Video Content site

[mosteanuv]

If i make video only website where could be right-protected material(video clips, shows etc) (like happened to YouTube) but i make a registration required to view any content of the site and write in the terms of agreement that i forbid the registration of any law/investigation agency employee (and more) to join my site, can i use this not to get sewed for legal matters because my privacy was invaded? This will be a 100% free site.

here is what i wrote so far, will this help me in any way or what can i do?

1)You may not register to this site if: - you are a member of a goverment or investigation agency of any structure,from any country, or you can be connected to them in any way
- you are a member of (or you can be connected to) an anti-piracy group of any kind
- you work in (or you can be connected to) the police, Parchet, DNA, RDA,BSA, MPAA
- you work in (or you can be connected to) any production/distribution of movies or any tv series
- you are working in(or you can be connected to) [my hosting site], an ISP or you are the employee of such a company


1)By gaining access to [my site] site directly or indirectly you agree to the fact that the owner of the site or any person in cause isn't in any way responsable and can not be acusated of anything in front of the law, fined or anything of that kind. You agree that you will not have/emit any demands (legal , financial or of any kind) against the owner of the site or any person in cause.

thank you in advance.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Who gave you this preposterous idea? How about stating "if you can potentially sue me for copyright infringement you are not allowed to become a member of this site."

To begin with, you are forgetting the most important party that you haven't excluded - the actual owner of copyrighted material. He wouldn't know that he can't join until after he has already seen the infringing material.

But I don't even have to go that far. I'll bet the farm that your own host's Terms of Service make it clear that hosting infringing materials are in violation of their Terms of Service.

Trust me - the very high priced attorneys at YouTube are not stupid. If this was a defense then one of those legal eagles would have used it but it's so obviously not feasible.

 

[mosteanuv]

yes you are right but youtube is a public site with no registration required and they can not choose their customers, what i am writing is the terms of agreement is a common document that the P2P users (DC ++ and other file sharing clients) have in their share folder and from what i read from different sources what i share on my computer or on my site is my private space and it can not be invaded by people that i don't want to. Police can not come into your house (private space) without a warrant if you don't let them and the same laws apply to a paid domain and paid hosting space (once i pay for it, it becomes my personal space).

The European Union's Directive on the Protection of Personal Data came into force on October 25, 1998.It restricts the information that may be gathered about individuals in EU member states and forbids the export of personal data from EU member states to any third party nations which lack "an adequate level of protection. Under the Directive, Member States are required to impose minimum standards with respect to the processing of personal data on the Internet.

The Directive requires that
(a) personal data may be processed only with the consent of the individual;
(b) individuals be informed as to the intended purposes of such processing;
(c) information not be processed in a way incompatible with such purposes;
(d) individuals be given access to and ability to correct personal data and right to block
processing of such data; and
(e) individuals have a right to judicial remedies and compensation with respect to violations of their privacy rights.
In addition, certain types of data -- relating to a person's race or ethnicity, political, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, and health or sex life -- are accorded additional protections.
The European Union views data privacy as a fundamental right that is best protected by legislation and federal policing.

i did a lot of research on that i would like to know if i have a solid ground on this, but trust me it is a common practice the use of the privacy right.

Example: i can say to a lot of people that i have a lot of music at home and that i listen to it all the time, but police or any agency can not come into my house (without me agreeing to it) to check to see if it is pirated music, and they ca not get a warrant only based on a suposition.

P.S. the site is 100% Non-Profit and it will never use commercial or say anything out of the registered area like: "Watch any Lost episode" or "Watch the latest Madonna video".

So don't you think that the privacy laws apply to my site to?

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Unfortunately you aren't understanding the difference between P2P and an actual Service Provider by hosting the files and your assumptions that your account is your personal space that can't be investigated is, no offense, contrary to any common sense. You also don't understand what the privacy directive means - it's about what a web site does with information it collects from it's members and limitations on it's usage, e.g. marketing, etc. When a web site collects information about its members, those rules govern what the site can do with them and what it must do, e.g. destroy the information if the account holder requests it be done, what it has to provide if an account holder requests a copy of his/her information, etc. Common sense dictates that no legislative body would be enacting privacy rights to protect the rights of copyright infringers. Sure there are privacy rights but when you put up things on the web themselves it's like installing screen doors and windows all over your house and complaining about passersby who can look into your house.

In P2P a service allows people to send files back and forth but the files themselves do not rest on the space of the P2P company - they sit on each user's hard drive, e.g. like your computer at home. So each individual who is making the files available themselves is the primary target and finding out who those users are can be a real chore. One investigating the provider of these infringing files needs to find out the different IP addresses are associated with the user providing the files and then get another subpoena to find out from an ISP whether they have records to show what actual person used that IP address.

If you are YouTube, then the files themselves are hosted on YOUR site. YOU then bear the liability and responsibility in full for providing these files to others. It's much easier to know who is hosting these files because you have a hosting account with your hosting company, which is notified and who will legally be able to shut you down and provide your information is provided. You should probably become more familiar with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which is more relevant to the site you want to put up.

