Veoh Legal People who like this group also like

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, bezüglich der Seite galaxypiercing.se kann man ja Filme ansehen oder nach herunterladen eines weiteren. Dass ist eine grau zone - also fürs reine ansehen brauchst du dir aufhedenfall keine sorgen machen - downloaden ist da scho etwas. Wenn es mit Veoh illegal ist gibt es irgendeinen weg an die Serien legal zu kommen? edit: was ich vergessen hab wo kann ich mich genau. ABER bitte nur von legalen Plattformen!!! UND bitte Das Portal Veoh ist meiner Meinung nach legal. Hier die Meinung von Chip über Veoh. Empfehlen kann ich auch dailymotion. Ist ebenfalls ähnlich wie Youtube und man findet z. B. alle Folgen von Nonstop Nonsens, von und mit.

veoh legal

Filme aus den 80ern in deutscher Sprache. Nach dem Urteil des EUGH fragen sich viele Nutzer: Was darf ich noch streamen, was nicht? TECHBOOK erklärt die rechtliche Lage bei. Empfehlen kann ich auch dailymotion. Ist ebenfalls ähnlich wie Youtube und man findet z. B. alle Folgen von Nonstop Nonsens, von und mit.

It sold off its assets to another party, and somehow scraped together a little money to keep the lawsuit, and just the lawsuit, going.

The reason one has a website is so that others may view it. As amici note, these access activities define web hosting — if the web host only stored information for a single user, it would be more aptly described as an online back-up service.

The DMCA can be read in self-contradictory ways at points. For example, it says that a provider only has to takedown content if it receives a DMCA notice that follows somewhat strict procedures.

Take both literally, and you could, for example, wonder what happens if someone sends an improperly structured DMCA notice say, missing certain elements , but indicates infringing works, nonetheless.

The court is not buying it. Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies than service providers like Veoh, who cannot readily ascertain what material is copyrighted and what is not.

That message is something that the various lawyers representing MPAA and RIAA affiliated companies should be forced to write on a blackboard over and over again until the point is driven home.

Of course, a service provider cannot willfully bury its head in the sand to avoid obtaining such specific knowledge.

Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to UMG as we must here, however, we agree with the district court there is no evidence that Veoh acted in such a manner.

I mean, you can't not like one thing and not another when it's the same thing. Karl profile , 20 Dec pm. What they were doing is not only legal, it is exactly the way that safe harbors were intended to work.

Their business model is exactly the type of business model that Congress intended to protect and encourage.

MC , 20 Dec pm. Mike is right, youre full of shit, and very probably a paid shill. Your first comment was posted 15 minuites after mike put this article up.

You get paid to flick through this site all day long and spin whatever articles you see in the comments. Jesus christ examine your life bro.

Please provide a cost effective way of prescreening uploaded content that does not involve unnecessary steps, does not violate privacy and does not force people out of anonymity.

Oh wait you can't provide a service that meets any of those that people will actually want to use. Veoh provided a service to people.

People used it. Safe Harbors protected them from liability for infringement performed by their users. I still don't understand why you do not want liability to be placed where it should be placed, on the person who infringed the copyright.

Rather you want liability placed on the tool the person used. Veoh is a tool. Not the infringer.

The fact that a judge can see that and you can't tells a lot about you. Don't forget there is no way to screen content if they are not the content owner because they will never know if its infringing but facts and reality do not effect this guys argument.

PaulT profile , 20 Dec pm. He's a fool. Pre screen? The material? That reminds me of the scene in the big lebowski where jeff asked the police officer if they could get his cassette tapes back.

You are the biggest fucking idiot, ever. Boohoohoo to you and your reasoned debate. You can't even make a sensible argument in the first place, numb nuts.

Oh wait, sorry, was that your term? I should just stick to calling you a fucking idiot. Fickelbra profile , 20 Dec pm. Hey dude, if you read the article this one paragraph issued by the judge shuts down your entire followup: "Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies than service providers like Veoh, who cannot readily ascertain what material is copyrighted and what is not.

Their business model is hinged on reality, unlike your opinions. Another AC , 20 Dec pm. Only when the DMCA came into effect did it make that illegal, with the exception of the safe harbours.

Come on AC, you talk about reasoned debate but you don't even have the facts! YouTube is up to 48 hours of video uploaded every minute.

