subject:"\[videoblogging\] Re\: massive infringement \(was\: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...\)"

When I said dragging culture back out of the darknets and onto the  
open web this is hardly what I though. But heh if you want to try and  
run a business on copyright infringement go right a head...

...get yourself sued.

This particular veoh user, that's just mad, crazy copyright  
infringement.

However I don't personally believe everything is such a clean cut and  
dry thing.

Basically we're in the middel of a prohibition era. Except it's not  
alchohol and speak easy's, it's about digital culture and darknets.  
Media is a fundamental part of our cultural language it's use in  
online discussion is enevitable and in the case of fair use a right.

All this is to say... it's going to be a dirty stinking mess for a  
few years yet, at least. It's probably going to get worse before it  
get's better. But basically this mess of disturbing actions going  
both ways from copyright maximalists and copyright infringers through  
this mess of disturbing actions and precisely because of it is going  
to sort itself out.

What's more... this is a HUGE step forward from the darknet days  
we've had since napster... by getting media and in essence the  
cultural dialogue back out onto the open web we can duke it out and  
make progress on this issue... and it's better to be bloodied and  
brawling in the streets that it is to be laying in a dark alley in a  
pool of your own blood.

I'm definitely not saying i condone it, what I'm saying is I think  
it's absolutely freaking awesome this debate is happening... and when  
and if it hits the press and these issues become the topic of the  
nightly news like the MySpace and kiddy porn/ stalker /whatever  
issue... well then no matter how much we loath the  
mischaracterizations and hype we have to recognize that the very act  
of debate is progress itself. It's dirty and I don't know about you  
but I wouldn't want it any other way.

Chaos breeds creativity.

And so... what's going to come out of this shakedown is nothing less  
than the future of media... how to monetize... what is fair use... a  
new definition and pardigm for copyright... the next CNN... the next  
Time/Warner... this is what we're talking about. The stakes are very  
high... and people are going to experiment and take risks and get  
burner and there's going to be hype... Most obviously that people  
will think that when I say the next Time Warner that this will happen  
in anything less than the next 20 or so years.

It's those people who like in the .com boom are living in the future  
and don't even realize it... don't realize that the rest of the world  
is not changing at the same speed as our clicque that are eventually  
going  to get burned.

What I'm saying is... slow down. Change doesn't happen overnight.  
Veoh is way a head of itself here... and it's going to catch up with  
them, and I don't just mean a lot of vloggers either. I'm starting to  
wonder if for example Youtube isn't going to end up getting owned by  
the very people who's media it's profiting off of... in much the same  
way as napster was owned and is now a shill company for a closed,  
proprietary, DRM, rent-a-music service noone would ever use. Ohh...  
such irony.

Fun stuff here,

this is a good thread, and I've barely gotten into it.

-Mike


On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:47 PM, T.Whid wrote:

So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?

I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.

You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.

I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
infringement ;-)

On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
 these infringing uses...
 look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
 Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
 looks the other way.

 Check out Ducksauce's videos:
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/? 
 d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.

 Or Porshche911turbo:
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/? 
 d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
 million views.

 Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
 are generating a huge amount of viewers

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

And living in a cabin in Montanna.

:)

On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Enric wrote:

News of privacies death has been exaggerated; it's alive and well.

   -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, T.Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?

 I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
 they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
 etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
 and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.

 You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
 it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
 user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
 ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
 they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.

 I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
 the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
 system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
 infringement ;-)

 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
 these infringing uses...
 look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
 Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
 looks the other way.

 Check out Ducksauce's videos:

http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million  
 views.

 Or Porshche911turbo:

http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
 million views.

 Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
 are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
 infringing content.

 Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not  
 the
 only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
 immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
 certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as  
 well.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
 been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
 of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for
copyright and
 the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.

 Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems
targeted
 towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other
 services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and
other
 places on the web. They do not automate this process, but
instead they
 hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
 users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
 YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
 90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.

 So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
 business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
 ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.

 If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by
 NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of
another
 entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it
 is for any videoblogger.

 Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes
from a
 relatively small proportion of users who can be easily
tracked... take
 HH32 for example on vSocial:

http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3
 million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
 from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is
 the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert
Report.
 How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at
 vSocial? Shouldn't this user be banned from the service as s/he is
 repeatedly using vSocial for infringing purposes?

 If you're vSocial, you probably sit back and smile at the amount of
 views this one user is generating, which is obviously a benefit to
 your service and pumping up your Alexa rankings. Who knows when this
 user is going to uncover the next viral Lazy Sunday video? Oh, if
 only we had more users like HH32! Heck, I don't put it past YouTube
 and some others to be paying or specifically rewarding/encouraging
 users to engage in this type of activity. Maybe they could win a
free
 iPod!

 Now, I'm happy to watch South Park as much as the next 27 year old
 guy. But that doesn't make it right for these companies to host and
 distribute content for which they do not have permission...
maybe they
 should talk to South Park's syndicate and I'm sure they'd

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

I'm going to disagree to agree.

