Embedding of Copyright Infringing Video Not (Necessarily) a Crime

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Embedding of Copyright Infringing Video Not (Necessarily) a Crime

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday August 4, 2012 @06:59AM from the not-that-the-industry-will-take-the-judge's-word-on-it dept.

Social bookmarking site myVidster was the target of a copyright infringement case because it allowed its users to embed videos from other sites on its pages. Some of the videos infringed upon various copyrights, and the plaintiff in the case was granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster in 2011. Now, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the injunction, saying that merely embedding copyright-infringing videos hosted elsewhere does not necessarily contribute to the infringement. Judge Posner wrote in the opinion (PDF), "myVidster is giving web surfers addresses where they can find entertainment. By listing plays and giving the name and address of the theaters where they are being performed, the New Yorker is not performing them. It is not 'transmitting or communicating' them. ... Is myVidster doing anything different? ... myVidster doesn't touch the data stream, which flows directly from one computer to another, neither being owned or operated by myVidster." However, the door is not shut on this issue: "Flava may be entitled to additional preliminary injunctive relief as well, if it can show, as it has not shown yet, that myVidster’s service really does contribute significantly to infringement of Flava’s copyrights." If myVidster was actively encouraging the sharing, hosting the videos itself, or profiting from their showing, the ruling likely would have been different.

45 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Applicability to other media? by Banichi · 2012-08-04 07:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

>By listing plays and giving the name and address of the theaters where they are being performed, the New Yorker is not performing them. It is not 'transmitting or communicating' them.
Now, if we can only get the Judge to see the same about torrents.
1. Re:Applicability to other media? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 07:27 · Score: -1
  
  Banichi! My old friend! How have you been lately? Have you farted directly out of anyone's asshole recently?
2. Re:Applicability to other media? by ThunderBird89 · 2012-08-04 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with torrents is usually the payload they carry. Copyright infringement is a crime, no matter the way of committing it.
  Or were you referring to torrent sites like Piratebay? Because based on this reasoning, such sites are innocent, provided they're not hosting the infringing torrents (which Piratebay, at the very least, doesn't).
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
3. Re:Applicability to other media? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  provided they're not hosting the infringing torrents
  Since when are torrents themselves infringing?
4. Re:Applicability to other media? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Torrent sites host torrents, unless they use magnet links. Torrent files are small files containing pointers to the actual material. Thus you are incorrect, it's not about the payload they carry, it's about the fact that the torrent itself is only a pointer file, and should be recognized as such. Of course now that sites are moving to magnet links this is a moot point.
5. Re:Applicability to other media? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  The file itself may not be, but using it is, because one uploads and downloads the actual copyrighted content, not just a pointer to it.
6. Re:Applicability to other media? by rohan972 · 2012-08-04 11:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Copyright infringement is a crime, no matter the way of committing it.
  In most cases of non-commercial infringement this is incorrect. Most non-commercial copyright infringement is a breach of civil law, not criminal law. If caught you may be sued, you will not be arrested, you will not be charged with a crime, you will not be convicted of a crime, you will not have a criminal record. You could be stripped of assets to pay for any judgements against you.
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
7. Re:Applicability to other media? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  A torrent does not download or upload copyrighted material. It is merely a pointer to it. A torrent client certainly can use those pointers to download infringing content, but that's no different than your browser following the pointer to download and display a copyright-infringing video. In both cases the middle man isn't at fault because it's not touching that infringing data stream.
8. Re:Applicability to other media? by grahammm · 2012-08-04 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  Both links and torrents are essentially equivalent to bibliographical references in paper books. The only difference is the mechanism used to follow the reference. With a reference in a printed book you go to the library index to determine on which stack/shelf the work is located, with links and torrents your software does a DNS lookup get to get the IP address of the server holding the work, In both cases you (or your software) visit the location and read the referenced work.
9. Re:Applicability to other media? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 21:38 · Score: 0
  
  moot |mot|
  adjective
  subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision : whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point.
  having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision : it is moot whether this phrase should be treated as metaphor or not.
  verb [ trans. ] (usu. be mooted)
  raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility) : Sylvia needed a vacation, and a trip to Ireland had been mooted
10. Re:Applicability to other media? by 91degrees · 2012-08-05 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it does!
  
