Quote:
Originally Posted by xenigo
"Due to litigation, some tubes are legally bound..."
Can you elaborate on this litigation? I don't know why litigation would require some to remove and some to cut down the length of the content... Aren't content owners the only ones who dictate the licensing terms?
|
Litigation occurred between PinkVisual and various tubes. As a portion of the settlement agreements, the tubes agreed to use digital fingerprint filtering as a way to help prevent infringement on user generated content. They had the right to decide which program (truncate or remove).
Despite the fact that this was litigation only between PinkVisual and another party, all of those tubes agreed to apply the filtering on any fingerprints in the database, which means all other content owners. Content owners can decide to go beyond the 3 minutes.
The truncate program was negotiated by the FSC as a way to make filtering technology more affordable since it typically costs tens of thousands of dollars a month. As you can see from the results of both increased legal pressure, and making the technology more accessible, more tubes have volunteered to participate and have successfully been using the technology for several months.
So given current realities, the choices for a content owner are:
1) Do nothing, let the content stay up and keep going up, maybe send some DMCA's
2) Participate in fingerprinting, get content removed or at a minimum truncated to 3 minutes seamlessly at the moment of upload and on all existing content that's on the tubes. Generate some advertising revenue off truncated videos.
3) Litigate and make their own agreements or establish case law.
This technology has been around and effective for a while. The adult content owners are significantly behind on their implementation of this technology while it has been a standard for the major mainstream studios for quite a while.