Actually banning a user's feed is not just a start it's the  
solution... feed and user account mechanism are I think more than  
enough of a trusted unit to discourage abuse.

Exibits

Exibit A... I thought technoratti tags would encourage spam... little  
did I realize how powerful a trust mechanism feeds were... you  
spam... you're feed gets banned. If you can trust a feed you can  
trust a the tags sufficiently

Exibit B... I realized this on mefeedia too.. we can manage or porn  
spam problem (not to be confused with good legitimate adult content)  
through very simple user flagging and feed banning either by feed or  
domain.

The amount of effort the inappropriate user has to put into setting  
up a feed and moving the media to a new new host or moving a domain  
is infinitely more effort then it takes to root out and ban them.  
Especially when that effort of discovery of inappropriate content by  
flagging is shared by the community. This is not to be confused by  
the way with self censorship... we're well past the point where we  
need a political oversight committee to determine what is appropriate  
for us... that's all about personal empowerment... you choose who you  
subscribe to (aka. trust) and we're even getting to the point of  
personal blacklisting on the internet in large scale ways.  That is  
self censoring... what I'm talking about is out and out spam.


Exibit C... the last exibit is wikipedia... i was disappointed that  
they had to actually stop allowing anyone to edit without even  
signing up. Not suprised... but the real revolution and innovation  
around social engineering with wikipedia is in how they proved how  
truely open and accessible a webservice could be if engineered  
properly. Their boundries were amazingly low... you had to have a  
computer with a basic browser on the internet... that's it for  
accessibility and trust. All systems have boundriess... this yahoo  
group has boundries.  Part of the big revolution in vlogging and  
media... over TV is that the boundries have nearly evaporated.


So... yeah... basic user accounts and the trusted system of feeds/ 
subscription is probably all the trust we'll ever need. If anything I  
think in the future these boundaries will get even shades more open,  
or shades softer as it is probably better put.

All veoh has to do is kill this users feed and he's lost hundreds of  
hours of work and time... their effort is negligent... the real issue  
therefore is a) not abusing power, and b) their politics,  
particularly that they benifit from this sort of infringement...

But let's be clear... this is not a crisis... it's damn good  
debate... I have yet to see the cricis in this issue if one exist.   
Veoh... at the most is using negligble judgement on fair use... and  
do to the state of copyright law neither them nor us can really make  
that call until they find themselves in court... which is why we need  
this knock down drag out debate about copyright issues, creative  
commons, copyleft and copyright reform.

Good stuff.

-Mike

On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on
to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for
infringment) is a start.

-Josh


On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?

 I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
 they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
 etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
 and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.

 You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
 it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
 user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
 ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
 they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.

 I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
 the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
 system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
 infringement ;-)

 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
 these infringing uses...
 look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
 Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
 looks the other way.

 Check out Ducksauce's videos:
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/? 
 d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million  
 views.

 Or Porshche911turbo:
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/? 
 d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Similarly

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)


 On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

 Please, its dead easy to recognize where most of the infringement
 occurs and to cut it down. Simply banning the accounts of those users
 would likely eliminate much of the infringing cases.

 You could also sample a user's first several uploads to see if they
 have a pattern of infringement. Or check the clips that generate the
 most traffic and weed out the infringing cases. Its really not so
 difficult, and if these services are worth their salt they are
 tracking EVERYTHING!

 I think its the duty of these services to enforce their terms of use
 and to eliminate violations. Especially high profile violations that
 are getting millions of views.

 The top viral clip on vSocial has over 20 million remote views. Its a
 clip from Family Guy (Peanut BUtter Jelly Time). It should be
 removed of course, it is not in the interest of the service to
 remove its top performing clip. This is where the problem lies.

 These services directly benefit from the traffic generated by prolific
 infringement. In fact, vSocial goes so far as to feature infringing
 content all over the front of their website, thus further encouraging
 these cases.

 And you're telling me they can't identify what is infringing and where
 its coming from? Give me a break! They have a duty to enforce their
 terms of use and they strategically look the other way. YouTube did
 the same thing with Lazy Sunday, and its what catapulted their
 traffic into a surging upswing.

Josh, while I 100% agree with you, I think that this mess is  
unavoidable and necessary.

I think this is where we line up opposing boing boing on the whole  
youtube issue. I think boingboing was wrong about it being OK that  
Youtube violated NBC's copyright by hosting and offering lazy  
sunday.  Just because it helps NBC doesn't make it ok... Someone  
mentioned link-backs. As important as permalinks are to the original  
site... the implication is the same.. it still doesn't make it legal.  
However therein is the rub... I'm secretly cheering because this  
is precisely what's getting worked out.

The law is being broken, but business cases are being bad... we (and  
by we I mean Youtube and NBC) are simultaneously learning.

a) where is the line on fair use

b) that there's a huge business case for media sharing... which is  
something everyone in the world has been saying for years but  
traditional media companies and record labels haven't been getting.