  A torrent has a single use. It can *only* be used to download that material. It's the key component that changes a content neutral bitorrent client into a file sharing service.
  
  The same can indeed be said for links and embedded video. This is different though. The judge is not saying they don't facilitate copyright infringement. That's something to be argued. simply that they do not in themselves infringe copyright.
  
  Subtle differences.
  
  Also I'm not totally sure I agree with the judge in the first place.
11. Re:Applicability to other media? by redlemming · 2012-08-05 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  Your statement "Copyright infringement is a crime, no matter the way of committing it" is invalid.
  To the contrary, in the USA, all exercises of "fair use" rights are in fact copyright infringement, and as "rights" these are of course permitted by law. As a matter of legal procedure, it is typically necessary to note that an infringement has occurred before one may argue that the infringement was in fact of the type permitted by law. Doing something that can reasonably be considered fair use rights is not only NOT criminal, but is in fact expressly permitted by US Copyright law (which in turn reflects more fundamental rights "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment and "reserved to the people" under the 10th Amendment).
  For that matter, any form of reasonable conduct, not just those relating to copyright, will be respected as a fundamental right arising under the 9th/10th Amendments in any jurisdiction where the Bill of Rights means something (arguably, such places are getting harder and harder to find).
  In any event, it is incorrect to state that copyright infringement is a crime. SOME forms of copyright infringement are criminal in some countries.
  The big problem modern societies face with respect to creative works stored on or in some form of media is deciding when and where it should be legal to copy this media. That is really what this discussion is all about.
  Incidentally, you probably don't want the legal professionals having the final say in this matter, as there are conflicts of interest that affect the whole legal profession which could get in the way of a long term resolution that is best for society. Or in other words, a government of the people, by the people, for the people should not be a government of the lawyer, by the lawyer, and for the lawyer.
  It is also incorrect use of the English language to refer to copyright infringement as something one "commits", as in "no matter the way of committing it". The verb "commits" implies a crime, at least in typical usage in matters relating to law.
  It is interesting to note that some businesses are putting notices equating or implying copyright infringement is a crime, or even referring to it as piracy, on "unskippable" portions of DVDs. There is no doubt that the legal professionals working for such organizations know that this involves providing incorrect and misleading information to the public, which in turn raises questions about their ethical integrity. Making false statements regarding the legal system (essentially propaganda) makes the laws even more complex and confusing than they already are, which naturally increases the demand for the services of legal professionals to interpret those laws for a confused public, and thus there is an ethical conflict of interest here.
12. Re:Applicability to other media? by ThunderBird89 · 2012-08-05 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the exhaustive correction. I admit that Fair Use slipped my mind, given that based on what I see/read on the internet (my only forum for getting appraised of US law, given that I'm from Europe), certain organisations are doing everything they can to abolish it.
  Then again, is doing something that is expressly permitted a form of infringement? I'd say not, fair use is fair use, which is not an infringement, but ripping a DVD to HDD and marketing it is. In Hungary, though, such rips are legal as long as you're not drawing a revenue from them, as they would be considered 'backups'. Of course, this requires that you can produce a proof of purchase for your 'backed up' software or movies...
  However, I'd argue against "commit" having such implications. For example, random acts of kindness are committed, just like random acts of violence. But let's say you're right, what would you use in its stead?
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
13. Re:Applicability to other media? by redlemming · 2012-08-05 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Your point that it is inappropriate to associate fair use with infringement is well taken. The legal procedure that seems to be followed in these matters in the USA -- i.e. that one must admit infringement to argue fair use -- has never made much sense to me. I agree entirely that a word that implies (or could potentially imply) wrongdoing should never have to be used as a precursor to assert a right.
  I am pleased to hear that Hungary has sensible policies with respect to making reasonable copies: hopefully that will be able to continue and more countries will follow this example.
  In the case of "commit", I was thinking along the lines of some of the definitions of commit that I'm more familiar with. For example, here are some from Wiktionary:
  Definition: "To do; to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault."
  Example: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Exodus xx. 14.
  Definition: "To commit an offence; especially, to fornicate."
  Example: Commit not with man's sworn spouse. -Shakespeare
  Given the current bone-headed legal procedure of requiring that one admit infringement before one can argue fair use, if one has "committed" an infringement then by these definitions it almost follows that one has engaged in a crime, sin, fault or offense. That awful implication is what I'd like to avoid.
  The concept of "random acts of kindness" seems to go beyond any of the definitions of "commit" current given by Wictionary, but it's definitely valid English usage in today's world -- one that hadn't occurred to me when I wrote the previous post -- so it appears the meaning of this word has broadened. Thank you for pointing that out.
  Some of the definitions given for "infringe" are just as bad as the above ones for "commit". For example, at dictionary com:
  Infringe: "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress"
  The act of making reasonable copies (something good) shouldn't be considered something that involves any sort of violation or transgression (something bad).
  I'm not sure there is a good verb for describing "infringement" other than "infringe".
  The fact that none of these words really make sense with respect to how they are used in USA copyright law (or, at a minimum, carry unfortunate connotations) is symptomatic of just how badly written that law is. This is why I deliberately avoided the use of the terms "copyright" or "intellectual property" in the sentence "The big problem modern societies face with respect to creative works stored on or in some form of media is deciding when and where it should be legal to copy this media". Both "copyright" and "intellectual property" carry significant legal and semantic baggage that may actually get in the way of coming up with a useful solution to the fundamental issue.
Good News for a Change by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 07:09 · Score: 0