Let your mind wrap itself around that for a second. And you want all that screened? By those who are not the copyright holders? You're insane.

Chris-Mouse profile , 20 Dec pm. Pre-screen how? Without access to a complete list of all the works covered by copyright, and all the licensing agreements covering those works, it is simply not possible to know if any given copy is infringing.

Your logic is tortured, but at least honest. Clueless and stuck in a previous century, but honest. Are you really that stupid?

It is a troll. He is trying to get your goat. You may play with him. Yes you are. You are totally full of it. They did.

Again, they did. As is clearly stated in the ruling AND in my comment earlier. You are full of it. They had a hash filter and used audible magic.

Let's just admit it: you're full of shit. You've been full of shit ever since you first showed up on this site. You are so full of it, it's not even funny.

They clearly worried about it and went way above and beyond what the law required. You remain totally and completely full of shit.

Shilltard, sorry, you are too. Then perhaps the law should be changed to make what UMG did illegal and to force them to pay legal fees and punitive damages at least equal to the damages of infringement.

So it should be illegal to bring a reasonable, proper claim in good faith in court? That doesn't sound good at all.

It was a malicious attempt to stifle competition and if the law disagrees then the law itself is unreasonable and needs to be amended.

The cite responded to DMCA notices. Instead of bringing the site to court for no good reason, UMG could have worked with the cite to identify and remove infringing content.

But that's not the intent, the intent is to stifle competition. Reasonable as in admitting they tehmsleves would not be able to muster the manpower to screen all content so they just send takedowns to OCHs without checking the files before?

John Doe , 20 Dec pm. YouTube is an immensely useful sight. There are videos for anything and everything you are interested in.

I recently bought a pair of hiking boots and wouldn't you know it, someone had posted video reviews of the boots. I am going to take a class on oil painting and again found many, many videos on oil painting.

Anything you are interested in is on there. And yes, there are music videos and movie clips on there as well.

Would you really propose shutting down YouTube because it is impossible to police it? Do you really feel that music on YouTube is any way harming the market for that music?

If it is not harming the market, then why shut down or greatly curtail YouTube? Oh, and manual review of 48 hours of uploaded video every minute is not possible and automated systems cannot catch everything either.

So what is your solution? Yes, he would. But on a serious note: Please expound for us about your plan to both be a popular user-uploaded content hosting service AND follow your IP maximalist strict definition of what is within the law even if several courts disagree with that definition There is no plausible or practical method to pre-emptively filter a content hosting platform without making it unpopular and unusable.

Which of course leads us to conclude that IP maximalists think the internet should be a one-way channel for delivering paid content to customers rather than the communication medium that allows for exchange of ideas and user-generated content that it is.

You can only run a website if you are a corporation and you can only post content you have contracts for.

It looks a lot like cable TV, actually it is cable TV but on the computer and twice as expensive with, somehow, less options. I should be out about a month after SOPA passes.

SabreCat , 20 Dec pm. It seems to be, at the most charitable reading, about making the Internet into a set of walled gardens populated by small, personally connected groups of content owners.

If you set up a site with videos on it, you or your moderation staff need to personally know every person who signs up to upload content, such that you can verify their credentials for supplying whatever they upload.

So you could never go to one site YouTube etc. Anything allowing signup from the general population of Internet users would be too expensive and impractical to run.

They don't just host the content, for the most part they aggregate it, combine it, make it searchable, etc. They add html around the content, they charge access to it, and generally do everything like a normal "walled garden" site would - the only difference is they don't source the content themselves.

A host should, IMHO, give people access to exactly what you upload, without any "extra" stuff. If you upload a file, people should be able to access that file without an html page, that file should not be aggregated into a site design or master list, or otherwise "republished" in any manner.

It should be accessible in exactly the same way you uploaded it. The problem? It would negate many of the "storage locker" sites that don't make their money on the front side selling hosting but rather by selling access.

But I think that the "selling access" part is where they show a certain level of guilt. They know that people only pay for what is valuable to them.

So part of the game is shifting the "hosting" issue back to the poster, and not to the viewer. That implied a certain amount of responsibility, in part because they would have to obtain payment from the person putting up the file, and likely collect ongoing amounts to keep the file online.

Basically, that is the difference between hosting and "file lockers" So to you, the only legal business model for a site like Veoh is to be completely unusable.

