Watching Games Online.

[Sporkdevil]

My general and nonlegal understanding of the issue is this:


Contributory liability/infringement attaches when a website has actual/constructive knowledge of infringement, and website induces, causes, or materially contributes to infringement. Allowing people to discuss links to other sites doesn't induce, cause, or materially contribute, assuming no moderator or owner posts links and encourages visitors to visit.

Vicarious liability/infringement attaches when a website has right and ability to control infringement, and that website has a direct financial benefit from the infringement. Since there are no ads here, and this website is for different purposes, there is no infringement. Assuming you guys don't start charging money for people to watch a direct feed, it doesn't sound like infringement.

I think that 17 USC 512 (a)-(d) gives safe harbor for websites that have users that post copyrighted material, like youtube. Assuming the threshold is met in subsection (i), have not been specifically warned of any possibly infringement by the copyright holder (the website has no duty to investigate the site for such links even when they "should" know of them), are not vicariously responsible (mentioned at top), and the website posts contact information on the website for the copyright holder to contact about infringement, and the website then removes, the website is given safe harbor. The notice has to identify the infringed work and locate the actual URL so the provider can find them.

I know some people get angry at a site like youtube because they have to constantly find their copyrighted work, then send them notice to take down, even on a daily basis, and youtube is not forced to continually monitor it's website and remove anything themselves. Assuming that youtube removes anything quickly after they receive notice, there is nothing that they can do to youtube.

But I'm not a lawyer, that's just my 2 cents.

Of course, if you want this to go strictly through PM, I will respect and follow that.

[Peyton]

(12-01-2010 12:15 PM)Sporkdevil Wrote:  My general and nonlegal understanding of the issue is this:


Contributory liability/infringement attaches when a website has actual/constructive knowledge of infringement, and website induces, causes, or materially contributes to infringement. Allowing people to discuss links to other sites doesn't induce, cause, or materially contribute, assuming no moderator or owner posts links and encourages visitors to visit.

Vicarious liability/infringement attaches when a website has right and ability to control infringement, and that website has a direct financial benefit from the infringement. Since there are no ads here, and this website is for different purposes, there is no infringement. Assuming you guys don't start charging money for people to watch a direct feed, it doesn't sound like infringement.

I think that 17 USC 512 (a)-(d) gives safe harbor for websites that have users that post copyrighted material, like youtube. Assuming the threshold is met in subsection (i), have not been specifically warned of any possibly infringement by the copyright holder (the website has no duty to investigate the site for such links even when they "should" know of them), are not vicariously responsible (mentioned at top), and the website posts contact information on the website for the copyright holder to contact about infringement, and the website then removes, the website is given safe harbor. The notice has to identify the infringed work and locate the actual URL so the provider can find them.

I know some people get angry at a site like youtube because they have to constantly find their copyrighted work, then send them notice to take down, even on a daily basis, and youtube is not forced to continually monitor it's website and remove anything themselves. Assuming that youtube removes anything quickly after they receive notice, there is nothing that they can do to youtube.

But I'm not a lawyer, that's just my 2 cents.

Of course, if you want this to go strictly through PM, I will respect and follow that.

I only get nervous about it because enforcement on this is so tight on the other board.

Then again. Fuck it. If the NFL isn't making a better effort to shut down those sites I doubt they are going to get around to messing with message boards that are talking about them.

[Sporkdevil]

(12-01-2010 12:32 PM)Peyton Wrote:  I only get nervous about it because enforcement on this is so tight on the other board.

Then again. Fuck it. If the NFL isn't making a better effort to shut down those sites I doubt they are going to get around to messing with message boards that are talking about them.

I think being an NFL sponsored board, TATF takes them down because it's in their best interest, not because of any copyright question. I'd put up a page to where people can contact you to report any copyright issues. It's not just games, but stuff like images people pull off of google is technically illegal. I think it would just be a good idea, but I really don't think there is any problem with people posting links to other sites that may or may not be used to view a copyrighted work. That's less than what a google image search does (showing the thumbnail of a copyrighted image). A place like youtube actually has 3rd party uploads of copyrighted material, and it's just impossible for them to comb over billions of videos, find out if something is copyrighted, and take it down. I think it's the reason for the whole notice-demand in 512.

[USAF HART]

Just about everything on the intarwebz is illegal copyright stuff. 80% of the videos on youbtube are copyright infringement. All the football highlights, the WWE videos, music videos etc. They are all owned by someone. Right? It's silly for people to think that they will be able to shut down copyright stuff in this day and age. It ain't gonna happen feds! GET OVER IT!

[Sporkdevil]

(12-01-2010 12:59 PM)USAF HART Wrote:  Just about everything on the intarwebz is illegal copyright stuff. 80% of the videos on youbtube are copyright infringement. All the football highlights, the WWE videos, music videos etc. They are all owned by someone. Right? It's silly for people to think that they will be able to shut down copyright stuff in this day and age. It ain't gonna happen feds! GET OVER IT!

Small clips, like the one in my sig, probably qualifies for fair use. Youtube has a lot of infringed work, but a lot of it qualifies under fair use. Some NFL clips may or may not qualify. A lot of times a place like youtube gets take down notices for things that qualify for fair use. I think a lot of lawyers make money by sending cease and desist type letters even when there isn't an infringement. You can see the notice/demand lag by usually catching something like an MMA fight on youtube for like 6 hours until the UFC finds it and sends off a take down notice. Imagine youtube getting sued every time someone's copyrighted work ended up on their site.

[Flip Wilson]

(12-01-2010 12:59 PM)USAF HART Wrote:  Just about everything on the intarwebz is illegal copyright stuff. 80% of the videos on youbtube are copyright infringement. All the football highlights, the WWE videos, music videos etc. They are all owned by someone. Right? It's silly for people to think that they will be able to shut down copyright stuff in this day and age. It ain't gonna happen feds! GET OVER IT!

Since you put Antoine in your avitar, I read all of your post in his voice.

I was expecting you to follow "It ain't gonna happen feds! GET OVER IT!" with "You feds are really DUMB, for real".

[USAF HART]

HAHAHAHA...nice Flip..really nice..for real