Biggy |
02-06-2013 12:37 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutt
(Post 19449837)
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.
|
$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.
|