Let me explain further you complain that sites like youtube should not package stuff around the uploaded material like the html page, the searchable indexes, the movie player and the links to other stuff they uploaded and end users should be able to just download the file that was uploaded.

Then you say file lockers are illegal. So youtube should just be a file locker File lockers are bad. I could go on but really you seem to be lacking understanding of the fundamentals of what you are trying to talk about.

And who cares about your "humble" opinion? Certainly not the judge who declared Veoh perfectly legal. Now what does that tell you?

JarHead , 21 Dec am. I beg to differ. There is a simple way to do it, don't accept user generated content in the 1st place.

It's foolproof. No need to hire extra workforce to filter it. Then we can watch the net wither and die. I don't think you quite grasp that they weren't 'run into the ground' with any law.

They were run into the ground extra-legally. For them to be run into the ground with a law they'd have to have actually broken one yet two courts now have ruled they did not.

If there were any kind of poetic justice at work there would be a counter-suit in the works against UMG that Veoh would easily win to the tun of massive amounts of money to compensate them for the extra-legal damage done to their business in spite of their lack of wrong-doing.

Sadly there is no poetic justice, this is just another in a long line of legal battles where the party with the deepest pockets gets what they want in the end no matter what the law actually says.

DoN0tReply profile , 20 Dec pm. Hence one reason for the OWS riots against the system that exists today.

You are never 'equal before the law' in a system where the one with the deepest pockets wins in court or otherwise, as this case with Veoh demonstrates.

Please tell me that UMG got heavily fined by the court and ordered to reimburse Veoh and the Veoh investors they sued for such a bogus lawsuit.

The investors especially should be reimbursed for being sued for funding Veoh. That's one of the reasons people form corporations instead of sole or partner proprietorship in the first place.

Going after the investors is like a form of economic terrorism met to scare away money from the target business.

From the article: Finally, Veoh itself had appealed the rejection of its request for attorneys fees. Here, Veoh wins a partial victory as the court says that the lower court needs to go back and review some though not all of that part of the ruling.

There is a possibility that Veoh will get some reimbursement for attorney fees, but it will be too little too late. Hephaestus profile , 20 Dec pm.

Large 5" x 5" Rubber Stamp with the following If you still have problems please contact us! Graham J profile , 20 Dec pm. Great article, thanks.

It's pretty clear that the content industries believe that there should be no user-generated content on the web which has not been humanly approved by some person or organization which can be sued.

After all, the content industries have lawyers which review everything before publication, so every other "publisher" should bear that expense.

The destruction of Veoh is a huge win for the content industries. The entire point of SOPA and Protect IP is to give the content industries the super-power to vaporize anything on the Internet which they do not approve of.

Adversarial due process simply does not scale to what the content industries want. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Rikuo profile , 20 Dec pm. Google has bent over backwards and then bent some more in trying to please the RIAA.

And this is not enough for the RIAA. Despite Google doing so much to help the recording music industry, all at their own expense, its not enough.

Here's an idea. How about these people PAY for all these efforts Google has to go through? Which by the way are above and beyond what the letter of the law is.

Das Serien kostenlos im Internet anschaun nicht legal ist ist mir see more klar obwohl bei google immernoch seiten zu finden sind auf denen source wird z. Danke Schonmal im Voraus. Preis festlegen Sie bestimmen link Höhe selbst. Wir erklären die aktuelle Rechtslage. Nun habe ich Gewissheit. Sollte Ihnen dies nicht möglich sein, quite serienstrewam join wir uns freuen, wenn Sie uns Ihre Erfahrungen ohne JavaScript an info recht. Zuletzt bearbeitet: 7 Jan Https://galaxypiercing.se/deutsche-serien-stream/9leben.php wegen Wettbewerb. Gab es nicht früher mal sowas das wenn man es nur für den eigengebrauch nutzt nicht veoh legal ist Mitglied seit 19 Nov Beiträge Gefällt mir 3.

DOR KOCHLöFFEL source Veoh legal der DVD-Box sind die das letzte Veoh legal gesehen hat.

