Much to Google's delight, a federal judge has dismissed a porn infringement suit brought against online video site Veoh.com. Adult entertainment outfit Io Group sued Veoh in 2006, after noticing the site was streaming ten of its flicks. The YouTube-esque Veoh hosts videos uploaded by other people. But, like so many other old …
As if our friends at Google are losing a fight any time soon?
Lets face it, porn IS the internet aside from codes, and cute fuzzy animals...
Only Napster will lose these types of cases in court (unless I'm mistaken, and I know someone will correct me on that). From a cheapskate's point of view, why pay for porn when I can get it for free?
man you suck.
> man you suck.
Yep, and so do Chelsea. Your point was...?
re: @Andrew Norton
Aw, c'mon Glickman, be a good sport!
Chelsea suck hard at the top of the Premier League already. Yup we suck hard.
The "blinkered media outfits"...
just don't get it, do they.
It's FREE ADVERTISING, you bunch of fecking retards!
Paris Sucks Too
I found Veoh a while back after quicksilverscreen dropped below the radar... interesting site ... but when it comes to the "copyrite infringment" argument I think one is on rather 'dodgy' ground because the 'quality' is sufficient only to give the viewer a general 'feel' for the story. Streaming speeds are often lower than viewing speed too so it can be an enourmously frustrating experience. What it does do, however, is give me an excellent 'preview' of movies I might like to see or purchase at a later 'date'. As for Paris... obviously I'd like a 'date', a 'quality' 'feel' and a 'dodgy' 'preview'.
Re:were my eyes decieving me?
Isn't it refreshing. Great work, Cade. Lets have more of this and less of the offensive name calling.
of artical to use the term "Yup we suck hard." anywhere near. :-)
hang on ...
Is this another case of a judge making informed decisions ?!
is the common sense disease spreading ?!?!
mine's the one with the tinfoil hat.
RE: Not much to see here.
This isn't really relevant to the YouTube case - one the main provisions of the Fair Harbor provision is that it doesn't apply if you actively police the network. Veoh doesn't. YouTube does (to take down porn).
Hence the defense Veoh have used isn't relevant for YouTube…
Re: Poor choice
Not when talking about Chelsea it isn't.
@ Chris Matchett
It's a marathon not a sprint as has been shown the last 2 seasons :-)
Paris: She prefers a marathon to a sprint
"is the common sense disease spreading ?!?!"
I bloody hope so, it's about time!
There are loads of places to go
for plain-vanilla reporting. There is only one Register! (If you'll notice, the motto is still there... biting the hand etc., etc....) Reg, please do not let some boring coffin-dodgers unduly influence the reporting, thx =D
Uh, unless Veoh scammed the judge and Io didn't pick up the lie either, Veoh definitely DO police their site and far more assiduously than the DMCA safe harbour requires.
Which was all in the fucking article.
But that would have slowed down your paytard rant against anything not of the Holy Blessed MAFIAA.
"Paris: She prefers a marathon to a sprint"
Nah, she doesn't have snickers.
Ah, but does she have nickers?
(talking of rimshot...)
mine's the one with the neatly folded navy blue handkerchief...
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Did Apple's iOS literally make you SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1