Ron Lopshire wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
[snip]
>> i think you're misunderstanding their legal obligations under the
>> DMCA... they have an obligation to take down infringing content *when
>> they are notified of it's existence*... they are not obligated to police
>> the content of the site so long as they qualify for the safe harbour
>> exemptions (which sites such as that generally do)...
>>
>> i think you're also misunderstanding what is technically possible... it
>> is not possible to identify infringing works algorithmically...
>> identical digital copies, sure, but copyright infringement covers a wide
>> array of things beyond the scope of identical digital copies...
>>
>> if there is a move towards attempting automated filtering it won't be
>> because of legal pressure but rather as a way of appeasing hollywood so
>> as to enter into lucrative partnerships for online distribution of
>> commercial content...
>
> Come on, Kurt. These are the same arguments we saw from and about Napster.
>
> "If we find pirated material, we remove it"
>
> "If someone continues to upload pirated media content,
> we will prohibit him/her from using our service."
>
> "We don't have the resources to monitor every single
> binary file that comes across our servers."
>
> "It is not technologically feasible to automate the filtering."
>
> This BS did not work for Napster, and it won't work for YouTube. Suffice
> it to say that the lawyers always win.

the lawsuit against napster wasn't a simple cut-n-dry case and saying
youtube's situation is essentially the same (as you seem to be trying to
do) is a gross oversimplification...

napster 1.0 built it's business on copyright infringement, the court
found that there was no substantial non-infringing use of the service
and so they lost the case... youtube, on the other hand, came about
during the rise of user generated content - there really is a
substantial amount of non-infringing works on there (people actually
carry on video debates through the service, among other things)...

further, napster didn't always comply with the notice and take-down rule
of the dmca (which is a prerequisite for eligibility for the safe
harbour exemptions) whereas, to the best of my knowledge, youtube has...

> If I continue to upload copyrighted material illegally to any server,
> and the owner of the server does nothing more than remove the content,
> the owner of the server is liable and will get sued.

perhaps, but not for copyright infringement... notice and take-down is
what the dmca requires of service providers and is supposed to spare
them from liability for copyright violations by 3rd parties...

> You cannot do this
> with any other medium, why should the internet be any different? In the
> end, of course, it won't be.

i think you're being disingenuous with your use of the term medium
here... the only other comparable medium is the telephone network and
service providers definitely do not actively police the content of that
medium...

> Once YouTube enters into these partnerships, it will lose its allure. If
> YouTube's business model is legal (safe from the lawyers), why has no
> one else copied it?

???? *lots* of folks have copied it... including aol, yahoo, and
microsoft...

> It is, after all, the top site (with MySpace) on the
> internet. ISTM that others would want a piece of that action.
>
> Don't get me wrong, Kurt. I am in your court on this issue. I just don't
> see any outcome other than that which happened with Napster. This
> intellectual property BS has been going on since the beginning of the
> 20th century (1900). As an libertarian/anarchist, I have been following
> the DCMA, RIAA, MPAA, DRM, issues for quite some time. As I said, it is,
> and has always been, about the lawyers.
>
> http://preview.************/3xzr6z
>
> It will be interesting to see how this plays out. No business can
> survive for long if all of their receipts go to pay their lawyers. Dirty
> *******s.

considering google had their own video portal before, there would have
been no reason for them to pay billions for youtube if they thought they
were going to be pissing away all their profits on lawyers...

>>>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16765777.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I am investigating using K-Lite or ffdshow such that I can view FLV
>>>>> content offline with Media Player Classic. It looks promising.
>>>> ??? i'm pretty sure vlc does it natively...
>>> Sure it does. And just like WMP, it allows content to be delivered from
>>> Adobe's ad servers. Whether you want it or not. And whether you know it
>>> or not. That is the point of using MPC --- no Spyware, no Adware, no
>>> DRM, no BS.
>> ??? i must have missed something - vlc serves ads? are we talking about
>> the same vlc?
>
> VLC has ActiveX capability, among other things.

ok, you've got me again - activex in vlc? huh? what on earth would it do
with it?

ok, according to their wiki it's for integrating with browsers (ie.
internet exploder) and is an optional install...

there's nothing in the wiki about adobe, however...

> Why would anyone with
> half a brain allow a provider of media content to use ActiveX controls
> on his or her computer?

only if that person was an ie user and wanted vlc integrated into their
browser...

> Which ports does VLC use when downloading
> streaming media?

the ports required by the streaming protocol(s) in question, i would
imagine...

> IIRC, I could not use VLC without changing my setup.
> Have you ever monitored the data transmission, in and out, when using
> VLC for online content?

no...

> IIUC, VLC is just another media player like WMP, RealPlayer, and
> Quicktime.

as is media player classic...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"