How surprising and pleasant in these times to encounter a judge who both cares what the law says and is able to reason!
$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 07:14 · Score: -1, Troll

$10,000 CHALLENGE to criminal Alexander Peter Kowalski
We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.
Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?
Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.
If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.
I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.
Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.
Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.
I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.
If Natalie Portman is not measurable, She is Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!
You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.
The same would apply to links by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 07:26 · Score: 1

Of course, a link isn't a form of media so they will abuse this sort of stupidity in the courts.
Even though they may have won in this, they will continue.
They took down Megaupload illegally, after all. What makes you think they will care about this site? Especially if it gets big.
They'll just crush it or wreck the owners life, or both.
Tort, not crime by ShanghaiBill · 2012-08-04 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Copyright infringement is not normally considered a crime. It is a tort. People that don't understand the difference between criminal and civil law probably should not be writing headlines for stories about the legal system.
1. Re:Tort, not crime by tomhath · 2012-08-04 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Willfull infringement on a commercial scale is a criminal act. It will be hard for myVidster to claim they are doing anything else..
2. Re:Tort, not crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's criminal infringement when it's done for financial gain, which I'd guess is a context they might aim for here.
  http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
3. Re:Tort, not crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  And how do they define that? Is it financial gain when you make money from something completely unrelated (such as ads on your website) that pay for server costs? Are websites no longer allowed to have ads simply because of their content?
4. Re:Tort, not crime by Trepidity · 2012-08-04 08:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  While there is such a crime as criminal infringement of copyright, it's not frequently prosecuted, and it wasn't being prosecuted here. This was a civil lawsuit filed by Flava Works and the Motion Picture Association of America, not a criminal prosecution brought by the Department of Justice.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
5. Re:Tort, not crime by sjames · 2012-08-04 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  Since myVidster doesn't even HAVE a single copy of the linked videos, it is hard to imagine that they are violation copyright at all.
Still sucking bandwidth by cpu6502 · 2012-08-04 07:48 · Score: 2

By embedding someone else's video to Vidster, they are sucking someone else's bandwidth & increasing their hosting costs. I'm surprised the other host didn't just block vidster.com

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:Still sucking bandwidth by Osgeld · 2012-08-04 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  on the other side of the coin its free advertising if the content is worth it, they will go to the source, plus at the end of the video theres links to more of the source content
2. Re:Still sucking bandwidth by ewanm89 · 2012-08-04 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Does the video use less bandwidth when embedded on YouTube.com vs. some other site? Or does the stream itself use identical bandwidth but the page load use less because its not loading all the rest of it like the logo and comments.
  Some video hosting services, youtube being the obvious example, actively encourage embedding as they still get the fees from the advertising embedded in the flash video player or video stream.
3. Re:Still sucking bandwidth by toejam13 · 2012-08-04 10:00 · Score: 2
  
