Purevidz claims to be some type of censor resistant platform using torrents and a few other buzzword technologies to create a streaming content site similar to hulu or netflix but with pirated content.
Lets ignore the technology aspect of this scheme. Lets ignore that you already can get this content for free from a number of reliable sources including the censor resistant sites on zeronet (zeroplay, zerotv, zerotorrent.bit) Maybe you can't stream them yet, but again lets ignore all technology aspects, similar to their threads where they only focus on the money.
The center and most heavily promoted part of this scheme is the bounty system. Bounty is paid in vidz tokens. Bounty is used to request content and pay moderators off and pay for development. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that the moderators and developers are generating money from illegal content, ie making money from pirated content. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that owners of this token are propping up the value of their token through illegal content.
It seems to me that once you include money (the vidz tokens) with pirated content you have just opened yourself up to a whole new legal level of MPAA lawsuits. So the purpose of this thread is to discuss who will be liable and how will the MPAA take this?
I foresee the MPAA going after, very heavily,
any exchange that trades a token (who's sole purpose is linked to pirated content trading)
users who purchase the token
hosting companies who are paid via this token
legit businesses who wish to use this service but get paid bounties via this token
moderators who receive this token as form of payment.
why would holding vidz make holders liable as well? where do they explicitly say their service is for pirated content because i recall seeing it said early on that the platform would be scaled for all types a videos so long as the video/torrent has users seeding it.
if their platform decided to buy up a ton of doge (or insert w/e your favorite coin is here) before and they did their exact same model of coin burning, etc. etc. does this some now implicate doge holders. why or why not? is it because there are holders of doge who hold it for other purposes then purevidz? how does the law differentiate and determine what type of holder you are and then determine who to turn a blind eye to?
in that case how does the law differentiate between vidz? if vidz is listed on an exchange an investor/buyer might be oblivious to what it is and simply be looking to make trades by analyzing the market. they see it as simply another crypto asset since the exchange listed it. is the fault with them? the exchange? who?
i'm not going to call your questions/statements outright fud but because of the grey area of so much of this stuff "only time will tell"
The OP is completely uninformed.
The project in question was, explicitly and in detail, promoted as being legal in the domiciled jurisdiction.
Investors in junior, speculative securities such as gold or medical or tech or crypto promotions...
Have no independent information on what is really being done by the Principals... and can only rely on the Prospectus.
