DMCA (Copyright) Explained

[who_cares]

Why even bother having an "entertainment" category all together if you guys are not happy with channels that show movies or TV shows that © holders are not fond of?

You clearly got rid of any wrestling streams, you can do the same with other WELL-KNOWN streams. It makes no sense to close a channel for playing certain movies when there is another channel practically streaming the SAME movies without a shut down. What's the point?

Either way, that channel will re-open and continue streaming regardless. Silly contradictory rules and 'guidelines'.

[Mike_12212012]

Originally Posted by who_cares

Why even bother having an "entertainment" category all together if you guys are not happy with channels that show movies or TV shows that © holders are not fond of?

You clearly got rid of any wrestling streams, you can do the same with other WELL-KNOWN streams. It makes no sense to close a channel for playing certain movies when there is another channel practically streaming the SAME movies without a shut down. What's the point?

Either way, that channel will re-open and continue streaming regardless. Silly contradictory rules and 'guidelines'.

Exactly my point!! Glad others see it.

[DTittel]

Originally Posted by Mike_12212012

DTittel I and other are well aware how this DMCA thing works :rolleyes:, stop bumping your post count.

What I and zombie_squad are bringing to light is the way some casters on Justin.TV are allowed to cast the same thing for days that others get DMCA'd shut down for streaming within minutes of streaming it. And it seems to be the same casters that never get touched. I'm sure for most it is by design by JTV to keep their numbers up cause if they went after all DMCA violators JTV would be a "Social Casting Only" site and I'm sure that would not pay the bills when it comes to advertising dollars.


Just my observation and opinion of what I've seen in my couple years here at Justin.tv.

I promise you I'm really not that interested in my post count as to post for no reason. I'm also sure you and many other members aware of how DMCA works, and I was never questioning that.

As for your point, there are some casters in the entertainment section that have actually gotten permission to broadcast copyrighted content, so JTV would not want to close any feed playing copyrighted content, without the copyright holder specifically asking that the feed be closed. Some feeds may be noticed by the copyright holder while other missed which is why some may not receive a DMCA ban right away while other newer feeds may be banned sooner.

I don't believe there is any DMCA conspiracy on JTV.

[elite data]

Anyone with the proper knowledge & credentials can make a simple submission to JTV to have any channel closed, no questions asked.
This has been a common practice for trolls & griefers.
The right search keywords can get your channel closed even if you dont broadcast anything.
The early beginnings of JTV was meant as an interactive media for "Social Gatherings".
The current state of JTV seems to promote copyright content by permitting categories not relevant to interactive "Social Gatherings" with copyright content warnings located in inconspicuous areas of the website in small print.
Other similar competitor websites have a much more stringent thorough policy on copyright content with clear concise warnings and take the time to investigate the validity of a copyright claim when a claim is submitted properly, JTV does not.
JTV appears to follow the loosely written "by the book" rules of the DMCA law:
Comply with the copyright claim, validity is secondary optional discretion.

[Mike_12212012]

Originally Posted by elite data

Anyone with the proper knowledge & credentials can make a simple submission to JTV to have any channel closed, no questions asked.
This has been a common practice for trolls & griefers.
The right search keywords can get your channel closed even if you dont broadcast anything.
The early beginnings of JTV was meant as an interactive media for "Social Gatherings".
The current state of JTV seems to promote copyright content by permitting categories not relevant to interactive "Social Gatherings" with copyright content warnings located in inconspicuous areas of the website in small print.
Other similar competitor websites have a much more stringent thorough policy on copyright content with clear concise warnings and take the time to investigate the validity of a copyright claim when a claim is submitted properly, JTV does not.
JTV appears to follow the loosely written "by the book" rules of the DMCA law:
Comply with the copyright claim, validity is secondary optional discretion.

Loosely followed statement I would agree with!

[who_cares]

Originally Posted by DTittel

I don't believe there is any DMCA conspiracy on JTV.

Conspiracy? No, not at all.

More like contradictory and hypocritical.

IMO I HIGHLY doubt a regular broadcaster has the sanity to pay hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars to © companies like Fox, Paramount, WB, etc to have the "license" to broadcast movies/tv shows.

The entire Entertainment category for tv shows/movies is by default entirely KAPUT and FUBAR hence the contradiction and hypocritical aspect.

[elite data]

Originally Posted by curtisal

Lifecasting was the main type of content that you would have seen back in Justin.tv’s first year back in 2007. “Entertainment” was not full of Hollywood movies, television shows, or sporting events.

Then let me ask you this Curtisal, what was the intention and purpose of this specified category "Entertainment" back in 2007 if not for what the definition of "Entertainment" means in the dictionary ?
If "Entertainment" was to be such defined as a legitimate purpose related to "Lifecasting" on JTV for the year 2007, then sub categories such as "Movies" should not have existed, but they most certainly did exist.
I cant seem to link "Lifecasting" & "Movies" together, help me out here.
I dont know of or have ever seen any "Lifecaster" operating under the sub category "Movies".
You might as well just "Parade" the event and add a category called "Illegal Activities" at this point.
In my opinion, a sub category (Movies) promoting what would be considered prohibited activities is just "Fishing" for "bonus" ad-revenue since its obvious anything broadcasting under that sub category (Movies) generates quick, large ad-revenue in a relatively short amount of time with no negative consequences to JTV, since JTV can safely "Harbor" under the protection of the umbrella "Act".
Consider the sub category "Movies" a disposable area with a very high turn-over rate.
Its only purpose is quick, large, short time ad-revenue, and with a turn-over rate of 100%, why not reap the profits generated by "Movies" ?
I know i would.

[Tardisblue]

Originally Posted by who_cares

Conspiracy? No, not at all.

More like contradictory and hypocritical.

IMO I HIGHLY doubt a regular broadcaster has the sanity to pay hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars to © companies like Fox, Paramount, WB, etc to have the "license" to broadcast movies/tv shows.

Well, We may not meet up to your level of "sanity" but we have gone out and gotten the license for our content! I am proud to say that we are probably the only ones on the internet that are broadcasting our content LEGALLY......

Sanity? maybe, maybe not.... but I know that I wont be looped into the false DMCA claims. Our letter is on file with JTV to broadcast our content.

[Westcott]

Self-righteousness is so unattractive.
I've a kind of question here that has been bothering me for a bit and thought the Help Forums might be the place to finally ask it out loud. It is about the DMCA and your Vobile system that is meant to identify copyrighted content. Here is my question: If a movie, and I'll use House of Sand and Fog as my example, is taken down by a Warner Brothers request, how is that possible when Warner Brothers only owns copyrights to this movie in Argentina? Are they, Warner Brothers, able to imprint their signifier so that Vobile will see it when their rights are limited to a country or countries outside the United States? Anyone have an idea about this that is fact based?

[ISSMT2]

It should be the responsibility of JTV and not the rights holder to remove DMCA content as its their site.