Vivid Sues Porntube

[Greg B]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071210/20071210006330.html?.v=1

Just heard about it on the radio news.

[Toby]

I can't say I'm surprised.

I've been saying from the get go that the entire "tube" business model is based on all the traffic generated by the large amount of copyrighted content available that is being uploaded illegally.

My questions about controlling the upload of such content, when not totally ignored, were answered with the typical CYA response of "we immediately remove any copyrighted content that we are notified about". In my opinion, that's not good enough. I guess we're going to find out if the court agrees.

[helix]

I can't say I'm surprised.

I've been saying from the get go that the entire "tube" business model is based on all the traffic generated by the large amount of copyrighted content available that is being uploaded illegally.

My questions about controlling the upload of such content, when not totally ignored, were answered with the typical CYA response of "we immediately remove any copyrighted content that we are notified about". In my opinion, that's not good enough. I guess we're going to find out if the court agrees.

Maybe the upload process has changed at PornoTube. I know I had to provide studio information as well as 2257 info when I was uploading to PornoTube for a client.

I agree that most of the "tube" business operators allows user uploaded copyright violation material, but not all. Fuckinhorny.com is strictly sponsor provided clips, no user uploads. In fact there isn't any upload function on the user interface. To take the path of no user uploads is a tough one, it's hard to monetize . Allowing unchecked user uploads is what makes tube sites extremely popular to the surfers, resulting in massive traffic as well as the opportunity to sell.

I suspect that the penalty if there is one, will be along the same lines as the "YouTube" case. Promise to go through the uploaded material and rid it of the unauthorized copyrighted material.

Unfortunately the majority of the tube site operators are focused on the short term gain, ignoring the long term impact on the business.
Again........

[Greg B]

I can't say I'm surprised.

I've been saying from the get go that the entire "tube" business model is based on all the traffic generated by the large amount of copyrighted content available that is being uploaded illegally.

My questions about controlling the upload of such content, when not totally ignored, were answered with the typical CYA response of "we immediately remove any copyrighted content that we are notified about". In my opinion, that's not good enough. I guess we're going to find out if the court agrees.


Right on!

[RawAlex]

It is an interesting move, mostly when it gets down to Cambria's statement that "Vivid should not have to take responsibility for policing PornoTube on a minute by minute basis to protect its rights". It is in some ways an attempt to kill off certain parts of DMCA which are actively being abused by tube / torrent / file trade sites. What was suppose to be an "oops" clause has turned into more of a "neener-neener" way of stealing anything you want.

While I don't think that AEBN would agree to it, I do wonder if a case like this isn't a bit of a straw defendant thing, where the greater good of the industry will be made by Vivid winning this type of case, essentially putting every other tube or user upload style site on the legal ropes. In the end, sites like AEBN would benefit from increased surfer traffic looking to actually pay for porn if the porn isn't available for free.