Biggy

For the content producers, do you actually take the time to register your copyrights. I'll explain the significance of this later on, but I am curious - how many of you invest the time to register every piece of media you launch?

What this really means is you take all the videos and pictures you release in updates, mail it into washington, dc - and actually apply for a registered copyright. do you this? yes or no.

Mutt

no. unless i actually plan to sue somebody it's a waste of time.

can you register content before it's published live on the net?

__________________

Mutt

business thread alert - KEEP AWAY PEOPLE!!!

__________________

Far-L

Sorry, don't agree. It is the most important thing a content owner can do and should be done as just an ordinary course of business.

Mutt... frankly I am surprised you would say that given that you are always so spirited about copyright in all those tube threads, etc.

__________________

Biggy

have you ever actually sued someone for copyright infringement?

Mutt

no, that's why i said i don't register copyrights because if i'm not going to sue anybody it's a waste of time - the purpose of registering copyright is that it qualifies you for statuatory damages should you prevail in your case and statuatory damages are much greater, up to 7-8K per infringement and one thumbnail alone is one infringement.

copyright infringement lawsuits like any lawsuit are expensive AND there's always a good chance the infringer will have no assets by the time the suit is over.

__________________

Mutt

lawsuits against tubes and file sharing operations are for people with deep pockets, we still haven't seen one go the distance to a jury or judge, the DMCA's safe harbor is a tough nut to crack - Corbin Fisher's legal bills were $250,000 for their suit against Oron, without even going to trial.

When CBS/Viacom sued YouTube/Google for copyright infringement they had what I thought was smoking gun evidence, emails between YouTube's owners admitting that they needed to keep uploading copyrighted videos from the most popular shows to keep driving traffic. The lawsuit went nowhere, I think the judge ran CBS/Viacom out of court.

__________________

Grapesoda

atk does

Biggy

$250k sounds high but no doubt litigation is expensive. They also enforced a judgement of $550k. If CF's bills were $250k, what do you think Oron's bills were? It takes two to tango and both sides spend lots of $$ on lawyers...Without their registrations none of this would have never happened. Without your registrations, you are inviting people to steal from you without any true or real recourse. I would say that the Oron case is a wonderful example of how someone who properly registers their marks, can successfully enforce protection of their content, against an offshore site that is clearly marked for piracy, and fully collect as well... I'd say it's a great case in point and further motivation why all content producers should take the time to register their copyrights, and why people who knowingly look the other way on piracy should be very concerned.

A comparison between YouTube / Google and our business isn't fair. Our business is adult-content only. How many users are actually uploading material they have the rights to disemminate (this would ostensibly mean content they produce or license themselves!), whereas in YouTube, they could certainly make that argument, that users did have legitimate content they were uploading and piracy was a byproduct. This is a big function of YouTube, amateur content. Can adult sites with user uploads really claim the same thing, while also suggesting they had no idea their site was being used for piracy? Most of the user uploads I see are from studios. I would say in reality, a site with 100% user uploads is a site with 99% infringed material? Assumng what I say is true in any given example, could you imagine how that would play out if it did go the distance. That would mean the defending party, would be dragged through the legal process, and mount a defense on trying to explain it could not have known 99% of its site was infringing material. I would think there would be a surplus of evidence for one party, and a real lack of evidence for the other.

Also, it's hard for me to find blatant copyright infringement on YouTube. Because if people want to run a clean show they can. The ones that don't, they know deep inside what they are doing, it's not a hidden secret. It's obvious, particularly in this business. And we all talk about it in the open, because we all know its going on.