This is no different than what Google/Yahoo/Blinkx do/did and is defensible. The case is nothing more than copyright trolling.

QFT.

i have no dog in this fight and hope it comes to an amicable end for both parties.

that being said, even if he is crawling other sites to get the content and streaming it off their server, thus "publishing" it in some manor... how is that any different then what google of msn video search features do?

Has Google or Bing embedded (published) Private's copyrighted content? If not, then this is irrelevant. They're going after boneprone because HE published THEIR content. What other sites do with other people's content is outside the scope of this particular lawsuit.

BP is much cheaper to fight with ;)

Party breaker :1orglaugh

+ that. :)

Don't kick them until they're really down ...

The voice of Reason

i thought you knew how to use google?

https://www.google.com/search?q=miss...ient=firefox-a

looks like i can watch the latest update on private.com/movies/ right there on google.com, took 5 seconds of time to find.

what other people do with other peoples content is in fact a matter of this lawsuit, being foreign i know you don't understand american law. we have precedent, and im pretty sure this exact topic has already been argued in US courts.

then again, i havent read the entire complaint, so its possible DMCA notices were ignored, in which case. he is fucked. Oregon is an interesting venue as well, i wonder how tech savvy their courts are.

"your honor, I'm not guilty because google is doing it too"

lets see how far that defense gets you. :1orglaugh

Definitely related:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...mAhrBgvNA3Qx4N

...and if they can do it once, they can do it again?
http://www.xbiz.com/news/143806

Shouldn't Mike South be in here with all the background on Private's numerous lawsuits, both ongoing and recent?

They're on quite a run aren't they?

i think it might come down to what the url of the page you are viewing is when you watch the movie. There's a BIG difference between a link and an embed.

if you embed, the URL is YOUR site. Google does not embed movies to my knowledge. Google does embed images though, all be it thumbnails. Although I see no ads (other then links to other google services) on the google image pages, only links to the site the image came from...... which means no financial incentive to sue google for linking to that image and all traffic for that image goes to the site that posted it. You could sue them, but there's no real reason to sue as they are sending you free traffic.

an embedded movie is different. you are on the Tube's URL and seeing the tube's ads, the person providing the movie gets none of the revenue from that, and the traffic exists solely because of the movie. it's wrong and theft if there is no permission to use the movie.

what the law says may be different though.... That's my logic process on it

I'm guessing Image Search has, once or twice.

Outside the scope/sets precedent. Tomato/tomato.

Google doesn't embed (publish) the content, only links to it.

I am yet to hear anyone complaining about Google Images making a dent in their bottom line. You basically need to run a lot of searches in order to get even half-a-set of related pics, in which case a TGP would be much more suitable for that very purpose.

AFAIK there is no precedent, in terms of a lawsuit against Google, Bing et al. There are, however, a bunch of precedents of adult sites being sued successfully, or settling out of court. Again, boneprone is a very easy target and the only thing about this lawsuit that surprises me is that it didn't come about five years ago.

Google/Perfect 10:

The court adopted the “server test" and held that a site that in-line links to another does not itself “display” the content for copyright purposes. Among the reasons given for its determination is that the "server test" is more technologically appropriate and better reflects the reality of how content travels over the Internet.

Further, it viewed the "server test" as liability “neutral.” Application of the test doesn’t invite infringing activities by search engines, nor does it preclude all liability. It would, more narrowly, “preclude search engines from being held directly liable for in-line linking and/or framing infringing content stored on third-party websites.”

Everyone debating linking/embedding/hosting... it's smoke and mirrors.


Look at the WHY. ;)

What part of links is so difficult to understand?

Linking != publishing.

Embedding = publishing.

If Manwin would hurry up and buy them, that would settle this... :winkwink:

Leave it to Jesus H Christ to figure it out. :thumbsup

The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that using an entire image as a thumbnail falls under fair use, which is where Google cover's it's own ass (and probably with the no ads thing, too). I guess by that, if you use a thumbnail on your tube and then link to the actual page where the video is hosted, you may be OK. That's linking with a fair use image to the content rather than embedding.

