Quote:
Originally Posted by Why
i thought you knew how to use google?
https://www.google.com/search?q=miss...ient=firefox-a
looks like i can watch the latest update on private.com/movies/ right there on google.com, took 5 seconds of time to find.
what other people do with other peoples content is in fact a matter of this lawsuit, being foreign i know you don't understand american law. we have precedent, and im pretty sure this exact topic has already been argued in US courts.
then again, i havent read the entire complaint, so its possible DMCA notices were ignored, in which case. he is fucked. Oregon is an interesting venue as well, i wonder how tech savvy their courts are. |
i think it might come down to what the url of the page you are viewing is when you watch the movie. There's a BIG difference between a link and an embed.
if you embed, the URL is YOUR site. Google does not embed movies to my knowledge. Google does embed images though, all be it thumbnails. Although I see no ads (other then links to other google services) on the google image pages, only links to the site the image came from...... which means no financial incentive to sue google for linking to that image and all traffic for that image goes to the site that posted it. You could sue them, but there's no real reason to sue as they are sending you free traffic.
an embedded movie is different. you are on the Tube's URL and seeing the tube's ads, the person providing the movie gets none of the revenue from that, and the traffic exists solely because of the movie. it's wrong and theft if there is no permission to use the movie.
what the law says may be different though.... That's my logic process on it
__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!
Now read without the word dog.
|