So why isnt that the rule? To not attach the image/imbed the video?Captain Hammer wrote:Yes, merely linking to the photos isn't illegal. Except, that's not all that's done with the photos. They do get reposted here (as many people use the attachment feature or put the URL into the bracket in order to post the image here), as well as saved and re-uploaded elsewhere, and then re-linked. That does cross into infringement.
Note, in the quote you took, I didn't say linking was illegal, I said it was wrong (even the example I used of sites that link to copyrighted video I didn't say that was illegal, as I actually know full well its not, even though it kinda should be). And, as I said earlier, regardless of if its legal or illegal, our concern is how its contributing to people being harassed and that needs to stop, and how we don't have their permission to use their content in the first place for sexually gratification (or whatever you want to say is the reason you enjoy wedgies).
Your second comment...where is it written that if intent of a video is misconstrued from the original meaning the creator intended...thats its illegal or whatever.
I...really tried scouring the google pages and found nothing. I quickly found information that proved the opposite (my last post) but nothing that shows an example or law that...
gosh, sharing links with intent that differs from the original intent of the uploader is...incriminating.
Thats like saying if i posted a video about...pro vegan. With a bunch of facts and hard evidnece about why vegan-ism is good. And it gets plastered (as a link) on "vegans sucks" site and everyone comments how "oh man this is why i hate vegans"...that I have liberties to take legal action against...anyone because the intent was misconstrued?
If yes....example? I'll take a yahoo article at this point.
(in regards to the sharing videos/vines/pics, again completely support raising the age for the site and getting rid of the buddies section)
Again I ask this because ...these decisions seem to have been made more on feelings than actual legal implications.