Quote:
Originally Posted by stocktrader23
Yes, yes it is. It is exactly what is covered by safe harbor and exemptions. Ever seen a music video on YouTube? The whole problem is from them supposedly uploading content themselves. Where do you people come up with these off the wall ideas of how this all works?
|
Youtube is different.
1. Grooveshark sorts content by artists/albums/genres, they even have album covers database, all built into their script, which is specifically designed to "share" music that way. No way you can argue them being a mere neutral storage of bandwidth provider when they build their site with such an obvious targeting.
Youtube has none of the above, aside from search by tags and titles, and some automatic "relevant" suggestions, they have no categorization tools. They're pretty much upload what you want and name and tag it however you want. They're not urging users to upload any title specifically because it is missing after it was taken down by copyright holder, which grooveshark does.
2. Youtube implements digital fingerprinting which is darn effective. They can fingerprint your video (and audio too) if you so wish after you sent them DMCA take down request, or you can fingerprint your whole content library instead of hunting down individual clips, which puts you in complete control of what's going on with your intellectual property at youtube. No reupload tricks will work, DFP would not let them through.
Grooveshark doesn't implement DFP, which is of itself outrageous nowadays when that technology is mature enough to provide practically meaningful results in preventing copyright infringment. They go way beyond that, they maintain meta descriptions library of almost all music in the world, where all entries remain in place even after they receive take down requests. It simply shows that some track is missing now and encourages users to reupload this specific track again, despite them knowing copyright holder does not want it there. How's that neutral, how's that not encouraging infringment? That of itself is enough to make them liable. If they go even further and upload some of the missing tracks themselves because they do not want to wait when their lazy users will do that, that makes matters worse for them of course, much worse, but even without that there's more than enough evidence of them willingly assisting and being an active part of copyright infringment.