VH 3.0_blog#2_legal liability

One recurring topic concerning the transfer has been the legal liability.

Honestly, I don't see the major hurdle that would be. As far as I can see, there are only two possible legal threats:

1. copyright issues

2. legal action taken against the site from within or without (other than copyright)

We have had copyright issues here. As it turns out, all that happens when a DMCA is filed against the site is that we need to comply with NING's demand to take down the material in question (regardless of the frivolity or seriousness of the claim) and file a counter claim. We already have experience with that. As long as we are not making any profit on the site, there can't be any kind of further claim ensuing from a DMCA.

The other perceivable legal action possible is any kind of "suing" for real or hallucinated mistreatment of individual users. Basically, the site can't be held responsible for insults or threats members endow each other with. Harassment, occurring or fantasized, falls under the same pov, it's a thing between individuals and at max, VH would be asked to give out the material in question.

Discrimination could be a point (members have spoken about suing VH for that) but honestly, do you see anyone following through with that kind of threat, that would be based on what??

But maybe I'm not seeing everything there is to this point.

kik

0 members like this

Comment by Drone on February 20, 2012 at 5:38am: Vloasis = Vloggerheads 3.0

Why not, it seems to be everything everybody can agree with and come together for. Maybe they can do a democracy there if you really need to.

Vloasis = Future for Vloggerheads?

Comment by Victoria on February 20, 2012 at 5:52am: Marcel ~ I'm trying to figure out what the actual liability is.....I found this interesting. Apparently, all content ultimately belongs to Ning and even if T& P wanted to "sell it" to an individual (should we not find a group option), is there anything to sell? (except for the domaine url ?)

http://www.thecommunityarchitect.com/2009/06/01/ning-review/

Comment by Sedona Leigh on February 20, 2012 at 7:33am: the strongest countermeasure to any potential liability (aka inaction on the part of the website) is good record keeping.

Comment by Scissortool on February 20, 2012 at 8:30am: An individual could purchase a rider to their private insurance policy or an additional policy covering any liabilty from the website at a reasononable rate. I purchased business insurance when I owned a gift shop and had a million dollar policy for a couple hundred dollars a year through allstate ins.. Any insurance agents out there??

Comment by Vitalfinds on February 20, 2012 at 9:03am: You don't need to have made money to be successfully sued for copyright infringement, plus even if it never went to court, there's still be legal costs. Is it likely? I have no idea, but anyone can sue anyone for anything -- and by the way -- InMendham has in fact taken two people to court. In addition to that, a lawsuit was filed by an Ice Cream man against "Nalts" and Youtube, so lawsuits are not an obscure threat. As far as insurance goes, I doubt if it would cover speaking to lawyers if a threat became concerning.

Comment by Judith on February 20, 2012 at 10:02am: Why would someone be willing to take on the legal liability for this site and yet hand over the actual running of the site to others, wouldn't be a smart move in my opinion.

Comment by Sedona Leigh on February 20, 2012 at 10:20am: Vital. Has anyone successfully sued? Any Tom, Dick, Harry or yutz can sue for defamation, libel or copyright infringement....but other than media corps nailing file sharers that make a profit, who has been successful at this game? I can't find anyone.

Comment by Vitalfinds on February 20, 2012 at 10:58am: @SL - Nalts and two other YT folks found themselves inside a courtroom. That's close enough for me. It doesn't matter that they weren't successful, it's still costly and/or time consumng and stressfull.

Comment by Vitalfinds on February 20, 2012 at 11:41am: @SL- In the Nalts example that I mentioned, the guy also included YouTube. The biggest point that I'm making, and like Judith just mentinoed, why would anyone want to do it?

Comment by Victoria on February 20, 2012 at 11:58am: people go after youtube because they believe YT has deep pockets. if we structure VH to have limited liability or business insurance, we've used foresight. Sedona is correct, we must maintain records and be able to document the he/she/it said stuff that happens around here. (as well as adhere to TOS standards without bias.)

Comment