Slashdot Mirror
People Are Using PornHub To Stream 'Hamilton' and 'Zootopia' (qz.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: There's more on PornHub than pornography. People are using the streaming-video site -- a sort of YouTube for pornography where users can upload and watch adult videos -- to stream pirated copies of high-profile titles like the Broadway musical Hamilton and Disney's animated movie Zootopia. Where YouTube has been fighting for years to keep pornography off its site, PornHub now finds itself in the position of having to purge its platform of videos that are decidedly safe for work. The full, 75-minute first act of the historical, Tony Award-winning play, Hamilton -- with its original cast, including creator and star Lin-Manuel Miranda -- is on PornHub, one Twitter user discovered. As the most sought after ticket in town, the play just set a new high-water mark (paywall) for Broadway after taking in $3.8 million at the box office for the week ending Dec. 24.
"No Mom, I wasn't watching porn, it was Zootopia, I swear!"
Sent from my TARDIS
There is quite a bit on porn hub that resembles "Zootopia". Maybe some people were viewing it for traditional purposes.
But the URL definitely isn't. Pretty my employer would block it. I'm not going to test the theory either.
Sorry, just had to post that.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Well, let's just say it's NSFW.
Well, it looks like they should make an App for the Fire TV to replace YouTube.
Make America grate again!
"You're streaming our content!!"
"so how did you notice?"
---
PornHub is really slipping. I did a search for "Mad Max: Furry Road" and all I got was some stupid movie with hardly any nudity.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
PornHub has made it's money by being very lax about copyright enforcement, especially proactive enforcement when compared to services like YouTube. Is it really any surprise that people are using it to host copyright-infringing material that isn't pornographic?
I suspect that there will be a lack of will from studios like Disney to tackle the problem, as well. At least whilst they think that not doing so keeps their names more separate from 'PornHub' in online searches, the media etc.
-- Gaxx
westworld has some and it's prime time on HBO. the softcore stuff is late night on hbo zone
There's no need this time 'round. Disney finally figured out that they can achieve the permanent protection status they want by trademarking the mouse instead.
This means that in countries where some of their works have already entered public domain, you can copy those works freely, but because the character is still protected by trademark, you cannot freely use the character in any of your own (even derivative) works.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You just didn't watch long enough...
Great, so now they can bring back the duration of copyright to a more sensible duration like it was before.
I found something named "Hamilton gets Blacked", I might check that out later
Actually I'd be impressed if someone did. It would mean they had the same resources, money, and time as the original to create it.
Or it's just being re-enacted by furries.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This does not help anyone living outside the UK now, does it?
#DeleteFacebook
Because holy shit you can't find it anywhere...
Amazon
https://e621.net/post/index/1/female
Now you know!
Our teachers are lying to our children.
Won't someone please think of the children? What might happen to some poor little tots who try to view some hot lesbian action on Pornhub and end up watching a Broadway musical instead?
Have gnu, will travel.
So shouldn't Hamilton be on the Gay Pornhub?
Life isn't all about Zootopia; your proposed fix would miss an episode of Hogan's Heroes.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Simpler solution -- get PornHub to delete all videos longer than 20 minutes.
I come here for the love
Disney can tirademark three circles that even slightly resemble their moose logo.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
That would offend guys who can (A) go for longer than 20 minutes, OR (B) can go twice in a row totaling more than 20 minutes. I know of data points of both instances being non zero.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The DMCA requires that the party requesting the take-down swear under penalty of perjury that they are or they represent the actual copyright owner. How to fix bogus DMCA takedowns is to have a statutory penalty for filing a bogus DMCA takedown. How about making it equal to the statutory ($150,000.00) penalty for copyright infringement?
That would be one way to prevent good stuff from being sucked off the internet by DMCA trolls.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Not quite true. The DMCA requires a statement under penalty of perjury that the party filing the takedown is authorised to represent the copyright holder of the work the notice claims is being infringed. It doesn't require any such statement under perjury that the item being taken down is actually infringing. This is intentional, to recognise that there will be errors in identification - when a copyright holder or their enforcement agent goes enforcing they might find thousands of hits on their search, they don't have to manually download and view every file so they can tick the confirmation box. A bit of collateral takedown is considered acceptable, because there's a counter-notice process for that.
If Zootopia is the best they've got, I'll just settle for watching the porn.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I don't think Google is willing to share their copyrighted works detecting algorithms with Pornhub (or anyone else). It gives them a competitive advantage
You mean "Hoggin' Heroes". It's in the BBW section.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
watched both zootopia and moana there lol
Not following your logic here. Unless you stretch the definitions to count some of the custom code that powers Gmail or whatever, Google isn't in the business of making creative works for consumption. Really, Google would make more money if Zootopia could be uploaded to Youtube by Joe Sixpack and Google could monetize it. These copyright detection algorithms exist because the MPAA and friends require it as a concession to prevent Bigger Lawyer Diplomacy, since the copyright holders understandably aren't too keen on that particular situation. Ultimately, no matter how you slice it, the only competitive advantage is "Google can address copyright claims more effectively than competitors", but since it their customers are advertisers rather than either the uploaders or the copyright holders, and the advertisers get more revenue from more popular uploads, I'd argue that it's a pretty big stretch to call their detection algorithms a competitive advantage in the classical sense of the term.
Your entire sentence right after "Not quite true" seems to agree with exactly what I said. Penalty of perjury. That you are, or that you represent the actual copyright owner. I didn't suggest that the penalty of perjury was about whether there was actual infringement. Although I have an opinion that it probably should. (if the copyright owner is unable to determine actual infringement, how is anyone else supposed to be able to determine what is or is not infringing?) Next, I suggested a serious penalty for what I called "bugus DMCA takedown". That means someone, who is NOT the copyright owner, or authorized agent, being seriously punished for representing that they are. This would eliminate A LOT of misuse of the DMCA. People now seem to think that the DMCA is some kind of magic want to make things on the internet go away because you don't like them. Like speech. Opinions. And other things that have little to nothing to do with copyright.
To offer further opinions, IT SHOULD be up to the copyright owner to correctly identify infringing material. Collateral takedown should absolutely be UNACCEPTABLE. Some idiot copyright owner should not be able to take down YOUR site because they think it might have an infringement, even though it doesn't. I think the counter notice mechanism could be improved.
Basically if you're going to hand copyright owners a super weapon of mass destruction, they darn well better exercise GREAT responsibility in its use. Other people have legitimate interest in their own use of the internet completely unrelated to hollywood.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
the party filing the takedown is authorised to represent the copyright holder
Meaning that I can hire some intermediary to issue the notices. And if I lie to him about my status concerning the copyright, there's nothing anyone can do. As long as the party filing can state that they honestly believed that I was the owner.
Have gnu, will travel.
The DMCA is not a technical problem. No technical solution will fix it. It is a serious bug in the legislative and judicial process.
Every good circus should have three rings: Executive, Judicial and Legislative.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
More importantly, it gives a cover for mistakes.
Disney could, and may well have, simply ran a google search for 'zootopia full download' and piped the results straight into an automatic notice filer script. If it happens that they also ended up DMCAing out some obscure independent production by the same title, or a one-author webcomic or novel... well, it happens. No loss to Disney. The people who wrote the DMCA did anticipate this situation, along with outright DMCA abuse in cases of clear fair use, so they addressed it by including the counter-notice process. They failed to see just how big the internet would get.