It's throw down, knockout time in the street... and that's just fine  
by me... the 'conversation' is what's important.

We have a huge amount to learn about the upsides and downsides and  
business cases for a future where media is participatory and  
social... and a huge amount of push back and reform on copyright law.

Experimentation is important.

Oh, and BTW, You did notice that The Last minute vlog... or was it  
Jackson's Junction slayed Rocketboom and Mobuzz in the last bloggies.  
No contest... and btw, that's NO reflection on value... everyone  
should be clear by now that popularity doesn't equal value in this  
word of thousands of vlogs most with less than 100 viewers... but the  
point is the last minute vlog and Jackson's junction are also made up  
of almost nothing but news clips... but these vlogs ROCK, and this is  
fair use at it's finest because the clips are being use specifically  
for media and political debate. This is the essence of pushing fair  
use to it's finest point.  Much like the movie Outfox which used  
tremendous amounts of TV news clips to shape commentary.

This is not to be confused though with posting the lazy sunday  
video or entertaining tv clips for enjoyment and to boost your  
traffic. Somewhere between those two there is a very very fine,  
complex and very argumentative line.

-Mike


 -josh


 On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 But it may be these web sites only option if they are going to  
 provide
 tools to allow users to upload videos. Once one institutes a  
 policy of
 policing every user video, it seems you could open yourself up to all
 sorts of legal complications. It would also be very costly.

 My point here isn't that it's OK for a company to grab enclosures  
 from
 feeds and use it as content for their site. But if a company is
 providing tools for users to upload video, there may be no business
 model that allows that service with the amount of policing it would
 require to make sure those videos aren't infringing on people's IP  
 and
 copyrights.



 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
 Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or  
 move on
 to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
 violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service  
 for
 infringment) is a start.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So what is the answer? More

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Adam Quirk wrote: On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The top viral clip on vSocial has over 20 million remote views. Its a clip from Family Guy ("Peanut BUtter Jelly Time"). It should be removed of course, it is not in the interest of the service to remove its top performing clip. This is where the problem lies.If Fox thought it should be removed, wouldn't they have requested it?Could it be that Family Guy or Fox hasn't requested them to take it down maybe because they enjoy the viral exposure? Exposure that gives them more value to advertisers? There we are, arguing the business argument.If I could only dream that Fox was that intelligent.While Fox may not be this intelligent Comedy central has been almost legendarily so. As far as i remember Comedy central actually allowed a tremendous amount of South Park to be downloaded back when it was still getting going... and now they've been actually allowing a trmendous amount of Daily show clips to be passed around... There is no finer example of progressive use of so called 'clip culture' for great promotional effect. There is pretty much an undisputable relationship between the clip sharing culture around the daily show and it's popularity. In fact I would argue that it's getting to be quite and enterprising and well oiled machine.Anyway... come hell or high water this is where media is going...Now let's get a little progressive thinking.What happens when Commedy Central stops simply "allowing" clip sharing.What happens when commedy central creates a clip sharing network?When they start digitizing their own microcontent and placing it on a dedicated site in feeds... with comments... maybe tagging... maybe with the abiltity to mix your own queue... or playlists... group dissusions, favoriting and digging them... input boxes filled with code so you can copy and paste to embed them in a blog post.What happens when all you have to do is remember dailyshow.com and know that the latest clips will always be there... and what happens when they leverage that in with all their fake news and reporting?You know... what happens when commedy central does that?And then what? what'll be next?What advertisers will then want to enter that space?Where will they come from?How will they advertise and what will their ads be like now that they no longer can be forced upon the popultion... but also now that they no longer have a 30 second time constraint?I like the rocketboom ad idea... narative ads, skipable ads...Ads can definitely become content in their own right. They too have value. They loose that they can't be forced upon people, but think about how much they gain.So... let me ask you this devils advocate question... what if I just want the ads? What if I don't want to watch the rocketboom, but to check out this particular ad... or perhaps a series of ads? Why can't the add also be more accessible?What if I'm going to by a volvo and I have to sift through all those old rocketboom shows just to get to my Amanda volvo ads. The new pardigm will even change our notions of value on their nose.In the future the ads will be as relevant to the conversation as the content itself... because in a 2 way world irrelevant advertising can't survive.That's the hidden lesson of viral ads most have yet to see. We know somehow they reflect the future but we're not sure quite how. It's not that the future of advertising and media is some guy getting hit in the balls, maybe it is, but that whatever it is, it'll be relevant or it won't be in your feed or your face.Anyway, I'm going to shut up now.Peace,-Mike SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)


 On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:40 PM, andrew michael baron wrote:

 This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
 developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
 everything that is going on.

 Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
 only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
 were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
 to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for
 the copyrighted material before it was even released.

 iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
 found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were
 rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the content
 where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements
 blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in front of
 the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it
 because they had no choice.

 Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
 themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded
 copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC
 round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for whats
 likely worth over 100million.

