subject a couple years back.
- Q.
|
i suggest you look at my previous post
i have repeatedly said if you have proof that the site owner is uploading the stuff themselves it infringement.
but that not the level of evidence pornlaw is talking about getting even though this case did produce proof that was within a hairs breath of that level.
this case is not the precedent setter that pornlaw claims it is, in fact it just another example of a proven infringer trying unsuccessfully to hide behind the safe harbor.