Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie
More ill-conceived nonsense. Do you even think about what you write before you write it?
An ISP clearly has no direct benefit from its users uploading to torrents. The YouTube/Viacom (learn to spell the company's name at least) case was completely different. Google is smart enough to put ads only on content from a verified source. They don't have an affiliate scheme that pays people to upload.
|
yes they do, you can share in the advertising revenue from poste videos.
You may not agree with the wording of the DMCA, but the bad comes with the good. The law exempts safe harbor to service providers if they receive a
direct monetary benefit, and they have (as all file sharing companies do) the ability to individually control what content is made available from their servers.
[/QUOTE]
no they don't they INDIRECTLY profit from piracy
the fact is that hotfiles makes exactly the same amount of money per download if i put up a movie as a PARODY of a movie.
that the point there is no 1:1 relationsip between dollars and piracy
that what the court have repeatedly recongized as the limit need to void the safe harbor provision.
Quote:
|
These file sharing companies have taken off because RapidShare (wisely) no longer offers an incentive to infringe. When they ceased their per-download affiliate payment model, precisely because of the potential for loss of safe harbor, the ill-informed hosters jumped in to fill the void. Now that their businesses have grown to something worth protecting, you watch: they'll either change their business model, or be sued to the last dime they have.
|
right and how many of your previous predictions have come true?