 The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps
 aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
 unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After
 all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be
 what people want.

 Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the
 site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The
 kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching more
 fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.

Amen... in fact believe me...  the clip culture fad will pass...  
it's as common as the train wreck the spectakle... heh! look it's me  
in the mirror... on big hurrah for user generated content as we see  
all our ugly mugs in the camera lipsynching mayahe! mayaha!... and  
then we'll get over it... in a year or two.

And we'll com back to media as an aspect of culture and  
communication... not spectacle.


 So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and
 normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is
 that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are
 supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music
 royalties on coincidental background music, we are inspired by and
 want to see change in the way content has been so controlled and
 delivered. So its like everyone is trying to put out the fire that is
 the spark most likely to bring change.

Last sentence didn't make any sense to me?  Perhaps you meant that  
it's the spark of the idea not the flame of the spactcle that's  
bringing the change?  I'm not sure.

 So why all the kicking and screaming? If iFilm has never been sued,
 YouTube gets millions for hosting any video anyone puts there and
 even Google allows it and supports it, most of the content creators
 are looking the other way because its promotion for them and no
 bandwidth cost, lets take the opportunity perhaps to rejoice and be
 more free.

 Before the lobby money rolls into Washington behind the traditional
 content gatekeepers, it's going to be common law by then. If I ever
 get stopped for J-walking on 42nd street when there is no traffic, I
 feel quite sure I can show that I was singled out unfairly.

 Look at the Beatles for example. They have taken it upon themselves
 to enforce their own music use. We all know that we can't use Beatles
 music, they dont want us to, they will definitely find us and come
 try and get us to stop, they will try to sue us, and its pretty much
 been working. Its a cultural taboo now to use their music because we
 all know they don't want us to.

 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?

You lost me. What's at stake here is nothing but the great debate  
itself... who controls and can participate in culture and the  
shapping of it.  You tube doesn't promote a fair, balanced, and  
transparent media... people are pissed about it. And it's to  
rocketboom's detriment too because it edges out our open markets with  
level playing fields like the blogosphere and vlogosphere and it  
substites in their place a closed, proprietay and tyranical  
maketplace for information... eventually though i think the open web  
will gobble it up because innovation will stear around it.

-Mike




 Yahoo! Groups Links










 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-09 Thread Anne Walk

... andthen we'll get over it... in a year or two.haha. right Michael! like how we got over it with television. thank god we've moved on from america's funniest home videos to american idol. what a relief! we've moved on from spectacle!
On 4/9/06, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:40 PM, andrew michael baron wrote: This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
everything that is going on. Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for the copyrighted material before it was even released. iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the content where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements
blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in front of the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it because they had no choice. Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for whats
likely worth over 100million. The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After
all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be what people want. Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the site. I was just speaking with
J.D. the other day about this. The kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching more fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.Amen... in fact believe me...the clip culture fad will pass...
it's as common as the train wreck the spectakle... heh! look it's mein the mirror... on big hurrah for user generated content as we seeall our ugly mugs in the camera lipsynching mayahe! mayaha!... and
then we'll get over it... in a year or two.And we'll com back to media as an aspect of culture andcommunication... not spectacle. So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and
normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music
royalties on coincidental background music, we are inspired by and want to see change in the way content has been so controlled and delivered. So its like everyone is trying to put out the fire that is
the spark most likely to bring change.Last sentence didn't make any sense to me?Perhaps you meant thatit's the spark of the idea not the flame of the spactcle that'sbringing the change?I'm not sure.
So why all the kicking and screaming? If iFilm has never been sued, YouTube gets millions for hosting any video anyone puts there and even Google allows it and supports it, most of the content creators
are looking the other way because its promotion for them and no bandwidth cost, lets take the opportunity perhaps to rejoice and be more free. Before the lobby money rolls into Washington behind the traditional
content gatekeepers, it's going to be common law by then. If I ever get stopped for J-walking on 42nd street when there is no traffic, I feel quite sure I can show that I was singled out unfairly.
Look at the Beatles for example. They have taken it upon themselves to enforce their own music use. We all know that we can't use Beatles music, they dont want us to, they will definitely find us and come
try and get us to stop, they will try to sue us, and its pretty much been working. Its a cultural taboo now to use their music because we all know they don't want us to. Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers because of them?You lost me. What's at stake here is nothing but the great debateitself... who controls and can participate in culture and the
shapping of it.You tube doesn't promote a fair, balanced, andtransparent media... people are pissed about it. And it's torocketboom's detriment too because it edges out our open markets withlevel playing fields like the blogosphere and vlogosphere and it
substites in their place a closed, proprietay and tyranicalmaketplace for information... eventually though i think the open webwill gobble it up because innovation will stear around it.-Mike
Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to:

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?

I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.

You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.

I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
infringement ;-)

On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
 these infringing uses...
 look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
 Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
 looks the other way.

 Check out Ducksauce's videos:
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.

