MPAA Doubling Down, Alleges Video Embeds are Infringement

Status
Not open for further replies.

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
653
0
18,940
I find myself failing to imagine the torture/humiliation/pain I'd like to put those people through. Have they nothing else to do but to keep attempting to ruin the free Internet for everyone? :heink:
 

JohnnyLucky

Distinguished
May 30, 2007
990
0
18,930
I fail to understand how the court could think that posting link to other web sites could be considered some sort of infringement. No wonder Google, Facebook, and others filed briefs opposing the court's ruling.
 

bustapr

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
550
0
18,930
im all up for anti piracy. websites should be more responsible of the stuff their users embed on the site. "willful blindness" is actually a really good description for the attitude these websites have. but linking to official websites and official hosted videos should be left alone. if a video is linked from an unauthorized site the copyright owner should file a claim, show evidence, and immediately close the vid. maybe even ban those users.

I got the feeling the author of this article was leaning too hard against the MPAA. flava has a good argument in this case.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
370
0
18,940
let's all join the MPAA's forums (if there are any) and embed videos and other copyrighted content. right bloody now.
 

neon neophyte

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2009
135
0
18,660
"Three great men sit in a room. A King, a Priest and a Richman. Between them stands a common Sellsword. Each great man bids the Sellsword kill the other two. Who lives, who dies?"

"Depends on the Sellsword."

"Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favour with the gods."

"He has a sword, the power of life and death."

"But if it's Swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend it's kings who hold all the power?"

"Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick, it's a shadow on the wall and a very small man can cast a very large shadow."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Remember, Obama is good buddies with a lot of these people and gets a lot of money from them, and former top advisors of his work for these scum now.

A vote for Obama is a vote for totalitarian authoritarianism, and the end of the internet as we know it.

 

davectech

Honorable
Apr 12, 2012
1
0
10,510
So... I just wanted to make sure it was cool to post a link to this article on facepage... Could I speak to Tom's general council please? Maybe get some kind of affidavit stating that I won't be sued for infringement of this collection of words that I didn't write? Please get it notarized; can't be too careful. Is this the internet future we can all look forward to?
 

Vorador2

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2007
108
0
18,630
The director's board of the RIAA/MPAA must be thinking: "If we can't get any benefit, might as well ruin the fun for everybody else"
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
1,548
0
19,730
It sounds like myVidster followed all of the proper procedures so I'm not sure how the judge could side against them. If they responded to take down requests and removed the content, then that should be enough. They even went so far as to ban users posting illegal content and remove links to illegal content (and sometimes ban those users too), which is above and beyond the requirements in the DMCA.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
[citation][nom]benn520[/nom]Remember, Obama is good buddies with a lot of these people and gets a lot of money from them, and former top advisors of his work for these scum now.A vote for Obama is a vote for totalitarian authoritarianism, and the end of the internet as we know it.[/citation]

Although I'd like to see him out of office, in his defense, Obama was not agreeing with SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/OPEN etc. A vote for anyone at this point seems to be a vote for hurting our rights and personal freedoms.
 

freeinterweb

Honorable
Feb 14, 2012
7
0
10,510
i wonder if these judges even know how the internet works
i feel like some of these rulings occur due to the judge not knowing what half of the case is about
 

g-thor

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
118
0
18,630
Perhaps I'm just too dumb to understand it, but isn't linking simply giving the URL - like www,tomshardware.com ? If that is the case then we also may be infringing copyright when we tell someone, verbally, that they should check out this cool video at www.cantwatchthis.com.

Why, I may be infringing an MPAA copyright by recommending that someone should go see a movie that I saw, so I guess I'd better stop recommending movies to friends. And what about musicians, songs, albums? Probably infringement too, so I'd better stop that as well.

It seems to me that the MPAA and their alphabet soup kin won't be happy until we have to pay for every time we hear or see something they lay claim to. I bet it makes them sick to think that I can buy a Blu-ray and watch it more than once, that I can listen to a song over and over again and they don;t get paid for that.

Side note - If I were in law enforcement, I'd start digging into this judges bank account or keep an eye on the job he gets if he quits being a judge.
 

NightbladeXX

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2007
14
0
18,560
[citation][nom]g-thor[/nom] ....Why, I may be infringing an MPAA copyright by recommending that someone should go see a movie that I saw, so I guess I'd better stop recommending movies to friends. And what about musicians, songs, albums? Probably infringement too, so I'd better stop that as well.... [/citation]

soon they'll say its copyright infringement to even think about talking to someone about it
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
582
0
18,930
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]im all up for anti piracy. websites should be more responsible of the stuff their users embed on the site. "willful blindness" is actually a really good description for the attitude these websites have. but linking to official websites and official hosted videos should be left alone. if a video is linked from an unauthorized site the copyright owner should file a claim, show evidence, and immediately close the vid. maybe even ban those users. I got the feeling the author of this article was leaning too hard against the MPAA. flava has a good argument in this case.[/citation]
MyVidster apparently banned people that posted illegal content on their website. When someone posted a link or embed infringing content they first got a warning and if the user insisted in linking or embedding illegal material they would get banned. Apparently that isn't enough.

Imagine if for example Facebook, Google and all search engines and social networks had to check every single post, image, video, link,... for infringing material. That task is impossible. What the MPAA wants is for the web to be what it was 20 years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.