04-11-2012, 06:19 PM
|
|
|
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
Quote:
[W]hen a user bookmarks or posts a video on myVidster, he essentially directs myVidster to ?embed? a video clip on its site. When a user submits a video to be posted on myVidster, myVidster ?crawls? the website that hosts the video, gets information about that video file, and creates a thumbnail image of the video if one is not already available.5 MyVidster then ?embeds? the video on its site, allowing it to be displayed there. MyVidster does not simply link to video files displayed on another site; it embeds the files on its own site at the direction of users.
5/ In other words, The thumbnail image is hosted on myVidster?s servers. (June Tr. 66.)
Case: 1:10-cv-06517 Document #: 77 Filed: 07/27/11 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:1394 - 4 -
when a visitor to myVidster clicks on a video that is posted there, the video plays directly on myVidster, and the visitor remains on the myVidster site; he or she is not taken to the site that hosts the video file. ...
|
Now I haven't had the opportunity to read the brief filed by Google but by this part of the TSO it was not motivated by the embedding of the errant youtube user posting ... There are parallels to Google Images here ... Facebook's issue should be obvious.
Trusting a Court to make common sense rulings I have found from experience often to be wishful thinking -- especially the lower courts.
This whole subject caught my own interest as we have just launched a mainstream social media mobile video sharing website. I would like to find the Facebook "friend of the court" brief as it might be somewhat relevant to our situation -- notwithstanding our domicile and the location of our servers (not in USA Territory). However, a US Court ruling might influence the Dutch Court's opinion on these matters and that would be of concern to us. |
|
|