Printable View
Quote:
Titan Media has filed suit in federal court against San Diego, Calif.-based online video-sharing service Veoh Networks, alleging copyright infringement.
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=15754Quote:
The alleged copyright infringements, more than 40,000 in all, took place from June 1 to June 22, according to the complaint.
Nice to see Titan take action
I hate trolling their network for my content the bastards and in their terms they say the only way you can get copywritten material off is to snail mail them in an elaborate process that I've pasted below... take a look at this and wonder how much work it must have been to follow this procedure for 40,000 infringements:
Procedure for Reporting Copyright Infringements:
If You believe that content residing on or accessible through the Veoh web site or service infringes a copyright, please send a notice of copyright infringement containing the following information to the Designated Agent listed below:
1. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright that has been allegedly infringed;
2. Identification of works or materials being infringed;
3. Identification of the content that is claimed to be infringing including information regarding the location of the content that the copyright owner seeks to have removed, with sufficient detail so that Veoh is capable of finding and verifying its existence;
4. Contact information about the notifier including address, telephone number and, if available, e-mail address;
5. A statement that the notifier has a good faith belief that the content is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
6. A statement made under penalty of perjury that the information provided is accurate and the notifying party is authorized to make the complaint on behalf of the copyright owner.
Once Proper Bona Fide Infringement Notification is Received by the Designated Agent:
It is Veoh’s policy:
1. to remove or disable access to the infringing content;
2. to notify the content provider, member or user that it has removed or disabled access to the content; and
3. that repeat offenders will have the infringing content removed from the system and that Veoh will terminate such content provider’s, member’s or user’s access to the service.
Procedure to Supply a Counter-Notice to the Designated Agent:
If the content provider, member or user believes that the content that was removed or to which access was disabled is either not infringing, or the content provider, member or user believes that it has the right to post and use such content from the copyright owner, the copyright owner’s agent, or pursuant to the law, the content provider, member or user must send a counter-notice containing the following information to the Designated Agent listed below:
1. A physical or electronic signature of the content provider, member or user;
2. Identification of the content that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the content appeared before it was removed or disabled;
3. A statement that the content provider, member or user has a good faith belief that the content was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or a misidentification of the content; and
4. Content provider’s, member’s or user’s name, address, telephone number, and, if available, e-mail address and a statement that such person or entity consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court for the judicial district in which the content provider’s, member’s or user’s address is located, or if the Content provider’s, member’s or user’s address is located outside the United States, for any judicial district in which Veoh is located, and that such person or entity will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of the alleged infringement.
If a counter-notice is received by the Designated Agent, Veoh’s may send a copy of the counter-notice to the original complaining party informing that person that it may replace the removed content or cease disabling it in 10 business days. Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the content provider, member or user, the removed content may be replaced, or access to it restored, in 10 to 14 business days or more after receipt of the counter-notice, at Veoh’s discretion.
Please contact Veoh’s Designated Agent at the following address:
Designated Agent to Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement:
Dmitry Shapiro
7220 Trade St, Suite 115
San Diego, CA 92121
copyright-notice@veoh.com
Squirt that's pretty much the exact same thing Google and Godaddy's anon service require (in fact most bigger outfits you'll need to go through that). -- sucks dealing with them -- especially google.
Yes of course it is the standard Digital Millennium Act procedure... but the point was more that you can't do it by email, you have to do it by snail mail and that there are 40,000 infringements these guys had to follow this process for... enough to cost most companies thousands of dollars in labor just to assert their copyright.Quote:
Originally Posted by robin
I hope Veoh pays a princely sum to right the wrong they've done to Titan.
D'oh. Another site to wade through. Where is all of the potentially infringing content? Can't seem to find much of anything except home-made blogging type stuff...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotMaleVideos
They've took down the "adult" section ... the day before Titan filed the case.
I haven't had time to go back since and sift through everything again
I would have hated to deliver the mail. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Smithers, release.... the attorneys.
http://www.labnet.com/oldthink/new2/burns.jpg
LOL! Exxxxcellent! :develish:Quote:
Originally Posted by desslock
Yes, a nice cease and desist letter from a lawyer, or better yet, a lawsuit usually will help circumvent this long and tedious process. But still some poor soul had to sit down and document URLs off stolen content ... that sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Michael
Its funny but I had someone link to voeh on my messageboard and this was my response:
http://www.armpits.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98
I have now blocked most of those domain names in my allowed word list.
Good Luck to Titan on getting a fad wad of damages to compensate.
BTW is was a Corbin Fisher Movie I blocked in this instance.
D
I'd like to see Titan go after GUBA/Skin Video.
As far as I know, Guba is just a dressed up USENET reader. At it's core it is really no different than using Outlook to access newsgroups through your ISP. The only real difference is that regular newsgroup readers don't highlight the fact that illegal copies of movies are available, but they actually are no matter how you access USENET. Guba is just one way.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick
The Titan lawsuit..... I don't like this. If Veoh did not honor remove requests then that is something different, but if none were submitted for each specific video then I don't think unmoderated user controlled services with good intentions should be held responsible.
GUBA charges access to content they don't own. They reformat videos to iPod format, for videos they don't own.
They have no 2257 documentation yet are selling access to hardcore material they don't own.
My ISP does not charge me an additional fee to view the newsgroups nor do they have an affiliate program paying webmasters to sell access to content the sponsor does not own
i disagree. titan's content is being exposed, which lowers its value. and ya gotta no there is NO porn on that is free for users to post just 'cause they feel like it - none at all. check your licenses and most don't even allow posting in groups or boards.
basically boards and sites like that are making money because they are allowing users to post stolen images/videos. sure, there are a few self pics and videos but shoot, most of the guys admit it isn't them so it's usually not to hard to figure out the pics are stolen.
and considering it takes a site like titan hours and hours to find all the content, and then must deal with each pic separately? i'd say that veoh was trying to discourage content owners by making it difficult - a smaller webmaster might spend days of time he simply can't afford doing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z