How Google shows the larger image may be a problem, but if you look at the URL on Google, it is a Google domain, but the actual URL of the image itself is also in the domain ... and if you click the image it takes you to the page where it is. That part is tricky, so I don't know where that would fall.

This will be an interesting case for everyone with an Internet business to follow. Since Boneprone is claiming to have few assets, I imagine the chance of this settling out of court like so many other cases are slim so there may be an actual decision.

The "and framing" bit you conveniently left out of the quote!

According to you. The courts say otherwise.

Well, we'll see about that one. Framing a page still leaves the content published on that very page, on a different domain. Embedding a video publishes it on the very site embedding it. Sure, at this point both you and I are speculating as to which of these will be used by the judge. There's a precedent set for "framing", but none for "embedding" and I'm not sure the court will agree to them being the exact same thing. Only one way to find out though. :)

Again, no court has ruled on "embedding", only on "framing". It remains to be seen whether they will find the two to be equivalent.

Precedent matters, yes -- but only to the extent that the facts of the case which produced that precedent are actually on-point with respect to the facts of the instant case.

Do you think it's possible that the court might find a substantive difference between a site like Google, which returns algorithmic search results based on queries submitted by third parties, and a site that specifically scrapes sexually-explicit material, and only sexually-explicit material, without any need for input from third parties at all?

I think it's possible the court will see a fundamental distinction there. As your second paragraph above notes, the court said the server test precludes search engines from being held directly liable; whatever else it might be, it is my understanding that boneprone.com is not a search engine.

If the court had stated it as "preclude user-generated content sites" instead of "search engines," I think you'd have a better argument that the precedent is on-point here. I think the court meant for the scope of its holding to apply quite specifically to search engines, and not to just any site that links to/displays visual depictions.

It's also my understanding that the sites at issue in this case do not have a registered DMCA agent, nor do they offer the contact information for such an agent. If you want your site(s) to benefit from the safe harbor delineated under section 512, not designating an agent for those sites might not be the wisest course of action.

You should get a law degree. You'd probably sail through the bar exam.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...sp=-1&sk=#x0y0

you can watch the videos without ever leaving bing

The ruling was that they would apply the "server test", which server the content was hosted on, as opposed to the "incorporation test", as in where it _looks_ like the content was hosted. This is very important.

All very possible and of course the devil is in these details. But my interpretation is that the sites were operating as SE's and not at all as UGCs, certainly in the context of the case.

We can all only hope they won't rule any differently in the favor of either party just because the content was exclusively explicit.

Don't get me wrong; from where I sit, the significance of the sites being porn-specific in this case isn't rooted in the nature of the content itself -- it's the specificity of the selection that I think is very different from what a search engine does.

If the landing pages of the sites at issue in this case had a search field on them, and nothing else, and content was only displayed following the entry of a search query, I think Perfect 10 v. Google would be directly on-point. In this case, the sites aren't displaying content by returning search results, they are scraping videos from third party sites based on criteria that was (presumably) set by the operator of the site.

That's what I think the court will find significant, and very different from the facts at hand in Perfect 10 v. Google. It doesn't matter that the specific material is porn; it could be specifically clips from cooking shows, and the principle would be the same. The site operator has made a conscious choice to display a particular kind of content, and unless I'm mistaken, with respect to the sites in this case, the same content is displayed by default to every visitor who lands on those sites. That's just not at all what a search engine is/does, so I'm not persuaded that precedent pertaining to search engines will be relevant to the court.

I could be completely wrong, of course. Maybe the court won't see the relevant precedent as being limited to search engines, or maybe it will see the sites at issue as being more analogous to Google than I do.

Naturally, all of the above only matters if this case ever gets far enough along in its adjudication that the court actually hears any of the arguments, which it may well not. Most cases settle out of court, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this one settle before the court reaches any questions of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NinjaVideo

Looks like there's a chance of boneprone becoming Bubba's new girlfriend.