 Or Porshche911turbo:
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
 million views.

 Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
 are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
 infringing content.

 Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the
 only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
 immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
 certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
  been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
  of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and
  the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.
 
  Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems targeted
  towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other
  services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and other
  places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead they
  hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
  users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
  YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
  90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.
 
  So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
  business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
  ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.
 
  If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by
  NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of another
  entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it
  is for any videoblogger.
 
  Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes from a
  relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked... take
  HH32 for example on vSocial:
  http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3
  million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
  from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is
  the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert Report.
  How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at
  vSocial? Shouldn't this user be banned from the service as s/he is
  repeatedly using vSocial for infringing purposes?
 
  If you're vSocial, you probably sit back and smile at the amount of
  views this one user is generating, which is obviously a benefit to
  your service and pumping up your Alexa rankings. Who knows when this
  user is going to uncover the next viral Lazy Sunday video? Oh, if
  only we had more users like HH32! Heck, I don't put it past YouTube
  and some others to be paying or specifically rewarding/encouraging
  users to engage in this type of activity. Maybe they could win a free
  iPod!
 
  Now, I'm happy to watch South Park as much as the next 27 year old
  guy. But that doesn't make it right for these companies to host and
  distribute content for which they do not have permission... maybe they
  should talk to South Park's syndicate and I'm sure they'd be happy to
  cut a deal, though it might cost a pretty penny.
 
  So, the argument is not simply limited to Veoh and the videoblogging
  community. But I think something needs to be done about businesses

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

typing too fast.. in my last email I meant to say in the last line:

Maybe the US judicial system will ban Flash since it's allowing all
this infringement ;-)


On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?

 I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
 they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
 etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
 and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.

 You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
 it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
 user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
 ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
 they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.

 I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
 the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
 system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
 infringement ;-)

 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
  these infringing uses...
  look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
  Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
  looks the other way.
 
  Check out Ducksauce's videos:
  http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.
 
  Or Porshche911turbo:
  http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
  million views.
 
  Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
  are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
  infringing content.
 
  Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the
  only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
  immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
  certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well.
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
   been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
   of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and
   the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.
  
   Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems targeted
   towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other
   services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and other
   places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead they
   hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
   users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
   YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
   90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.
  
   So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
   business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
   ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.
  
   If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by
   NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of another
   entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it
   is for any videoblogger.
  
   Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes from a
   relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked... take
   HH32 for example on vSocial:
   http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
  
   Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3
   million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
   from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is
   the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert Report.
   How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at
   vSocial? Shouldn't this user be banned from the service as s/he is
   repeatedly using vSocial for infringing purposes?
  
   If you're vSocial, you probably sit back and smile at the amount of
   views this one user is generating, which is obviously a benefit to
   your service and pumping up your Alexa rankings. Who knows when this
   user is going to uncover the next viral Lazy Sunday video? Oh, if
   only we had more users like HH32! Heck, I don't put it past YouTube
   and some others to be paying or specifically rewarding/encouraging
   users to engage in this type of activity. Maybe they could win a free
   iPod!
  
   Now, I'm happy to watch South Park as much as the next 27 year old
   guy. But that doesn't make it right for these companies to host and
   distribute content for which they do not

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

News of privacies death has been exaggerated; it's alive and well.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, T.Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?
 
 I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
 they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
 etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
 and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.
 
 You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
 it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
 user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
 ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
 they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.
 
 I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
 the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
 system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
 infringement ;-)
 
 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
  these infringing uses...
  look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
  Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
  looks the other way.
 
  Check out Ducksauce's videos:
 
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.
 
  Or Porshche911turbo:
 
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
  million views.
 
  Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
  are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
  infringing content.
 
  Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the
  only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
  immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
  certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well.
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
   been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
   of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for
copyright and
   the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.
  
   Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems
targeted
   towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other
   services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and
other
   places on the web. They do not automate this process, but
instead they
   hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
   users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
   YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
   90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.
  
   So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
   business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
   ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.
  
   If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by
   NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of
another
   entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it
   is for any videoblogger.
  
   Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes
from a
   relatively small proportion of users who can be easily
tracked... take
   HH32 for example on vSocial:
  
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
  
   Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3
   million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
   from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is
   the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert
Report.
   How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at
   vSocial? Shouldn't this user be banned from the service as s/he is
   repeatedly using vSocial for infringing purposes?
  
   If you're vSocial, you probably sit back and smile at the amount of
   views this one user is generating, which is obviously a benefit to
   your service and pumping up your Alexa rankings. Who knows when this
   user is going to uncover the next viral Lazy Sunday video? Oh, if
   only we had more users like HH32! Heck, I don't put it past YouTube
   and some others to be paying or specifically rewarding/encouraging
   users to engage in this type of activity. Maybe they could win a
free
   iPod!
  
   Now, I'm happy to watch South Park as much as the next 27 year old
   guy. But that doesn't make it right for these companies to host and
   distribute content for which they do not have permission...
maybe they
   should talk to

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on
to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for
infringment) is a start.

