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?

of course, but that's images...

from DMCA safe harbor (thanks Allison):

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?

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

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:

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) ;)

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.




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.



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.

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


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?

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.




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.

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.