|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 12:45 AM EDT |
No, they're different. Vidster was like a club where people post
links to infringing material. It was not demonstrated that any
infringing material was hosted by vidster, nor that they encouraged
members to post links. If vidster was like one of the sites I subscribe
to (for open source or free-as-in-beer software) then some of the
allegedly infringing files could have been hosted at Megaupload.
Another difference is that under that MO vidster was not hosting
the material and had no DMCA obligation towards it, altho' it is
said they removed links on more than one occasion. Megaupload
however had the files on its servers (alright, leased from Carpathia)
and thus had to comply with DMCA, while taking advantage of the
safe harbor provision.
Vidster hosted only links, and had no infringing files on site.
Megaupload hosted files, and has to prove that they did
all that the law requires in respect of any infringing files.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 03:09 AM EDT |
I've now read Posner's ruling, and my take is that the copyright
plaint was a proxy for a falling out between the parties. In their
particular market it is common for sites to embed some of each
others' movies, advertising is assumed, and cash may change hands
to balance the trade. The parties watch each other in the manner of
honor amongst thieves. Flava was whingeing to the lower court
that myVidster's activity was causing Flava to lose income,
but Posner was not convinced that myVidster on its own could have
caused as much loss as Flava claimed.
Posner's reference to sneaking into a cinema to watch movies
without buying a ticket, and reading stolen books, may help this
ruling to vanish on a back shelf.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|