-Josh


On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?

 I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
 they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
 etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
 and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.

 You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
 it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
 user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
 ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
 they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.

 I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
 the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
 system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
 infringement ;-)

 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
  these infringing uses...
  look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
  Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
  looks the other way.
 
  Check out Ducksauce's videos:
  http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.
 
  Or Porshche911turbo:
  http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
  million views.
 
  Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
  are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
  infringing content.
 
  Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the
  only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
  immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
  certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well.
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
   been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
   of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and
   the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.
  
   Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems targeted
   towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other
   services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and other
   places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead they
   hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
   users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
   YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
   90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.
  
   So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
   business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
   ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.
  
   If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by
   NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of another
   entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it
   is for any videoblogger.
  
   Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes from a
   relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked... take
   HH32 for example on vSocial:
   http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
  
   Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3
   million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
   from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is
   the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert Report.
   How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at
   vSocial? Shouldn't this user be banned from the service as s/he is
   repeatedly using vSocial for infringing purposes?
  
   If you're vSocial, you probably sit back and smile at the amount of
   views this one user is generating, which is obviously a benefit to
   your service and pumping up your Alexa rankings. Who knows when this
   user is going to uncover the next viral Lazy Sunday video? Oh, if
   only we had more users like HH32! Heck, I don't put it past YouTube
   and some others to be paying or specifically rewarding/encouraging
   users to engage in this type of activity. Maybe they could win a free
   iPod!
  
   Now, I'm happy to watch South Park as much as

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

But it may be these web sites only option if they are going to provide
tools to allow users to upload videos. Once one institutes a policy of
policing every user video, it seems you could open yourself up to all
sorts of legal complications. It would also be very costly.

My point here isn't that it's OK for a company to grab enclosures from
feeds and use it as content for their site. But if a company is
providing tools for users to upload video, there may be no business
model that allows that service with the amount of policing it would
require to make sure those videos aren't infringing on people's IP and
copyrights.



On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
 Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on
 to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
 violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for
 infringment) is a start.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?
 
  I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
  they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
  etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
  and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.
 
  You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
  it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
  user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
  ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
  they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.
 
  I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
  the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
  system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
  infringement ;-)
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
   these infringing uses...
   look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
   Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
   looks the other way.
  
   Check out Ducksauce's videos:
   http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
  
   Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.
  
   Or Porshche911turbo:
   http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
  
   Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
   million views.
  
   Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
   are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
   infringing content.
  
   Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the
   only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
   immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
   certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well.
  
   -Josh
  
  
   On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and
the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.
   
Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems targeted
towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other
services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and other
places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead they
hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.
   
So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.
   
If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by
NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of another
entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it
is for any videoblogger.
   
Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes from a
relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked... take
HH32 for example on vSocial:
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
   
Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3
million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is
the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Devlon

In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be responsible
with what they carry on their networks...

On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
  Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on
  to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
  violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for
  infringment) is a start.

  -Josh



  On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?
  
   I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
   they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
   etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
   and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.
  
   You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
   it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
   user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
   ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
   they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.
  
   I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
   the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
   system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
   infringement ;-)
  
   On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
these infringing uses...
look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
looks the other way.
   
Check out Ducksauce's videos:
   
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
   
Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.
   
Or Porshche911turbo:
   
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
   
Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
million views.
   
Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
infringing content.
   
Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the
only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well.
   
-Josh
   
   
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
 been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
 of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and
 the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.

 Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems
 targeted
 towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other
 services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and other
 places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead
 they
 hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
 users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
 YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
 90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.

 So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
 business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
 ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.

 If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by
 NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of another
 entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it
 is for any videoblogger.

 Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes from
 a
 relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked...
 take
 HH32 for example on vSocial:

 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3
 million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
 from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is
 the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert Report.
 How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at
 vSocial? Shouldn't this user be banned from the service as s/he is
 repeatedly using vSocial for infringing purposes?

 If you're vSocial, you probably sit back and smile at the amount of
 views this one user is generating, which is obviously a benefit to
 your service and pumping up your Alexa rankings.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Please, its dead easy to recognize where most of the infringement
occurs and to cut it down. Simply banning the accounts of those users
would likely eliminate much of the infringing cases.

You could also sample a user's first several uploads to see if they
have a pattern of infringement. Or check the clips that generate the
most traffic and weed out the infringing cases. Its really not so
difficult, and if these services are worth their salt they are
tracking EVERYTHING!

I think its the duty of these services to enforce their terms of use
and to eliminate violations. Especially high profile violations that
are getting millions of views.

The top viral clip on vSocial has over 20 million remote views. Its a
clip from Family Guy (Peanut BUtter Jelly Time). It should be
removed of course, it is not in the interest of the service to
remove its top performing clip. This is where the problem lies.

These services directly benefit from the traffic generated by prolific
infringement. In fact, vSocial goes so far as to feature infringing
content all over the front of their website, thus further encouraging
these cases.

