decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Follow the Money? | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Effect on MegaUpload case?
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 | # ]

Follow the Money?
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )