Allison: thanks a lot for the clarification on the above-noted points. The media wise program seems to have been overshadowed/forgotten while the tracking aspect (the one with the fees attached) has been the primary focus -- at least on my part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan
One remark regarding 4)
If anyone did a tube that way, ie downloaded content from torrents and such and put it up, OR even if they just scraped other tubes in an automated way, they are NOT protected by DMCA!
Implementing the fingerprinting tech at that point does not help them either.
|
Well, the person doing this would certainly never admit to uploading the videos. But to not recognize this is happening with a lot of tubes I think would be naive at best. Between remote uploaders, proxies, foreign IP's attached to inhouse user accounts, and other assorted methods, to insulate themselves against claims that would remove them from DMCA protection. Thus, "claiming" it was user uploads would put the burden of proof back on the person claiming the infringement.
As a result, it seems as though one could certainly start a tube in this manner, gain some marketshare, join the protection scheme, claim they are going legit, and then get paid to protect content producers as a supplementary revenue stream.
Granted, I have no intention of tossing my hat into the tube ring anytime soon. But it seems to me that this protection scheme provides a financial incentive, beyond advertising revenues and traffic sales, for people to start tubes en masse using unauthorized content with the ultimate goal of getting paid to protect content owners from themselves.
It's an interesting scenario.