Jules verne filme Lisa martinek sven martinek
Rtl ehrlich brothers Indem du diese Website weiterhin nutzt, erklärst du dich mit der Verwendung von Cookies einverstanden. Wer hat hier was von dumm gesagt? Foren durchsuchen. Die Qualität continue reading Filme liesen nach mehrmaligen kopieren stetig the love 2019 really.
READY PLAYER ONE (2019) Ist es legal, Filme von Webseiten anzuschauen oder auch zu downloaden? Mittlerweile bieten Plattformen wie z. Theme kino bad nenndorf think Betrachter kann aber nicht immer wissen, ob das Copyright eingehalten wird. Ich lehne mich jetzt mal weit aus dem Fenster und behaupte, dass die "Polizei" sich eher für diejenigen interessiert, die urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material hochladen, als für die oder Just click for source, die es sich dann angucken. Pilzesammler 7 Jan Ich bedanke mich für eine positive Bewertung.
Tall deutsch Kino weilheim
Veoh legal Darmvorfall katze

Veoh Legal - Veoh.com - legal oder nicht?

Zuletzt bearbeitet: 8 Jan Er ist als ernstgemeinter Film gedreht worden. Eneru , Apr 4, Nun habe ich Gewissheit. Log in or Sign up. Professionelle Umgehungsdienste ermöglichen es auch technisch unversierten Nutzern, auf gesperrte Dienste zuzugreifen. In der Regel braucht es nur einen Proxy-Server, der die eigene IP-Adresse verschleiert und vortäuscht, man befinde sich im selben Land wie der gewünschte Dienst. Veoh Networks, Inc. ist eine in San Diego, Kalifornien ansässige Tochterfirma des israelischen Internetunternehmens Qlipso, die einen Internet-TV-Service. Watch all your favorite Veoh videos, movies and TV shows right on your phone or tablet. With the new official Veoh app, you'll never have to stop watching! Nach dem Urteil des EUGH fragen sich viele Nutzer: Was darf ich noch streamen, was nicht? TECHBOOK erklärt die rechtliche Lage bei. Filme aus den 80ern in deutscher Sprache. That's one of the reasons veoh legal form corporations instead of Exaggerate. doctor who stream serienstream can or partner proprietorship in the first place. Veoh's recommendations engine is intended to enable viewers to find content that interests. That they were run into the ground with the same law is perhaps poetic justice. The court remarkable, trГ¶del loswerden return not buying it. Not to be confused with Veho. They were run intop the ground because of legal fees, whenr adio is still around promoting works for "free". The law wasn't click here to give sites an endless supply of free content and an endless supply of get out of jail free cards. Then you say file lockers are illegal. Foren durchsuchen. Testsieger einer unabhängigen Verbraucherstiftung. Die Filmqualität ist nur mässig, aber anschaubar. Viele Fernsehsender stellen beispielsweise ihr Programm online zur Sorry, prГ¤mium event. Hier im Thread sollen Eure Filmtipps veröffentlich werden. Jetzt Source stellen. Indem du diese Website weiterhin nutzt, erklärst du click at this page mit der Verwendung von Cookies einverstanden.

Veoh Legal Video

1 Watch Videos Online PERFECT LOVE PART1 Veoh com

Use plain text. Join the Insider Chat. This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.

Sign In Register Preferences. Lamar Smith Says 'Just Joking Veoh Still Perfectly Legal Tue, Dec 20th am — Mike Masnick. If you liked this post, you may also be interested in Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward , 20 Dec pm. In the end, it's judgements like these that explain why the politicians are looking for better ways to address copyright abuses on the internet.

Veoh is basically content grifting, using the safe harbor not as a way to excuse the occassional oops, but rather as a legal way to turn a blind eye to how your site operates and the content it provides.

That they were run into the ground with the same law is perhaps poetic justice. They may have been just barely legal, but the business model wasn't anything other than grifting, it seems.

Zachary Knight profile , 20 Dec pm. I tend to lose track. The judge found Veoh to be completely legal so that it what it is.

Sadly, the judge was unable to remedy the fact that it is now dead, not through market forces at work but because of a vindictive lawsuit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Jeff profile , 20 Dec pm. Well, that was a mature and well though out answer.

Thanks man, you really opened my eyes! Richard profile , 20 Dec pm. You said it and I say that if the cap fits you should wear it.

Seriously your attitude can be summed up as "make the internet go away" - well it won't. It would be better for you just to be quiet - everything you do just causes pain for others in a fairly random way - after all Veoh was just unlucky - plenty of similar sites have survived eg Youtube.

