Helo I started last month uploading to filesonic my colection of porn. Its basicaly 2 siterips from low budget sites (one of wich is currently closed) with very interesting content. After that i posted some links only in 6 forums (i dont have a own site or blog and i only post in those forums) and started making some good money from filesonic. None of my links ever got deleted by DMCA. Can those porn sites sue me? Maybe its a stupid question because of all of the people that do the same on a very larger scale but i would like to have your feedback anyway.
The answer to any question that starts with 'Can I be sued for...' is always yes. You can be sued for anything. Whether the other party has a legitimate actionable claim in a civil suit, is always up to interpretation. And in your case I would say yes, they have a legitamite actionable claim. You ripped a site and now you are making that site's intellectual property available to the world. Even better, what you may be do may be criminal. Indecency laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and you are making porn of 'very interesting content' (my mind can only imagine) available. Odds are you won't be brought to court on a civil nor criminal case, but I think what you are doing subjects you to both.
You can't compare what other sites do because you don't really know the specifics...where they are hosted, whether or not they actually are associated with parent sites, if they are authorized affiliates, etc. So what you think other sites are doing and supposedly getting away with may not be the case. It is common, especially with porn sites, to have many satellite sites that promote their content and they could be registered under many different names. Some of the larger porn distributors have 100's of domains and sites online in every possible niche imaginable, so what you are looking at may just be owned by the owner of the content anyway. Everything online is not as it seems and if you base your actions, especially when you know them to be suspect, based on what you assume is going on, you leave yourself wide open for trouble. It's so easy to just become an affiliate and get legal access to tons of material. There is no reason not to do things above board.
I think yes! they will sued you by doing that they have there reason on that thing.Many legal bases on that.
You don't own the copyright or a license to distribute it so no you can't in the eyes of the law its no different to you taking a copy of the latest hollywood blockbuster and distributing that, if you make money out of it that's of course worse but either way it is illegal, whether you will get caught is another matter, the fact that the content is not available elsewhere wouldn't make a difference either it still is someone's copyright
You are reproducing a copyright product without permission of owner, what do you think your legal status regarding it would be? And yes, you can be sued, but it's not very likely.
Downloaders are never prosecuted; uploaders are only rarely brought before the courts. Time Warner only has to give up 28 names per month, in spite of thousand of criminal and civil requests. The easiest way to get a prosecution, has been for media companies to imbed data in film product, and then monitor torrent sites. NEVER upload or download from them. File sharers are safer, for now. See this story from p2p-zone: P2P Plaintiffs to Get Just 28 Time Warner IPs Each Month Nate Anderson Suing tens of thousands of accused peer-to-peer movie file-swappers—it can be a lucrative business model, but it works well only when Internet service providers can turn huge lists of IP addresses into real names and addresses in a timely fashion. But what if a major ISP like Time Warner Cable only had to do 28 of these lookups a month? And might take three years to burn through its entire list? Time Warner Cable has pleaded with the federal judge overseeing several of the P2P cases brought this year by the US Copyright Group. The company averages 567 IP lookup requests per month, nearly all of them coming from law enforcement. These lookup requests involve everything from suicide threats to child abduction to terrorist activity, and the company says that such cases take "immediate priority." It says that, without a major staffing increase, it simply cannot turn around more than 1,000 requests in a timely fashion without compromising the much more important requests from law enforcement. TWC requested that the judge limit subpoena lookups for the US Copyright Group to 28 per month. In response, lawyer Tom Dunlap blasted TWC as a "good ISP for copyright infringers." He went on to threaten the company, saying, "To the extent TWC’s tactics are just that—letting the public know that TWC is a good ISP for copyright infringers because TWC will fight any subpoenas related to infringers’ activities—TWC exposes itself to a claim for contributory copyright infringement." Judge Rosemary Collyer, who is overseeing the Far Cry and The Steam Experiment cases, doesn't agree. In a recent ruling, she has modified TWC's subpoenas so that the company "shall provide identifying information for a minimum of 28 IP addresses per month." And that's not 28 per month, per case; it's 28 per month total for both cases combined. How long will it take to get through all these subpoenas? Several months ago, TWC faced 809 lookup requests related to the Far Cry case alone. Since that time, the plaintiffs have added several thousand more IP addresses to the case, and more requests have come from the Steam Experiment case. Assuming a lowball estimate of 1,000 IP addresses that belong to TWC, the company may take nearly three years to do all of its lookups. Collyer's ruling doesn't affect the other P2P cases brought by US Copyright Group that are being heard by other judges, and it doesn't affect other ISPs (TWC was the only one to object so strongly). But it does suggest that federal judges are sympathetic to the argument that law firms can't simply dump thousands upon thousands of IP addresses on ISPs and demand quick responses. In addition, Judge Collyer refused to "sever" the thousands of defendants in each case, as requested by the EFF and ACLU. "But they may be severed in the future," she wrote.