![]() |
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.
|
Have you looked at phash?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
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. |
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
ps, sorry abbywinters.com, I downloaded your video from a tube for research purposes....(see img above) ;) |
Quote:
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:
Of course if it was total bullshit and there was a potential liability then insurance would kill such an offering. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Just reading up on them, and I don't see how they ignored their own country's process: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How were they fucked over again? |
Quote:
Quote:
which means the court would not have been able to force them to do shit. |
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 05:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123