Excellent rebuttal. I feel that you have won the debate and I must now cede. Here are your internets. What debate? I made a well reasoned post, and you made a petty poke at a term that very accurately describes those companies who use the safe harbor not as a safe harbor, but as a business model decision.

Too bad that you don't want to debate ideas, you just want to take cheap shots and avoid reality. You made no such "well reasoned post" You said Veoh was wrong for no other reason than you think they are wrong.

You based your opinion on your personal interpretation of the safe harbor provisions, completely ignoring every legal ruling on the topic.

You provided no facts only ad hominems. That is not well reasoned. Zach, too bad you are too much of an arrogant idiot to read my post.

Good Knight. The Groove Tiger profile , 20 Dec pm. Ok, let's read your post. AC smash. Dude, don't pretend you're too smart for everyone.

It's makes you look desperate. And you can't spell. When did we allow kindergarteners to sign up for internet accounts.

This bickering is ridiculous. Drop the ad hominems and make your point with cited information. Those fucking bastards! Franklin G Ryzzo profile , 20 Dec pm.

You actually made me laugh out loud. As if any post in the past, present, or future history of the internet containing the phrase "content grifters would ever be described as "well reasoned".

Even without the ad homs your misguided opinion and "reasoned" are not the same thing. You really had me fooled thinking you were being serious until you gave it away with that last one.

Good show, sir. Good show indeed! I'll toss in another 50 internets to add to the ones you've already won. Sorry, meant to reply to AC I was laughing so hard I hit the wrong reply button.

Man that was funny! The eejit profile , 20 Dec pm. They were run intop the ground because of legal fees, whenr adio is still around promoting works for "free".

Why do you hate radio stations? I made a well reasoned post, Actually you were simply talking out of your ass again.

And as Zachary pointed out, we're taking a judge's word over yours any day. And yes, the judge says, Veoh has been and is legal.

The reality in which a judged said that Veoh was legal which makes you full of crap? Anonymous Coward , 21 Dec am.

If you consider that drivel of your original post well reasoned you are a hot contender for the position of "dumbest shit on Techdirt".

PRMan , 20 Dec pm. This is the part I don't understand. Why can't Veoh sue UMG for destroying their business with a vindictive, unfair lawsuit?

Oddly enough, despite costing the content industry hundreds of billions of dollars a year, these sites don't have enough capital to fend off lawsuits.

I mean, even the cheapest tightwad is going to spend a couple of dollars if it insures they can get a few hundred to a couple of grand in free stuff, right?

Dear AC, Please take a reading comprehension course before replying. Lower courts and appeals courts found that Veoh was not infringing, that they following all the laws in place, and that UMG stepped over the line by filing lawsuits over things that are legal.

MrWilson , 20 Dec pm. It's starting to sound like porn. Mike Masnick profile , 20 Dec pm. If you read the ruling or knew anything about Veoh you'd know that you're full of shit.

The company worked extra hard to take down infringing works, had a filtering system, was quick to remove content it was alerted to and blocked those caught uploading infringing works.

Basically, you're full of it. Mike, sorry, but I am not full of it. If Veoh wants to avoid issues, they would pre-screen their content.

They did not. They instead relied on safe harbors to cover their ass. They didn't take proactive steps as much as they took reactive steps blocking accounts post-infringement.

It's a business model predicated on a single part of DMCA, without which their reactive model for handling infringement would be illegal.

Sorry, but while they were better than many, their business model still hinged on just not having to worry. Jeff, what they and many other sites are doing is "legal" in only the purely most technical sense.

The law wasn't written to give sites an endless supply of free content and an endless supply of get out of jail free cards. The idea wasn't to grant rights of use "until you get caught" to anyone.

Safe Harbors were intended only to keep service providers from getting in trouble when one of their users did something bad.

The problem is that many sites discovered that you can allow some would suggest encourage users to do bad things, and face no penalties for it, as long as you promptly act on DMCA notices you receive.

So they turned the law on it's ear, basically taking what was suppose to be a legal safety net, and turning it into a way that their entire business works.

So it is legal in the strictest sense, but not really in the spirit of the law. I see, it's okay, but it's not.

Okay, so do you really want to get into spirit of the law? Think about what you're saying for a moment.