And you're telling me they can't identify what is infringing and where
its coming from? Give me a break! They have a duty to enforce their
terms of use and they strategically look the other way. YouTube did
the same thing with Lazy Sunday, and its what catapulted their
traffic into a surging upswing.

-josh


On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 But it may be these web sites only option if they are going to provide
 tools to allow users to upload videos. Once one institutes a policy of
 policing every user video, it seems you could open yourself up to all
 sorts of legal complications. It would also be very costly.

 My point here isn't that it's OK for a company to grab enclosures from
 feeds and use it as content for their site. But if a company is
 providing tools for users to upload video, there may be no business
 model that allows that service with the amount of policing it would
 require to make sure those videos aren't infringing on people's IP and
 copyrights.



 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
  Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on
  to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
  violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for
  infringment) is a start.
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?
  
   I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
   they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
   etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
   and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.
  
   You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
   it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
   user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
   ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
   they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.
  
   I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
   the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
   system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
   infringement ;-)
  
   On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
these infringing uses...
look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
looks the other way.
   
Check out Ducksauce's videos:
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
   
Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.
   
Or Porshche911turbo:
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
   
Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
million views.
   
Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
infringing content.
   
Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the
only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well.
   
-Josh
   
   
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
 been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
 of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and
 the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

 In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be responsible
 with what they carry on their networks...

Exactly! This is what I'm getting at.


-Josh


On 4/8/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be responsible
 with what they carry on their networks...

 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
   Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on
   to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
   violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for
   infringment) is a start.
 
   -Josh
 
 
 
   On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?
   
I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.
   
You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.
   
I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
infringement ;-)
   
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
 these infringing uses...
 look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
 Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
 looks the other way.

 Check out Ducksauce's videos:

  http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.

 Or Porshche911turbo:

  http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
 million views.

 Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
 are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
 infringing content.

 Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the
 only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
 immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
 certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has
  been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
  of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and
  the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.
 
  Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems
  targeted
  towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other
  services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and other
  places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead
  they
  hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
  users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
  YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
  90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.
 
  So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
  business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
  ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.
 
  If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by
  NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of another
  entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it
  is for any videoblogger.
 
  Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes from
  a
  relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked...
  take
  HH32 for example on vSocial:
 
  http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3
  million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
  from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is
  the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert Report.
  How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at
  vSocial?

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Not only is it in their interest not to remove an infringing video
because of the traffic it gives them, but it's also probably legally
ass-covering not to until the cease and desist comes.

The thing is, sure, it's simple to remove the obvious infringers, but
then that makes one responsible for all infringment happening on the
site. It's the same as ISPs not being responsible for all the content
going over their network... or at least someone could make a
reasonable argument to that.

On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Please, its dead easy to recognize where most of the infringement
 occurs and to cut it down. Simply banning the accounts of those users
 would likely eliminate much of the infringing cases.

 You could also sample a user's first several uploads to see if they
 have a pattern of infringement. Or check the clips that generate the
 most traffic and weed out the infringing cases. Its really not so
 difficult, and if these services are worth their salt they are
 tracking EVERYTHING!

 I think its the duty of these services to enforce their terms of use
 and to eliminate violations. Especially high profile violations that
 are getting millions of views.

 The top viral clip on vSocial has over 20 million remote views. Its a
 clip from Family Guy (Peanut BUtter Jelly Time). It should be
 removed of course, it is not in the interest of the service to
 remove its top performing clip. This is where the problem lies.

 These services directly benefit from the traffic generated by prolific
 infringement. In fact, vSocial goes so far as to feature infringing
 content all over the front of their website, thus further encouraging
 these cases.

 And you're telling me they can't identify what is infringing and where
 its coming from? Give me a break! They have a duty to enforce their
 terms of use and they strategically look the other way. YouTube did
 the same thing with Lazy Sunday, and its what catapulted their
 traffic into a surging upswing.

 -josh


 On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  But it may be these web sites only option if they are going to provide
  tools to allow users to upload videos. Once one institutes a policy of
  policing every user video, it seems you could open yourself up to all
  sorts of legal complications. It would also be very costly.
 
  My point here isn't that it's OK for a company to grab enclosures from
  feeds and use it as content for their site. But if a company is
  providing tools for users to upload video, there may be no business
  model that allows that service with the amount of policing it would
  require to make sure those videos aren't infringing on people's IP and
  copyrights.
 
 
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
   Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on
   to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
   violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for
   infringment) is a start.
  
   -Josh
  
  
   On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?
   
I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.
   
You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.
   
I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
infringement ;-)
   
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
 these infringing uses...
 look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
 Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
 looks the other way.

 Check out Ducksauce's videos:
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views.

 Or Porshche911turbo:
 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1

 Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
 million views.

 Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
 are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
 infringing content.