  If you do not want your content to be accessed from other sites, there is a very simple way to fix it: simply configure your webserver to lock down the content using a whitelist of referrer domains. If a client attempts to fetch the resource from an unauthorized web page, they'll receive an HTTP 4xx error instead.
  Anyone who has visited a discussion forum that allows inline linking of images has probably seen an image or two that says "hot-linking not allowed" or "stop stealing my bandwidth" instead of the image the poster intended. That's another method where you substitute garbage instead of the real content from unauthorized referrers.
  Perhaps these media companies should learn a little more about how the Web works before they post their works up on it.
4. Re:Still sucking bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 23:31 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently the other host allows embedding from foreign domains, which means they're OK with it.
Another interesting aspect of the decision by JDG1980 · 2012-08-04 08:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Posner's opinion seems to say that while someone uploading a video is guilty of copyright infringement, the viewers who merely streamed the video are not.

But as long as the visitor makes no copy of the copyrighted video that he is watching, he is not violating the copyright ownerâ(TM)s exclusive right, conferred by the Copyright Act, "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copiesâ and âoedistribute copies . . . of the copyrighted work to the public." 17 U.S.C. ÂÂ 106(1), (3). [...] The infringer is the customer of Flava who copied Flavaâ(TM)s copyrighted video by uploading it to the Internet.
There is only one case I'm aware of where any company attempted to sue someone for simply watching a stream: the UFC lawsuit against Greenfeedz users. In this article, an attorney was skeptical that such claims would hold up, and Posner's judicial opinion seems to provide strong backing for throwing out those lawsuits.
It is not clear to me whether downloading a video (as opposed to streaming it) would be considered making "a copy of the copyrighted video" under the Copyright Act. Has this ever been discussed in any other court case in the United States? Except for the UFC incident, I'm not aware of any lawsuits filed against end users for downloading alone.
1. Re:Another interesting aspect of the decision by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  Basically what the law makers thought was covered... and what the MPAA/RIAA=>MAFIAA had the law makers actually write into the bill.... are two different things... The problem was that the MPAA/RIAA had a ton of BS written into/taken out of the bill.... like the anti-circumvention clause, the non-commercial use exemption being thrown out... etc
  When the congress (can't remember if it is house or senate) was debating the DMCA, a congressman downloaded a song from napster, and was told that what he was doing was (either now, or would be under the dmca) copyright infringement... the congressman said that the bill wasn't meant to cover what he was doing, and no one would ever go after a single person for this....
  The problem is that our law makers weren't like us(people who use /. can program, etc... ) they didn't realize how "digital" made things the same, but different at the same time... nor how to craft legislation that would promote the Public Domain, etc.
2. Re:Another interesting aspect of the decision by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  Ohh and to reply to my reply to actually answer your question:
  Yes, both streaming and "downloading" require your device to download the data... but in downloading you 'keep' a copy of it, while in streaming... you are only caching a copy of it... the temporal-self-deleting-ness of a cache... "helps" it be legal (by precedent from judge(s?)... not by the law itself) Basically a while ago we got a smart judge who said streaming wasn't downloading... thats the only difference really.
  The MPAA/RIAA have been too worried of losing a challenge to that precedent (thereby cementing it even more into the law) that they haven't attempted to challenge it yet. (IF they found a case where they think they would win... you can bet your ass that they would try to reverse that ruling)
3. Re:Another interesting aspect of the decision by slazzy · 2012-08-04 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  I have to say it kind of makes sense, since you could easily have a pop-under window start to stream a video behind your browser, you'd have no idea you were watching illegal content. Of course even if you did see the video, unless you have memorized every copyrighted work in the history of mankind, it would be impossible to know if you are breaking the law or not.
  
