1–10 of 16 posts
Io v. Veoh: Important ruling for sites comprised of 'user-generated content'
eff.org
This is a good day for user-generated site owners, and it sounds like their willingness to comply with the law is what saved them. I guess that's the difference between them getting off the hook and other sites who just "play dumb" to having tons of illegal content and end up being held responsible for it. Still, with many such sites nowadays, they're just providing search results, not much different than Google...
This is a good day for user-generated site owners, and it sounds like their willingness to comply with the law is what saved them. I guess that's the difference between them getting off the hook and other sites who just "play dumb" to having tons of illegal content and end up being held responsible for it. Still, with many such sites nowadays, they're just providing search results, not much different than Google...
Veoh, YouTube, and "such sites" host the videos and aren't search engines. Since the videos in violation would be hosted on their servers rather than merely linked to, they have much different requirements under the DMCA and copyright law than Google.
This is a good day for user-generated site owners, and it sounds like their willingness to comply with the law is what saved them. I guess that's the difference between them getting off the hook and other sites who just "play dumb" to having tons of illegal content and end up being held responsible for it. Still, with many such sites nowadays, they're just providing search results, not much different than Google...
"Still, with many such sites nowadays, they're just providing search results, not much different than Google..." Veoh, YouTube, and "such sites" host the videos and aren't search engines. Since the videos in violation would be hosted on their servers rather than merely linked to, they have much different requirements under the DMCA and copyright law than Google.
Just remember: Veoh had the deep pockets necessary to fight this in court and take it all the way to a decision. While that may be the case for larger sites, it's totally different for the small sites. If you can't afford the court costs to defend yourself, you lose as soon as the suit is filed.
I don't know if judges should really be using wikipedia that way - what if it was vandalized on the day they checked it?
Take a look at page 16, line 28 in the decision :) Also page 6 line 26. I don't know if judges should really be using wikipedia that way - what if it was vandalized on the day they checked it?
"Neither side explained precisely what a Flash file is, but this court understands it to be the name of a file format used to transmit videos over the Internet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_format."
"The court takes judicial notice of the Wikipedia definition of “IP address” as to the fact that an IP address may be shared by multiple users. This is not a matter that is subject to reasonable dispute."
Take a look at page 16, line 28 in the decision :) Also page 6 line 26. I don't know if judges should really be using wikipedia that way - what if it was vandalized on the day they checked it?
In this city a high school student who cites Wikipedia without a secondary source gets a (provisional) F.
If Wikipedia is an authority sufficient for the judiciary the world really has transitioned from the Britannica era.