copyright infringement

Well, Family Guy is definitely not copyright to him. I'm guessing it is copyright to FOX. So long as FOX doesn't care, you're fine.

If you're just embedding the video on your site (and not hosting) I don't think they would crack down on you.

And, personally, I think FOX doesn't care if some video is shared. It is generating publicity for the show. And, even if they start decide on suing some site (like Nickelodeon did with Youtube for Spongebob Squarepants), just remove the video from the site.

You're safe with adding the video to your site unless you are the epitome of legality and wouldn't do anything to break your morals. Even then it's only your ego that's hurt.

Sumit.

Yes, you are committing copyright infringement.

You can be sued and the punitive damages start in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Just to retain a lawyer to defend you will cost you tens of thousands of dollars and it will likely cost you hundreds of thousands to defend your self and you will loose.

I think you already know what you are doing is wrong and illegal.

You need permission direct from the copyright owner.

The person you are getting the content from is using it illegally as well and they have no right to give you permission.

Be smart. Don't throw your business in harms way by becoming a blatant copyright infringer.

As Josh has said you're way over the line. Websites don't beak rules/law, people do. And I can't understand why you'd even want to take the risk. From your post you say someone else hosts these videos and they are loaded with his adsense stuff. He too is in violation of copyright law unless he's obtained permission.

People somehow think that because a copyrighted video can be found on Youtube or another video host site that it's okay to post the stuff. And there are many creators of copyrighted material who do actually get publicity from having their stuff all over the Web and may not mind. However, it's still illegal and if they wanted to go after an individual they'd win hands down in most cases.

Maybe people who look the other way on this matter will take issue with someone using the material for commercial purposes. But fear of liability for commercial use isn't the reason to not do it. The reason is that it's stealing.

thankyou for the advice guys, i shall stop embedding videos

Fox will let you use them by not doing anything until you make enough that shows real damages.
In other words, your friend is unlikely to hear from them until he makes enough to make it worthwhile for Fox to go after. Then he'll lose everything and $150,000 per violation per day on top of that. If they get a ruling and he cannot pay it all, 25% of everything he makes goes to them until it is paid. The IRS is used to enforce that part of it, so no getting around it.

There is a little hyper vigilance going on in this Fox video.

You'd receive a warning first, to remove the video, before any legal action.

The DMCA warning goes to Youtube. If they don't take action, you are still liable. Granted Youtube is quick and usually responds quickly to those, but it may fall through the cracks. (Unless your contact info is easily found on your YouTube account).

& yes, it is much better to use Hulu embedding, because they have paid the license fee and you are safe, where as it is unlikely your friend at YouTube paid the licensing fee.

I am not an attorney. I'm simply blowing hot air out my ass like other posters here. Copyright infringement strikes a nerve with me and I have an interest in the topic. But for what it's worth...

We could divide copyright infringement into two broad classes for sake of example.

In the first case, a person goes to a movie theater and tapes a new movie release in its entirety. He then burns his copy to DVDs and sells them for a couple bucks each to his friends. No big deal? Take a walk down Canal Street in lower Manhattan and you can find dozens of vendors hawking home-copied DVDs for couple bucks apiece on every corner for 20 blocks.

This is an example of direct copyright infringement--one where the perpetrator took a direct action to cause the copyrighted work to be duplicated and/or distributed. This is not the kind of copyright infringement the OP is concerned about though.

One indirect form of copyright infringement is sometimes called "vicarious" infringement or liability. Here, a person has the ability to control or offer access to copyrighted material and experiences a direct financial benefit from providing that access. If the OP is using any manner of advertising revenue such as AdSense to monitize the site and benefit, even if indirectly, from the use of the embedded videos, that might be construed by a court to constitute a vicarious infringement or liability as related to the use of the copyrighted material.

So even though no actual duplication of the video may have occurred in the embedding of the video, that in no way indemnifies the person who embedded that video to their site insofar as copyright infringement is concerned. Even without direct duplication, simply the facilitation of the distribution of such material may lead to a lawsuit.

If you are using any manner of copyrighted material that does not clearly fall under "fair use" as defined in Title 17, U.S. Code, or--you do not have the implicit permission of the actual copyright holder to use that material--you are opening yourself to the possibility of an infringement suit.

Ignorance of "the law" in cases of copyright infringement is not a defense. If you break the law, you can be held civilly or criminally guilty of infringement and the judgments can be substantial.