As far as threadjacking goes, this doesn’t appear to exactly be grand central station, so I’d submit that this is not really a significant issue here, but at any rate this thread has probably reached the end of its usefulness anyway.

Good luck to you and to gitarcarver

I believe that you have misread and misunderstood the Napster ruling and how it would apply to YouTube.

However, at this time I agree with Mr Olson and will withdraw from this conversation.

Good luck to you.

If there is any point in further extending this already prolonged discussion, of which I’m not sure, decent manners are called for.

Glad I could provide a laugh for you. However, as you have stated, the revenues for YouTube come from the advertising, not from the videos themselves.

By any definition, that is not “direct” revenue from the infringing material.

and to say nothing of the fact that copyright directives such as the OSP ruling are explicitly built such that when bright-lining occurs, there is a huge likelihood to believe that they are broken in the sense that the essential balance that copyright is intended to preserve is not being maintained.

If anybody out there is just kind of following along and wondering why I am so frustrated, now that you see how unashamedly gitarcarver is prepared to lie for his cause, surely now you see where the frustration comes from.

Comedy Gold.

Sorry, YouTube PASSES this test. The key word is “direct.” YouTube does not receive any direct financial benefit from posting the infringing materials.

TEST 1. An OSP must “not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity” to qualify for § 512(c) protection – YOUTUBE FAILS THIS TEST. Sorry, youtube VERY CLEARLY fails this test as infringing videos are and continue to be a major ‘draw’ for youtube. Denial ain’t just a river in egypt, baby.

TEST 2″B” – “Knowledge of Infringing Material”. This one is not as clear cut as test 1, but that’s only because test so is so clear cut. I’d posit that youtube fails the “red flag” test, but this is for a longer debate than I’m interested in having here.

in short, yes, I think youtube complies with “the law” when it comes to takedown notices.. though they do so in the most obnoxious way possible. however, since they fail test 1, it is irrelevant.

or, do you really think that my hypothetical ‘bring your own flash drive’ movie theater would last more than 5 minutes? no, its ability to survive would depends on its size – either it would have to be so small that nobody gives a damn or so large that it manages to intimidate even government lawyers into dealing with it and so ubiquitous that satisfied users like gitarcarver would go about making any possible excuse or wordplay necessary to keep their toy in business.

they are republishing infringing material in a manner that clearly fails both ‘fair use’ and ‘common carrier’ tests. so,

They are not content providers as defined under the law. Therefore your position that they are “republishing” is not accurate in the least.