Let's say you want to host your files on a file sharing site like SnapDrive for example, the site is supposed to be used for legitimate purposes only. They also have to comply with the law and give up your name if they receive a subpoena and you are nailed for the entire operation. Probable cause? There is a link to your web site that they have seen/received that has all the audio tracks for the latest Britney Spears album in WMV format.

If you're seeking information on how to put up another video sharing site like everyone else, you should be investigating what the DMCA is, the Safe Harbor provisions and the rules of what it means to be a service provider. As I said, it's not bulletproof and the attorneys for YouTube (even before Google) weren't stupid and also understood the risk v. reward issue in providing such a service.

 

[mosteanuv]

sure, i understand what you mean but my ideea , simple put ,was:

1) I bought the domain and the hosting space and it becomes a private space
2) i don't put anything that can make the terms of a warrant outside the registered area, not even talk about it( not like putting a lot of windows, i will never say "Watch any video".
3) reserve my right to choose the people that can register

another example i think i can give you in my defence is: if i have at home 3 Kg of cocaine in my bathroom i can choose not to let any police officer or anybody of that kind into my bathroom, going in without my acceptance (or a warrant which they cannot get only because they think there is cocaine there) will nullify the evidence because he violated my rights.
4)***

And do I have the right to ask people in the terms of agreement that they can't snapshot, film or take anthing out of the registered area (because the site is under copyright law, the files may not be but the site is *) and can i specify in the terms that they have to agree that they won't disclose any information to a company (film, agency etc) about what they see in the registered area**?

*Q: if in a museum they ask you to sign a paper when you go insede where it says that photos are forbidden and i make a photo and in that photo there is a stolen vase, would my photo be considerated evidence?... because i did break the agreement when i took the photo

**Q : like in a contract signed by a worker where it is forbidden the disclose any information about it to anybody.

*** They can't get a warrant if the terms of agreement are met

Agreement act i want to use

 

[Michael Wechsler]

There is no bulletproof way you will be able to find that will protect you from committing a crime, e.g. copyright infringement.

(1) The fact that you have the intellectual property of others on your "private space" is an infringement violation. You don't need to instruct anyone to download or view in order to be in violation. Nor is it required if you are making it available on your "private space" for download.

(2) Choosing people whom can register will assist you in this act not being known but not for liability.

(3) An illegal agreement itself is void from its inception, e.g. I'll give you illegal files in exchange for your promise of secrecy. The obvious difference between you and the museum is that the museum has a legitimate purpose - you don't. This is why the museum can uphold it's contract - admission for $10 on the condition you don't take pictures - as opposed to you.

Now let's talk about non-disclosure. A non-disclosure agreement is an instrument that concerns civil law, not criminal. It's not a search and seizure by the government situation. It's an agreement between two private citizens not to disclose information.

Additionally, you have the same problem as the above with regard to the disclosure as your agreement itself is illegal. Let's say that it's enforceable. Remember, this is not a criminal case but a civil case. You could sue the disclosing member for breaching your agreement but that does not prevent the owner of the copyrighted material from suing you. The owner of the copyrighted material would likely involve your host who could easily provide him with all the proof he needs as a result of your agreement with your host.

As I mentioned, if you want to understand why YouTube could do what it does (arguably) then you should read the case, which I'll post a copy of here. You are far from the first person to try to concoct a situation where he could host a warez site that is insulated from government investigation and it's just not going to happen and, if it does in some form, it isn't going to be easy at all.

 

[mosteanuv]

"You could sue the disclosing member for breaching your agreement but that does not prevent the owner of the copyrighted material from suing you."

This is what I am talking about, I need to know that I have total control on the persons that visit my site and does something that cancels our user agreement and i can persue them in a civil case.

If it is so BRING IT ON copyright protection companies because i have somebody to blame and sue. Now I am asking you, would you report me to a copyright company or any government institution if you knew that any action they take against me i am going to take against you and ask for compensations?...and trust me I would ask for at least what the company is asking me, because I can prove that other then a user from the site, nobody else could report me, or in no other way they could have found out about the from another source (e.g. search engines or other sites).

You have to understand that I know that it is possible to get sewed but i am just looking for a way out by sewing somebody else for at least what i am beeing sewed if not geting the evidence against me nullified.


B.t.w. Thanks for all the info it is great to talk to somebody with experience about this.

 

[mosteanuv]

i thought about it and i really think it's not worth the risk to just do it for my amusament!

Thank you !

<Closed>

 

[Michael Wechsler]

i thought about it and i really think it's not worth the risk to just do it for my amusament!

Good choice. Even if you could sue someone else (which you probably can't) who could say they would be have money, e.g. your neighbor, to fund a huge lawsuit? Secondly, if the hypothetical worked, you could only sue them to get compensated for your loss. This means that Sony has first dibs at being able to sue you with their huge war chest, get a huge judgment against you (while you pay thousands defending it) only for you to try to sue someone else for tattling on you that you were committing copyright infringement. Not a great position to be in. In the meanwhile, just use what's out there and let Google handle the lawsuit from Viacom and countless others!

 

[mosteanuv]

from what i heard they are looking for a middle way, they want to create a database with all the music videos ever, offering for the rights to display them free commercial space before each of them. That is a bold move that if they manage to do i don't think there will ever be an internet user that doesn't access Google or Youtube at least once.