GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Would you check user uploaded videos against a copyrighted "do not use" list if you could? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1058209)

k0nr4d 02-20-2012 04:52 AM

How this hurts safe harbour I really don't see to be honest. It's still user uploads, it's still not manually inspected (and if the TOS on a site states that you can only upload if you are the IP owner or have rights to do so, then the site is assuming the users are not violating the terms of service), and you are applying a filter to look for copyrighted content. This could probably even be used as a defense that you made the best effort possible to filter content.

xJerk 02-20-2012 02:04 PM

Have you looked at phash?

borked 02-20-2012 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xJerk (Post 18771064)
Have you looked at phash?

of course, but that's images...

borked 02-20-2012 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18769336)

then you would have to be a world class moron to give up the 100% safety of safe harbor for this solution.

from DMCA safe harbor (thanks Allison):

Quote:

512i

i) Conditions for Eligibility.—
(1) Accommodation of technology.— The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
(2) Definition.— As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and—
(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.
The tube software author and tube owner can cover 1A+B

I think this thread (tube users) and the other thread (content owners) cover 2A,

This being a free service covers 2B

and the agreed hosting provider for the service will cover 2C

all bases covered no?

mynameisjim 02-20-2012 02:29 PM

I would agree, this wouldn't open you up to any liability as long as it was automated. If this was actually brought to court it would show a good faith effort to follow the spirit of the law which is the opposite of what Gideon usually argues, that being following the letter of the law but knowingly violating the spirit of it.

But why would a false positive even result in legal action? A user doesn't have a civil right that entitles them to have their uploaded porn video displayed on a privately owned tube. Nothing in the original post talks about taking legal action when a video is flagged. So false positives have no place in this discussion.

This is NOT a censorship issue. Not allowing a user uploaded video to be displayed on a privately owned tube is not a free speech, censorship, or discrimination issue. You can use the TOS to say that anyone agreeing to use the tube understands their video is subject to automated approval before being displayed or not.

There is no liability for false positives and the eHarmony suit has no relevance here. Sexual orientation is a protected class in many states, that's why eHarmony choosing to refuse gays or lesbians was violation of state law and not something they could legally deny via a TOS.

Fletch XXX 02-20-2012 02:31 PM

it takes about two seconds to realize what paysite vids come from these days.

lol

its not rocket science... half the vids have urls in em lol

borked 02-20-2012 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX (Post 18771114)
it takes about two seconds to realize what paysite vids come from these days.

lol

its not rocket science... half the vids have urls in em lol

Right :thumbsup And take 100 still frames of those videos, and create a composite overlay and the video blurs away into a dark fuzzy background, leaving the URL/logo prominently visible for logo recognition... been there, done that, too easy :winkwink:

borked 02-20-2012 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked (Post 18771137)
been there, done that, too easy :winkwink:

http://borkedcoder.com/images/gfy/logo_detect.png

ps, sorry abbywinters.com, I downloaded your video from a tube for research purposes....(see img above) ;)

gideongallery 02-20-2012 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 18771111)
I would agree, this wouldn't open you up to any liability as long as it was automated. If this was actually brought to court it would show a good faith effort to follow the spirit of the law which is the opposite of what Gideon usually argues, that being following the letter of the law but knowingly violating the spirit of it.

Tell that to mininova they obeyed the american DMCA and ignored their own countries process

They lost the safe harbor protection of their country and didn't gain the american version so they were fucked over because they decided NOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

Same basic principle here.




Quote:

But why would a false positive even result in legal action? A user doesn't have a civil right that entitles them to have their uploaded porn video displayed on a privately owned tube. Nothing in the original post talks about taking legal action when a video is flagged. So false positives have no place in this discussion.



This is NOT a censorship issue. Not allowing a user uploaded video to be displayed on a privately owned tube is not a free speech, censorship, or discrimination issue. You can use the TOS to say that anyone agreeing to use the tube understands their video is subject to automated approval before being displayed or not.
If that were true the product liability insurance for this a service would be dirt cheap

Of course if it was total bullshit and there was a potential liability then insurance would kill such an offering.


Quote:

There is no liability for false positives and the eHarmony suit has no relevance here. Sexual orientation is a protected class in many states, that's why eHarmony choosing to refuse gays or lesbians was violation of state law and not something they could legally deny via a TOS.

easy way to prove who is right, try and get product liability insurance for the service

if it dirt cheap your right, if it not your wrong.

That why i asked about insurance and who accept the liability for false positives.

If your correct borked could buy insurance dirt cheap and say i accept all liablities for false positives knowing that the insurance will cover those liablities.

borked 02-21-2012 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18771411)
Tell that to mininova they obeyed the american DMCA and ignored their own countries process

They lost the safe harbor protection of their country and didn't gain the american version so they were fucked over because they decided NOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

Same basic principle here.

???
Just reading up on them, and I don't see how they ignored their own country's process:


Quote:

In May 2009, the Dutch copyright enforcement organization BREIN started a civil procedure against Mininova demanding that Mininova filter torrent files pointing to copyrighted works. During the proceedings, Mininova stated that it was not feasible for the site to identify such files, but said that it would remove torrent files that BREIN identified as infringing copyright. On May 6, 2009, Mininova began a trial of a content recognition system, which was intended to remove any torrents that were flagged as infringing copyright.
Quote:

Later this month (May, 2009) BREIN hopes to convince the court that Mininova has to filter its search results, so that all .torrent files which may point to unauthorized content are removed. Up until now, Mininova refused to interfere with the search results, claiming that the DMCA take-down procedure they have is good enough.
Quote:

On August 26, 2009, the court in Utrecht ruled that Mininova should remove all torrent files pointing to copyrighted material within three months or face damages of up to ?5 million.[11]

On November 26, 2009, Mininova announced that it could not find a foolproof filtering system against copyrighted content, and limited its platform to Content Distribution torrents only, in compliance with the ruling of the Utrecht court. This resulted in more than 99.3% of the torrents on the site being removed. As a consequence, the website traffic dropped by 66% in a few days, and daily downloads fell down to 4% of the previous total.
So, this is a torrent that was forced by court to implement fingerprinting into their site, to which they did, but initially refused to scan their back catalogue. Hence they were forced to remove all illegal content, which they did. As a consequence they traffic dropped instantly, because that traffic was after illegal content.

How were they fucked over again?

gideongallery 02-21-2012 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked (Post 18771850)
???
Just reading up on them, and I don't see how they ignored their own country's process:

they accepted DCMA rather then telling people who sent those notices that they should file the appropriate equivalent. By definition that ignoring their own countries process.




Quote:

So, this is a torrent that was forced by court to implement fingerprinting into their site, to which they did, but initially refused to scan their back catalogue. Hence they were forced to remove all illegal content, which they did. As a consequence they traffic dropped instantly, because that traffic was after illegal content.

How were they fucked over again?
had they told them to use the appropriate equivalent they would have been entitled to safe harbor protection (like you tube... etc). The content would not have been illegal until after the take down had been filed.



which means the court would not have been able to force them to do shit.

gideongallery 02-21-2012 07:50 AM

oh and btw mininova didn't just take away "illegal" content but also took away fair use authorized and independent artist authorized stuff as well.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123