4 ms·

1) We're fully DMCA compliant. 2) The vast majority of our content is user created.

by emmett 17y ago

jonknee 17y ago
You make a platform really easy to illegaly carry live video and then skirt around the law because if you get caught in the act you nuke the feed. How awesome of you. If you looked at your site you could kill feeds left and right, they are obviously illegal. Why don't you do this? (Here's a guess--it would kill your business.) Percentage wise I believe you that most of the content is user created. But attention wise it can't be close. Let's look at your "sports" section: http://www.justin.tv/directory/sports http://www.justin.tv/directory/sports Right now there's a bootlegged feed of ESPN, a couple of soccer games you don't have the rights for and a variety of other content that is copyrighted. Those are the most viewed, your user generated content is being watched by no one. You're running a scam. (And for what it's worth, on the technical side I admire what you guys have done. I just think it's super shady to base your business on looking the other way when your users steal content. You're building an online cable network without paying for content.)
- randallsquared 17y ago
  > If you looked at your site you could kill feeds left and right, they are obviously illegal. Why don't you do this? (Here's a guess--it would kill your business.) Here's another guess: it would remove any hope of using common carrier status (or whatever the DMCA equivalent is called). Once you proactively identify infringing material, you become responsible for anything you don't remove, if I understand correctly. Taking on legal responsibility for any failure to notice a copyright-violating feed seems like a risk that a startup can't take.
- utnick 17y ago
  http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi "Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network." I think part of being a DMCA compliant safe harbor is not knowing there is infringing material, if they remove stuff, that implies that they have the ability to know about the infringing material. Its kind of a loophole in the DMCA.
- pg 17y ago
  You make a platform really easy to illegaly carry live video and then skirt around the law because if you get caught in the act you nuke the feed. In other words, they do exactly the same thing as every other UGC startup, in every other medium.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    Not really, but even so a bunch of wrongs don't make a right. Also in this case the wrongs make up the vast majority of viewed content. Live video is much harder to police from a content owner's perspective and they know it. The lawyers gotta be out documenting shit during an event. Look what they require to take something down: http://www.justin.tv/user/dmca http://www.justin.tv/user/dmca All that for stuff that a ten year old could tell is stolen. I have no respect for startups that base themselves on theft.
    - pg 17y ago
      Not really Can you be more precise? What are they doing that's different?
      - jonknee 17y ago
        Not every other UGC site relies almost completely on plainly copyrighted content. Examples include: Wikipedia, Flickr, Facebook, Photobucket, WordPress, Yelp, etc. Scribd is a good example of a startup taking the JTV path and I think they are scum too.
        pg 17y ago
        You're evading my question, and I think you know it. Let me make it clearer for you. How are JTV's copyright policies any different from those of other UGC sites?
        byrneseyeview 17y ago
        There can be identical policies that produce different results. For example, a startup telling you which intersections were best for hailing a cab could have the same TOS as one telling you the best intersections to score drugs; the latter would be more likely to assist in breaking the law.
usrsbin 17y ago
All the top streams are sports, movie, and tv shows. That's a fact anyone can see for themselves. And it would be easy for you to remove this stuff but you benefit in terms of popularity and ad revenue so you don't. Pretending like you don't see it or that the site is popular because of its UGC content is just dishonest. The idea that you're protected by the DMCA is your opinion not a legal fact.
- mattyb 17y ago
  The idea that you're protected by the DMCA is your opinion and not a legal fact. How do you know they haven't consulted a lawyer about this?
  - abstractbill 17y ago
    (we have, of course).

1) We're fully DMCA compliant. 2) The vast majority of our content is user created.

by emmett 17y ago

1) We're fully DMCA compliant. 2) The vast majority of our content is user created.

You make a platform really easy to illegaly carry live video and then skirt around the law because if you get caught in the act you nuke the feed. How awesome of you. If you looked at your site you could kill feeds left and right, they are obviously illegal. Why don't you do this? (Here's a guess--it would kill your business.) Percentage wise I believe you that most of the content is user created. But attention wise it can't be close. Let's look at your "sports" section: http://www.justin.tv/directory/sports http://www.justin.tv/directory/sports Right now there's a bootlegged feed of ESPN, a couple of soccer games you don't have the rights for and a variety of other content that is copyrighted. Those are the most viewed, your user generated content is being watched by no one. You're running a scam. (And for what it's worth, on the technical side I admire what you guys have done. I just think it's super shady to base your business on looking the other way when your users steal content. You're building an online cable network without paying for content.)

randallsquared 17y ago
> If you looked at your site you could kill feeds left and right, they are obviously illegal. Why don't you do this? (Here's a guess--it would kill your business.) Here's another guess: it would remove any hope of using common carrier status (or whatever the DMCA equivalent is called). Once you proactively identify infringing material, you become responsible for anything you don't remove, if I understand correctly. Taking on legal responsibility for any failure to notice a copyright-violating feed seems like a risk that a startup can't take.
utnick 17y ago
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi "Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network." I think part of being a DMCA compliant safe harbor is not knowing there is infringing material, if they remove stuff, that implies that they have the ability to know about the infringing material. Its kind of a loophole in the DMCA.
pg 17y ago
You make a platform really easy to illegaly carry live video and then skirt around the law because if you get caught in the act you nuke the feed. In other words, they do exactly the same thing as every other UGC startup, in every other medium.
- jonknee 17y ago
  Not really, but even so a bunch of wrongs don't make a right. Also in this case the wrongs make up the vast majority of viewed content. Live video is much harder to police from a content owner's perspective and they know it. The lawyers gotta be out documenting shit during an event. Look what they require to take something down: http://www.justin.tv/user/dmca http://www.justin.tv/user/dmca All that for stuff that a ten year old could tell is stolen. I have no respect for startups that base themselves on theft.
  - pg 17y ago
    Not really Can you be more precise? What are they doing that's different?
    - jonknee 17y ago
      Not every other UGC site relies almost completely on plainly copyrighted content. Examples include: Wikipedia, Flickr, Facebook, Photobucket, WordPress, Yelp, etc. Scribd is a good example of a startup taking the JTV path and I think they are scum too.
      - pg 17y ago
        You're evading my question, and I think you know it. Let me make it clearer for you. How are JTV's copyright policies any different from those of other UGC sites?
        byrneseyeview 17y ago
        There can be identical policies that produce different results. For example, a startup telling you which intersections were best for hailing a cab could have the same TOS as one telling you the best intersections to score drugs; the latter would be more likely to assist in breaking the law.

usrsbin 17y ago

All the top streams are sports, movie, and tv shows. That's a fact anyone can see for themselves. And it would be easy for you to remove this stuff but you benefit in terms of popularity and ad revenue so you don't. Pretending like you don't see it or that the site is popular because of its UGC content is just dishonest. The idea that you're protected by the DMCA is your opinion not a legal fact.

mattyb 17y ago
The idea that you're protected by the DMCA is your opinion and not a legal fact. How do you know they haven't consulted a lawyer about this?
- abstractbill 17y ago
  (we have, of course).