But shouldn't cooking search engines be equally protected? I don't think having a SE limited exclusively to broad category of content should be enough but there are certainly levels of manual input that could be troublesome.

The presentation certainly looked like a SE, search box, results, etc. There was categorized sponsor hosted content too though which may make that less obvious.

That's a good point about genre-specific search engines, although I'd still say that the sites at issue don't really qualify as being that, either. To me, having a search function on a site does not make that site a 'search engine,' but as I said before, there's no telling whether the court would come to the same conclusion.

We'll just have to see how it all plays out -- if it plays out at all, that is. It might result in a quiet settlement that goes by with a lot less fanfare than the original filing of the complaint.

I'm curious, I have seen "legal" mainstream sites that use the youtube API as their source of video content. Basically making a site out of embedded youtube videos, leaving it to youtube to handle the hosting and copyrite screening. Isn't he doing kindof the same thing?

I like how they made them pay back the proceeds. If the government ever gets off their ass and goes after some of those in our industry it would be nice if they were made to do the same thing.

wow... mind you, i see no ads on that page, and it's a tiny thumbnail movie. to really see the video you have to go to the site hosting it

"legal"?

it's all fun and games until you set up such a site, post a competitor's copyrighted youtube video and display it and get noticed and they realize you have a house or other assets and decide to sue you

leaving it to youtube to "copyright screen" is no excuse

just because youtube hosts a video and has an ability thereon to embed that video, doesn't take away the rights of the copyright holder. because the video is user uploaded, youtube is protected by dmca, but if you embed (publish) that video on your site by your own actions as a site owner, you are responsible for that publishing, how do you expect dmca to apply to you when you are the one displaying the copyrighted material on your site?

just like if someone uploads a stolen video on youtube, youtube is protected because of dmca, but the person that uploaded that video to youtube is not protected at all, and can be sued :2 cents:

Rich people's problems...

On some people's theory, I should be allowed to have a room in my house (video embed page) where a drug dealer (illegal tube) is selling drugs (streaming video), and I can even promote my house (my website) as the place to come and buy drugs, (watch embedded videos) but as long as the drug dealer is selling it in my room and not me directly, even though I take a cut (illegal tubes pay for hits or embed views), then in some people's mind it should be completely legal for me to do so?

I suppose you could however make the argument that the drug dealer told you he was selling candy and not drugs though.

Whatever, sucks to be you BP.

For the sake of argument. How does one, who is grabbing embed links, know if the video is infringing or not?

odd how that was won and then tucker owed eisenberg half a mill or something a few months later... what REALLY happened there?

how do you take someones company in a settlement, then owe then half a mill on a personal note a few months later?

edit: i was referring to tucker's company taking "porn kings" out. only read headline on that link, my BAD.

either way, the Falcon Foto v Aeroweb, and Aeroweb et al V Falfon Foto, are interesting cases.

food for thought.

you, normally i ignore you. but yes that is a valid defense, to point out selective prosecution. however, my main point was that i seem to recall this has already been argued and precedent is set.

But the copyright holder agrees to allow the embedding of their video on other sites through YouTubes terms of service or has the ability to block embedding through permissions in their control panel. YouTube actually encourages the use this ability.
https://developers.google.com/youtub...e_applications

how does any other search engine or aggregate data provider know? they don't, they are merely a service provider. linking to infringing data is not illegal, last i knew using/streaming it wasn't even illegal. ONLY hosting/possessing it is.

But Private.com does not. Capiche?

someone has to keep the lawyers from starving. business is bad in the real world, they are after us now.

Kinda enjoying the irony that the guy who spent over a decade trying to make everyone believe he was a big baller now has to convince a judge and jury that he has nothing but debt.

better to convince judge do no crime

Good luck Boneprone

I wonder if this is still on
http://graphics.penthouse.com/images...p4l_flyer2.png