posted
...personally, I think that this law, as written is extremely far reaching, not to mention a waste of taxpayer dollars. Seizing the domain and wiping the host should suffice.
Personally, my goal is not to sue anyone. I never have, and hope that I never will. I send a DMCA and whatever site usually pulls the stolen content within 24 hours.
I know that most of you are just good hearted down to earth people, that, like me, see beauty in a different way. But things are changing, rapidly, as far as this goes, for better or worse, it is just changing extremely rapidly.
posted
Honestly suing someone is laughable because I can guarantee you that 98% of infringers dont have anything to be sued over. You're only going to be wasting attorney costs. Unless you sue a big site you're not going to be paid as many of you have the misconception. A well worded DMCA notice will usually do the job only if that fails you should consider anything else. Also quiet ridicioulous that the U.S. Government can now seize foreign domains. If they are in the u.s. Then fine but its just against anything out forefathers would have imagined that the u.s. government is seizing foreign domains. Too much power in the hands of the government. They can only seize the domain anyways because the host is physically out of the jurisdiction of the u.s. in those cases.
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"knock on wood", your right. I have never had to sue anyone and yes, usually, DMCA takes care of the issue same day.
There is a case of a lesbian website, last year that sued, and won, the owner of a torrent for a portion of the rest of his pay for the rest of his life.
This was a Canadian case. He was like 31 years old and makes about 18,000 per year. After the garnishment, which is 33 percent of his wages, he now only makes 12,000 per year. ...That extra 6k a year he is missing... Well I am sure he is missing it. At least until he has paid his 80,000.00 judgement that was awarded against him. That is not a misconception, that is fact.
Some political websites claim that they can also now be shut down because of streaming issues via youtube and vimeo. Both youtube and vimeo have stated that they are not going to go after surfers that repost via embed links below the videos. But remember that both youtube and vimeo are user driven concepts. All uploaders agree to relinquish most copyright safe harbors upon uploading, via TOS of each site.
Since Feb 1, 2011, if you get your domain seized, your host also gets wiped. Interpol makes sure of this fyi.
posted
this is all fairly pertinent information. im not making any money now, and honestly i dont plan to but i HAVE been told multiple times in the past couple weeks that i need to stop with the youtube nonsense and get paid for what im recording. especially with the amount of content im able to produce on a regular basis.
man i was peeved just to see my vid posted by someone else who wasnt making money off it... i cant tell you how id feel to see someone getting paid from my material when i put it out for free!
as far as youtube reposts, you should be able to just flag it as copyright and they remove them fairly fast. i had a perfectly fine vid of two girls and someone flagged it as inappropriate and it was removed no questions asked. im like WTF? no nudity, no underage, no music.. jus two fully clothed girls with their feet up. youtube really doesnt play around with flagging issues.
posted
oh, @ender, i hang with a lot of open-minded stereotypically care-free college age girls. i cant say i dont purposely place myself in these positions, but i really enjoy it.
i cant give u all my secrets but throw an outgoing guy like myself into a welcoming environment, add a healthy dose of charisma and top it off with some swag and you got yourself some action waiting to happen.
posted
edelbrock, you can make your videos non embeddable in your control panel. I think that would provide a pretty good solution for you from what your saying. Did you email that site?
posted
Right...got to admit, I'm not getting what this streaming shit is.
2 questions: say there's an illegally ripped film or clip or whatever given for free on Youtube and I happen to stumble across it. Am I liable or is it just the uploader?
(What if I add it to my favourites and am therefore aiding in its circulation, but I have not uploaded it?)
And does anyone have any (preferably non-legal-jargony) literature on this?
What countries does it apply to?
I'm confused. If it's just going after the uploaders, then cool. Am all for it.
quote:Since Feb 1, 2011, if you get your domain seized, your host also gets wiped. Interpol makes sure of this fyi.
Interpol has absolutely no power. They can only advise and pool information. Interpol can do absolutely nothing and it's pretty evident that most torrent sites who's domains have been seized simply redirected them to another domain and carry on. Unless the local authorities decide to make sure that the servers are wiped the Untied States can't do anything about it unless it is in their jurisdiction. Also you do not relinquish any of your copyright powers when uploading to Vimeo or Youtube. You have the option to changed to Creative Commons but otherwise you'll still retain the complete copyright. If you have an issue with your video then you can make a request to remove it if you can submit proper proof.
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I deal with content that is also available digitally, but not in the adult field. Yeah it chews me up from the inside to see people stealing, pirating and sharing products that I spent months working on especially since that part of my income is very very low already.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa: Right...got to admit, I'm not getting what this streaming shit is.
2 questions: say there's an illegally ripped film or clip or whatever given for free on Youtube and I happen to stumble across it. Am I liable or is it just the uploader?
(What if I add it to my favourites and am therefore aiding in its circulation, but I have not uploaded it?)
And does anyone have any (preferably non-legal-jargony) literature on this?
What countries does it apply to?
I'm confused. If it's just going after the uploaders, then cool. Am all for it.
quote:Since Feb 1, 2011, if you get your domain seized, your host also gets wiped. Interpol makes sure of this fyi.
Interpol has absolutely no power. They can only advise and pool information. Interpol can do absolutely nothing and it's pretty evident that most torrent sites who's domains have been seized simply redirected them to another domain and carry on. Unless the local authorities decide to make sure that the servers are wiped the Untied States can't do anything about it unless it is in their jurisdiction. Also you do not relinquish any of your copyright powers when uploading to Vimeo or Youtube. You have the option to changed to Creative Commons but otherwise you'll still retain the complete copyright. If you have an issue with your video then you can make a request to remove it if you can submit proper proof.
Again, you are incorrect on both counts. Please research these new bills and it's provisions. Also read the article I linked for Andy, click the "worries for video gamers" link in the article. You may find it interesting.
posted
I'm not sure where you're getting your info but interpol has no arrest power. They can only coordinate information. They serve as a bridge between law enforcement agencies. Please post information. Interpols issues are not with normal video and music uploads but Pharmaceutical piracy and other important areas. Uploading to youtube does not relinquish any rights you have otherwise the Studios would not upload trailers and music videos up.
This is straight from the horses mouth and not a single mention of actually Interpol physically enforcing any laws because they can't. Interpol can only coordinate and assist but not execute any actions.
Also since the agreement does not directly call for termination of service I highly doubt they will actually ever terminate a user because that's lost money for the ISP's. The MPAA and the RIAA are scumbags and thieves. They don't care about the work of the artists they are profiting of this and will keep on pushing ridiculous bills and suing people for excessive amounts.
About SB978 That bill will be a ruination for the movie and game industry. There will be hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs who are legitimately benefiting of streaming. Extremely large sums of money will be lost. The bill is vague and written by people with NO experience with any of these matters.
I'm all for a good system that fairly considers all factors. The new agreement between the MPAA and the RIAA and the ISP's is a good step as it is fair and gives enough notice. I also feel that companies like the RIAA and MPAA should be stopped from having so much unjust power and people should be fairly punished and not with jail time or excessive fines.
View 6 videos that are infringing on Foot Fetish Tube/YouTube and get your internet access disconnected. oh happy days of totalitarian regime in a free country :-(.
If you don't want to loose internet access to say one of the biggest MSO's and Content owners at the same time like Comcast/NBC/Universal/Vivendi for example, than pay a $35.00 Mitigation fee per "alert" sent to you.
In case you're curious who's interests ICE is representing, here you go.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
