|
Veoh wins copyright suit, sets precedent
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 29 August, 2008
In a decision that should bode well for larger video sharing sites that are in legal trouble such as YouTube, a federal judge has absolved Veoh of any responsibility in the unauthorized posting of copyrighted video clips.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd threw out the copyright infringement lawsuit brought forward by Io Group, the adult video maker. Veoh is a site that streams ad-supported ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. August 2008 @ 16:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good but its still unfair that can have non infringing clips removed just cus' they say so, there needs to be a hard definition of what clips are.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
29. August 2008 @ 18:13 |
Link to this message
|
Sponge bob, wow common man. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart your joking right.
why is this world filled with Dumb-Asses.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. August 2008 @ 18:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DXR88:
Sponge bob, wow common man. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart your joking right.
why is this world filled with Dumb-Asses.
But but but...sponge bob and the daily show are funny....
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
30. August 2008 @ 05:46 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Good but its still unfair that can have non infringing clips removed just cus' they say so, there needs to be a hard definition of what clips are.
The thing is that even a 20 second clip put up on the TV returns royalties so fair use is evil. but there is hope.
Fair use comes first in web video
Dancing baby sets legal landmark Quote:
A video of a dancing baby has led to a landmark decision regarding the handling of internet videos.
As part of the ruling in the Lenz v. Universal case, US Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that content holders must consider the fair use premise before sending takedown notices to video sites.
Fair use allows a person legally to use a piece of copyrighted material if the product is used for a short period of time and is not used for any commercial purposes.
Civil rights groups have long complained that the premise is not taken into account when copyright owners issue takedown notices under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
"Given the 'shoot first and ask questions later' approach some content owners take to the DMCA notice process, improper takedowns of non-infringing fair uses are all too common," said the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"We are very pleased that Judge Fogel has put content owners on notice: ignore fair use at your peril."
Back on topic, youtube was already removing all content flagged by Viacom but maybe Viacom employees were getting bored of trolling through page after page to rout out all infringing content day after day and they wanted to pass the bill onto someone else, much like what the riaa/mpaa are doing with the dream wish of making copy write infringement a criminal offence.
respect to Judge Howard Lloyd for not being a tool to the media industry and using his cognitive processes.
ALL WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO VIACOM VS YOU = BOYCOTT
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. August 2008 @ 06:00
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 06:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
13thHouR
Last I check posting a clip under commentary/parody/ect is fair use thus is protected from CP trolls.
|
|
DoomLight
Junior Member
|
30. August 2008 @ 11:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
i guess youtube should suspend all uploads. since they have to check everything people upload so they wont get sued cause YOU wanted to UPLOAD something some CORPORATION owns
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 22:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DoomLight:
i guess youtube should suspend all uploads. since they have to check everything people upload so they wont get sued cause YOU wanted to UPLOAD something some CORPORATION owns
What don't corporations own?
|
|
sclgwhite
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
1. September 2008 @ 14:05 |
Link to this message
|
In my country-boy mind, copyright laws are simply to protect creator identity and revenue. On an intellectual level, a creator wants maximum exposure of identity when connected to a respected creation. On a revenue level, the creation owner should receive every penny that the creation generates as a result of the owner's investment of money and time. That means that it is wrong for me to sell or give away a copy of the creation that will actually (not potentially) deprive the owner of the income that would have been received from that sale I circumvented. This understanding of the intent of the law springs from my own morality, and is the instrument I use to decide whether or not to post a copyrighted work. Will my posting satisfy a consumer's desire and stop an actual purchase? If so, then I am wrong to post it. If not, nobody has been hurt by my posting, and perhaps it may even generate a desire to purchase a song, video, or movie. My fuzzy clip from Night Court could result in someone buying a season or the entire series of Night Court. Universal Music Group seems to agree with me, as they authorized my posting of one of their videos. All I had to do was agree that they could place a small ownership identity beside the video, and approve of their tracking viewership, etc. You may view it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-XXgXl7iM
You will plainly see my respect for creators and performers, especially if you read my comments. Warning: it is very country.
|
|
Tashammer
Newbie
|
1. September 2008 @ 19:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
The thing about copyright is the need to be fair, yes? So far we have direct copiers, websites that hold copyrighted material - but that wasn't enough so they went after we sites that pointed to copyright material (no doubt the rationale being the same one that says maps which show the whereabouts of a banks location are inciting bank robbery, airports locations assisting skyjacking; and store, post offices, shops, homes in fact anything at all are inciting to rob, thieve etc etc. But wait what about hard drives, computers, electricity, metal ore, mining, digging, having fingers and eyes. Is there no end to this flagrant breech of copyright or incitement to breech by providing avenues etc.
It must be that the whole planet is in breach!
Wait a minute, who has copyright on planets and moons? Does the Sun? How about the planets?
|
|
vijayman
Suspended permanently
|
1. September 2008 @ 20:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
What would this judgment means to Youtube and its lawsuits?
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
2. September 2008 @ 05:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by vijayman:
What would this judgment means to Youtube and its lawsuits?
It will help their case as far as the safe harbour doctrine within fair use (USA DMCA) applies, which protects web sites from content uploaded from users.
viacom one of the scum bag mpaa members, are trying to sue youtube but really they should go after the individual uploader but then that's a lot of court cases!
viacom just wanted to set a president by suing the site to make it easier to shut down whatever they want, to kill the ability for ppl to bypass MPAA distribution the same as the MPAA/RIAA rhetoric against bittorrent.
RIAA:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Universal Music Group
# Warner Music Group
# EMI
MPAA:
# The Walt Disney Company
# Sony Pictures
# Paramount Pictures Viacom?(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. September 2008 @ 05:16
|
|
georgeluv
Member
1 product review
|
1. January 2009 @ 13:30 |
Link to this message
|
its funny that the legal limbo of your warez site rests on the judges interpretation of "promtly". they really need to define that shit better.
if it was my warez site i would have a crew of only like 3 dudes, wed only work 3 days a week, wed friday. that way all the pirates could upload shit on friday night and it would be there for 5 days.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. January 2009 @ 13:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Currently copy right eautes mostly to distribution and givees the rights holder to much power, what we need is a move away from distribution and focus solely on profits in effect changing copy rights to profit rights.
|