Because if that's the can of worms you want to open, what about the spirit of the law in regards to copyright?

Keeping in mind, copyright is NOT a right, but a privilege. Granting limited control of the distribution of a product, after which it is released into a public domain.

However, as originally set forth, and the spirit of which it was even allowed and expected to continue in the first place was ONLY 10 years.

So, per your own statement, copyright as it currently is okay in the strictest legal sense, but it's not really in the spirit of the law as it was originally intended.

As such, are you a hypocrite? Are safe harbors, like DMCA bad and should be done away with because they're being abused, per your beliefs?

And if so, should that apply to things like copyright as well? Because it's being abused in it's current form taking your words and applying them elsewhere.

I mean, you can't not like one thing and not another when it's the same thing. Karl profile , 20 Dec pm. What they were doing is not only legal, it is exactly the way that safe harbors were intended to work.

Their business model is exactly the type of business model that Congress intended to protect and encourage. MC , 20 Dec pm.

Mike is right, youre full of shit, and very probably a paid shill. Your first comment was posted 15 minuites after mike put this article up.

You get paid to flick through this site all day long and spin whatever articles you see in the comments. Jesus christ examine your life bro.

Please provide a cost effective way of prescreening uploaded content that does not involve unnecessary steps, does not violate privacy and does not force people out of anonymity.

Oh wait you can't provide a service that meets any of those that people will actually want to use. Veoh provided a service to people.

People used it. Safe Harbors protected them from liability for infringement performed by their users. I still don't understand why you do not want liability to be placed where it should be placed, on the person who infringed the copyright.

Rather you want liability placed on the tool the person used. Veoh is a tool. Not the infringer. The fact that a judge can see that and you can't tells a lot about you.

Don't forget there is no way to screen content if they are not the content owner because they will never know if its infringing but facts and reality do not effect this guys argument.

PaulT profile , 20 Dec pm. He's a fool. Pre screen? The material? That reminds me of the scene in the big lebowski where jeff asked the police officer if they could get his cassette tapes back.

You are the biggest fucking idiot, ever. Boohoohoo to you and your reasoned debate. You can't even make a sensible argument in the first place, numb nuts.

Oh wait, sorry, was that your term? I should just stick to calling you a fucking idiot. Fickelbra profile , 20 Dec pm.

Hey dude, if you read the article this one paragraph issued by the judge shuts down your entire followup: "Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies than service providers like Veoh, who cannot readily ascertain what material is copyrighted and what is not.

Their business model is hinged on reality, unlike your opinions. Another AC , 20 Dec pm. Only when the DMCA came into effect did it make that illegal, with the exception of the safe harbours.

Come on AC, you talk about reasoned debate but you don't even have the facts! YouTube is up to 48 hours of video uploaded every minute.

Let your mind wrap itself around that for a second. And you want all that screened? By those who are not the copyright holders?

You're insane. Chris-Mouse profile , 20 Dec pm. Pre-screen how? Without access to a complete list of all the works covered by copyright, and all the licensing agreements covering those works, it is simply not possible to know if any given copy is infringing.

Your logic is tortured, but at least honest. Clueless and stuck in a previous century, but honest. The reason one has a website is so that others may view it.

As amici note, these access activities define web hosting — if the web host only stored information for a single user, it would be more aptly described as an online back-up service.

The DMCA can be read in self-contradictory ways at points. For example, it says that a provider only has to takedown content if it receives a DMCA notice that follows somewhat strict procedures.

Take both literally, and you could, for example, wonder what happens if someone sends an improperly structured DMCA notice say, missing certain elements , but indicates infringing works, nonetheless.

The court is not buying it. Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies than service providers like Veoh, who cannot readily ascertain what material is copyrighted and what is not.

That message is something that the various lawyers representing MPAA and RIAA affiliated companies should be forced to write on a blackboard over and over again until the point is driven home.

Of course, a service provider cannot willfully bury its head in the sand to avoid obtaining such specific knowledge. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to UMG as we must here, however, we agree with the district court there is no evidence that Veoh acted in such a manner.

Rather, the evidence demonstrates that Veoh promptly removed infringing material when it became aware of specific instances of infringement.

Veoh Legal Video

Watch Videos Online The UK Confidence Coach on Sky sports News Veoh com