| gideongallery |
07-23-2009 09:39 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thurbs
(Post 16099029)
correct, but see, with youtube, their filtering was simple. ( no nudity , and that's easy to prove you are active in, and videos did go up first, then come down )
what i'm saying is, if they are not allowing a submit to go up first, then they have to have some criteria which is published no? something that defines what they are filtering out? so you know what their guideline is for this filtering, and that would be after the fact.
since a porn tube is all porn, they would be filtering against what exactly? it certainly couldn't be filtering against copyrighted material, b/c if they said that, they would be saying they have team that filters that, and that team would be failing, which would then say, they could be open for suit? and in that same regard, as described above, the poster I was referring to said he opened an account in the program name, hoping to allow his content ( which should break no rules compared to their content listed ) on their site to share just like any other user. but either because he had watermarks ( which you can't filter, bc they have many with watermarks, often for a different site ) or becasue he isn't paying to play, should then exempt them from the DMCA clause.
|
a no watermark rule is just as arbitritary as youtube's no nudity rule.
If youtube is allowed to make an arbitrary rule and keep DMCA safe harbor protection
so can any porntube site.
Quote:
they would be saying, well, you're not paying for the right to display your own content, so no game, but the other users are then all paying for the right to display content? and if that was the case, what safegaurds are then in place to make sure those paying customers aren't copyright infringing? and what info is collected? what info can be then shared with the original copyright holder?
seems to whichever way you cut it, this instance cannot be compared to Youtube, b/c Youtube basically said, we have millions of uploaders that upload, and we don't pre-approve them, but we filter for one set of things ( nudity based ) and therefore can only work in a reactive method to take down your content.
i'm sure there is a finite amount of users that upload stolen content on their own, b/c the activity is demonstrated in forums, and that is ok. but you cannot say that these tubes can have it both ways.
you can't force someone to pay to be listed without guidelines, and once you have those guidelines, they have to be enforeced the whole way down or you should be open for suit.
turning a blind eye for those that follow one behavior ( un watermarked, re watermarked, full length videos ) and denying other behavior ( watermarked, shorter movies ) won't work. that just demonstrates a pre-meditated business plan that won't follow any safe harbors.
I don't think porntubes could prove they have any of these things in place, and therefore, dmca would only go so far ....
|
it really depends on the guidelines
they would have to be uniform, but a guideline based on watermarking
robbie mentioned that the watermarked it enough that it was impossible for it to be zoomed out
that would represent a level that would be potentially very intrusive
that would cause the tube site to lose repeat viewership.
personally this model is stupid, charging for the right to upload is counter productive to the user generated content
selling views, is a much better solution
let people upload as much as they want and set up account system that allows them to buy views from the related video bar below videos
spiking your traffic views to get honors (most viewed, etc)
the problem is that these tube guys are tgp guys not seo guys running them
they don't realize the massive value that the keywords have on their site. |