  --
  Website Just Down For Me? Find out
TPB by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 08:07 · Score: 0

myVidster is giving web surfers addresses where they can find entertainment
So is ThePirateBay.
1. Re:TPB by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  so is google
They aren't exactly comparing apples to apples... by mark-t · 2012-08-04 08:09 · Score: 1

I'm certain I'm taking a less than popular position on this issue, but the example they gave, of the New Yorker publishing locations of performances, and comparing that to publishing a computer's IP address, isn't entirely a fair comparison.
The New Yorker is publishing locations of those performances, true, but the performances and their venues don't generally infringe on copyright.
Deliberately publishing locations where practically all content is essentially known to be infringing, and any non-infringing content found there is largely circumstantial, more than a matter of general practice or intended purpose, is arguably an entirely different kettle of fish.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:They aren't exactly comparing apples to apples. by sjames · 2012-08-04 09:26 · Score: 1

That's not what they're doing though. They host a bulletin board where individual users post pointers to videos stored on other sites.
If I stick a note on your bulletin board telling my partner in crime which bank and when, does that make YOU a bank robber?
Re:They aren't exactly comparing apples to apples. by Havenwar · 2012-08-04 09:45 · Score: 1

Excellent point!
The answer of course is yes, it does make you a criminal... If your bulletin board specifically encourages bank robbers to use it for this purpose. You become an accessory, or you become guilty of inciting, or something of the kind, depending on jurisdiction and particulars.
Re:They aren't exactly comparing apples to apples. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 10:02 · Score: 0

If I stick a note on your bulletin board telling my partner in crime which bank and when, does that make YOU a bank robber?
The answer CAN be yes, if that bulletin board is used substantially or with intent for that purpose. PB was substantially used for such infringing purposes, for example. In real life it would be no different. You can be found guilty of being an accessory to the crime.
So I think this shows exactly the opposite of what you wanted it to show. Intent matters, with the law, even though Slashdotters for some reason like to believe it doesn't.
Re:They aren't exactly comparing apples to apples. by sjames · 2012-08-04 10:14 · Score: 1

And if it's just a bulletin board that says post funny stuff here?
I took a look at the site in question. I didn't see any suggestion that copyright infringement was wanted.
Ninjavideo?I wonder if they will be able to use by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 10:29 · Score: 0

I wonder if they will be able to use the same argument...
Same Posner as with Apple by Kergan · 2012-08-04 11:01 · Score: 2

http://www.google.com/search?q=posner+apple
Re:They aren't exactly comparing apples to apples. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 11:06 · Score: 0

The answer CAN be yes, if that bulletin board is used substantially or with intent for that purpose.
We can't ban technologies or websites just because they're abused "substantially"; that would be ridiculous. The only part that makes sense here is the actual intent. If the intent of the website was to infringe upon copyright, then I would agree. But I'd say banning things for everyone just because they're often abused is draconian.

Intent matters, with the law
The number of times something is abused really doesn't have anything to do with intent.
Re:They aren't exactly comparing apples to apples. by pepty · 2012-08-04 12:50 · Score: 1

from OP:

However, the door is not shut on this issue: "Flava may be entitled to additional preliminary injunctive relief as well, if it can show, as it has not shown yet, that myVidster’s service really does contribute significantly to infringement of Flava’s copyrights." If myVidster was actively encouraging the sharing, hosting the videos itself, or profiting from their showing, the ruling likely would have been different.
So how has Sidereel.com survived? It's a website (based in CA) that lists legit links to shows but their traffic is driven by all of the links to pirated content that they let people add.
Re:They aren't exactly comparing apples to apples. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-04 16:29 · Score: 0

So how has Sidereel.com survived? It's a website (based in CA) that lists legit links to shows but their traffic is driven by all of the links to pirated content that they let people add.
In that case, so does Slashdot. After all, users can post links and URLs in messages, which could point to videos under copyright that are not authorized to be published. Slashdot profits from these posts from their banner ads, and even encourages users to make posts in general.
As you say, slashdot is driven by such links even though they are the far extreme minority of posts, and despite the fact you, myself, the parent, and 99% of the people posting here do not even care about such links let alone use them or post them, you feel this should make Slashdot liable.
What? by Hentes · 2012-08-04 20:53 · Score: 1

So embedding infringing content is fine, but linking to it is a capital offence?