Quote:
Originally Posted by Thurbs
interesting, wouldn't zooming in and taking out watermarks completely toss out the DMCA ? I thought DMCA was used to basically say this is from a user, we don't touch it, we don't manipulate it. it's either there or on proof of copyright violation taken down?
seems to me this would change the whole argument? I'm not a DMCA expert by any means, but I thought it was like either Users upload with no supervision ( approval ) or if using approval or modifications, then requires proof of ownership?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qbert
Yup, if they review it for approval before adding it to the site then they do not qualify for safe-harbor status.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies
That is correct.
|
i really suggest you look at the law again, it not that cut and dry
if it were the act of stopping kiddie porn would making shutting down these tube sites easy as one court order.
youtube did not lose the safe harbor provision because they stopped nudity from being shown on their site.
you can have screening rules and still be protected by the safe harbor provision
just because youtube can hire some 6/day grunts to look for naughty bits in the video doesn't mean they can screen for copyright/fair use. only $300/hour lawyer would have the skill to tell the difference between fair use and infringing use of copyrighted material (hell given the number of bogus complaints that viacom issued not even $300/hour can do that).