Thank heavens - the illegal downloads will be out the door. I have been worried about the effect they had on all of us

And yes, greekgeek, the good fan lenses etc will be much better off very fast

Hip, hip hooray!

Now some great reviews and fan lenses about TV shows, movies and indy films will have a chance to shine on the Top 100 list again, instead of only the illegal download pages!

I agree completely. These "watch *** for free" or "download *** for free" lenses in the top 100 have bugged me for a long time. So glad to see they're getting cleaned.

I believe I've brought this up on the Angels forum as well, but most of these "watch something for free" lenses try to make money using ClickBank affiliates, usually from Platinum Partner:

http://platinumpartner.com/index.asp?sh … cat=Movies

Platinum Partner is a well known scam that sells normal BitTorrent or other file sharing programs (which are free - and legal as long as you don't share copyrighted content) disguised as "movie download services". Basically you're paying money to download pirated content; you're both getting scammed (paying for a program that's free), and committing a crime (downloading movies illegal via it). Ouch!

If you see a lens that links to sites in turn linking to one of the PlatinumPartner gateways (getdownloadmovies.com, moviedownloadsnow.net, themoviedownloading.com, moviewiz.net, topmoviehits.com, moviesforpc.com, and MANY more), it's promoting a scam and should be reported!

Last edited by Chadrew (04/07/2009 2:47 am)

Timing is everything.  This was published today: http://mashable.com/2009/03/30/youtube-redesign/

thefluffanutta wrote:

(Amazon also have a legitimate Video on Demand service)

Does this mean we should be reporting any dodgy 'free download' lenses we come across?

Amazon and NetFlix are also a-ok.  Plus they're moneymaker modules!

You're free to report any dodgy lenses of any make and model using the "report abuse" link found on every lens.  For lensmaster bio pages, this link can also be found at the way bottom right of the footer.

Good.  It's not just videos though so hopefully a similarly strong line will be taken with the many (particularly celebrity) stills which are also included in lenses in probable breach of copyright.

Kate

Actually I've just found a lens which has been given LOTD in the past that seems to reproduce several copyright images.  It atttributes but that is sufficient only if images are Creative Commons or is a research exemption is claimed. 

I really think we need a detailed policy from Squid HQ on what still images can and cannot be used on lenses.

Kate

This is a very interesting tread, however the video and you tube modules squidoo offers could go the way of the unicorn. How is a lensmaster to know that what they link to on a multitude of video streaming services is legal or not, I have read that some of these services have a clause in their tos, that you lose all copyrights, ownership when you upload videos to their service, so who really knows? Unless they uploaded them themselves. I mean that I am not a big fan of home movies, and I dont think alot of people really are, these movies really have to be good to hold my interest. Have a great day. And a better tomorrow.

Last edited by interstellaryeller (05/07/2009 10:17 am)

Hi,

Hi,



        [[[SquidooKimberly wrote:

            This includes but may not be limited to sites that display or allow the download of:
            - movies still available for purchase (a.k.a. not "out of print")]]]

There are pre-1923 films that are in the public domain because the copyright period has expired. There are also some post-1923 movies that are identified as having come into the public domain (usually because the holder of the copyright failed to renew the copyright pursuant to the laws in effect at the time when the original copyright period expired). These are movies from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, even some from the 1960s. Some of these movies may well be "available for purchase" in the sense that a company puts a version of the film on DVD and makes it "available for purchase." If the film is improved or edited or remastered for the DVD version, then that DVD version may have its own copyright protection, and shouldn't be used in a way that runs afoul of the DMCA. But that doesn't alter the fact that there is also a version of the film that remains in the public domain.

There are old time radio shows and golden age of televsion shows that have similarly come into the public domain. A company may package such materials onto a CD or DVD and make them "available for purchase," and their version if improved or re-engineered for the CD or DVD may possibly have its own copyright protection, but that doesn't take the other (original) version of the radio or tv show audio or video content out of the public domain.

Thanks for the announcement on the DMCA. It's helpful, and I'm glad Squidoo is cracking down on lenses that promote or encourage unauthorized download of recent movies and songs and tv shows. But I respectfully suggest we should be able to display or embed or link to the films, radio and tv shows from Archive.org that are identified as being in the public domain.  The Squidoo TOS, which refer to "current" movies, don't suggest otherwise.