|Although MegaUpload and its founder Kim Dotcom have been intensively discussed in the media over the past few years, not everyone knows that Dotcom also had other successful ventures in his portfolio, including MegaVideo.
Dotcom’s file-hosting service operated in a way similar to YouTube and allowed users to upload video. The ad-supported website was free to use for any video up to 72 minutes long, but content of longer duration required a paid subscription to watch in full without waits.
MegaVideo sank 4 years ago together with MegaUpload, but that didn’t stop Italian TV group from suing for copyright infringement. As a result, an Italian court has just ordered the defunct service to pay $13.4m in damages because it reportedly failed to respond to takedown notices. The interesting thing here is that the court decided that the takedown notices listing only TV show titles without URLs were sufficient for the platform to take action. In addition, the court also ruled that video categorization and ad placement undermined the safe harbor.
Representatives of MegaVideo point out that the recent court ruling can be a real cause for concern for other companies operating in the same field. The most attention is attracted by the issue of the URL-free takedown notices, because both in the US and across Europe, takedown notices must be specific about the content to be removed. However, the Italian court decided otherwise, and this presents a real danger for service providers. The court ruling didn’t explain why the copyright owners couldn’t provide URLs in the takedown notices and therefore contradicts US caselaw in cases which allow service providers to ignore takedown requests that do not contain a specific link.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article.
Tuesday, July 26th, 2016
|Will Dog the Bounty Hunter collect the money? Italian courts just don;t have much muscle.|
|now i know italians wear a big yellow streak across their backs !|
crazy ill informed backwood kangaroo court.
|Sure it makes sense, a takedown notice for content but with no URL would be an open takedown notice for the content itself regardless of where its found. Its what the copyright holders want more than virgins. If I read and understood it correctly.||
Most Popular Stories