 Sorry

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Charles Iliya Krempeaux

Hello,I remember that there was talk of banning all P2P technology,... and then they realized that the underlying Internet itself was a P2P technology :-)See yaOn 4/8/06,
T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
typing too fast.. in my last email I meant to say in the last line:Maybe the US judicial system will ban Flash since it's allowing allthis infringement ;-)On 4/8/06, T. Whid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits? I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial, they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on. You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user, user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step. I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this infringement ;-) On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
these infringing uses... look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial looks the other way.
Check out Ducksauce's videos: http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views. Or Porshche911turbo:
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1 Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2 million views. Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively infringing content. Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well. -Josh
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new Flickrs
of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated. Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems targeted
towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and other places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead they
hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over
90% of the images are uploaded by original creators. So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright. If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of another
entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it is for any videoblogger. Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes from a
relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked... take HH32 for example on vSocial:
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1 Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3 million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes
from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert Report. How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at
vSocial? Shouldn't this user be banned from the service as s/he is repeatedly using vSocial for infringing purposes? If you're vSocial, you probably sit back and smile at the amount of
views this one user is generating, which is obviously a benefit to your service and pumping up your Alexa rankings. Who knows when this user is going to uncover the next viral Lazy Sunday video? Oh, if
only we had more users like HH32! Heck, I don't put it past YouTube and some others to be paying or specifically rewarding/encouraging users to engage in this type of activity. Maybe they could win a free
iPod! Now, I'm happy to watch South Park as much as the

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

would you agree that ISPs should be responsible for all traffic on
their network? IMO, that's a horrible idea.

On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be responsible
  with what they carry on their networks...

 Exactly! This is what I'm getting at.


 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be responsible
  with what they carry on their networks...
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on
to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for
violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for
infringment) is a start.
  
-Josh
  
  
  
On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?

 I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
 they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and
 etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent
 and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.

 You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing
 it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user,
 user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart
 ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as
 they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step.

 I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but
 the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial
 system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this
 infringement ;-)

 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down
  these infringing uses...
  look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of
  Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial
  looks the other way.
 
  Check out Ducksauce's videos:
 
   http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million 
   views.
 
  Or Porshche911turbo:
 
   http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
 
  Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2
  million views.
 
  Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they
  are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively
  infringing content.
 
  Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not 
   the
  only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
  immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm
  certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as 
   well.
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that 
   has
   been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new 
   Flickrs
   of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright 
   and
   the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.
  
   Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems
   targeted
   towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these 
   other
   services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and 
   other
   places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead
   they
   hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what
   users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on
   YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where 
   over
   90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.
  
   So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable
   business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming
   ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.
  
   If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced 
   by
   NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of 
   another
   entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as 
   it
   is for any videoblogger.
  
   Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes 
   from
   a
   relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked...
   take
   HH32 for example on vSocial:
  
   http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
  
   Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

An ISP is not in the business of gaining traffic based on popularity
of content.  Providers like veoh, YouTube, etc. are closer to
broadcast networks on this in that they provide media entertainment.

  -- Enric


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, T.Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 would you agree that ISPs should be responsible for all traffic on
 their network? IMO, that's a horrible idea.
 
 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be
responsible
   with what they carry on their networks...
 
  Exactly! This is what I'm getting at.
 
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be
responsible
   with what they carry on their networks...
  
   On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
 Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or
move on
 to another service and do the same. But I think banning the
user for
 violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the
service for
 infringment) is a start.
   
 -Josh
   
   
   
 On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?
 
  I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
  they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the
bottle and
  etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then
bittorrent
  and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.
 
  You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their
users doing
  it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an
infringing user,
  user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell
the smart
  ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around
so that as
  they are banned they move to the new account not missing a
step.
 
  I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or
whatever) but
  the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US
judicial
  system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all
this
  infringement ;-)
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to
track down
   these infringing uses...
   look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's
network of
   Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice...
and vSocial
   looks the other way.
  
   Check out Ducksauce's videos:
  
   
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
  
   Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over
million views.
  
   Or Porshche911turbo:
  
   
http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
  
   Similarly filled with infringing content which has
generated over 2
   million views.
  
   Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious
that they
   are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost
exclusively
   infringing content.
  
   Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know
they are not the
   only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
   immediately see where much of the infringing content
originates. I'm
   certain its the same with many other video clip sharing
sites as well.
  
   -Josh
  
  
   On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of
something that has
been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the
new Flickrs
of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for
copyright and
the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.
   
Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that
seems
targeted
towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many
of these other
services include a lot of infringing content pulled
from TV and other
places on the web. They do not automate this process,
but instead
they
hide behind their terms of use and say they are not
liable for what
users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the
content on
YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from
Flickr where over
90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.
   
So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a
viable
business practice, and it is not possible to continue
claiming
ignorance and paying lip service to respecting copyright.
   
If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned
and produced by
NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the
rights of another
entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same
for NBC as it
is for any videoblogger.
   
Moreover, I

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Adam Quirk




On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



The top viral clip on vSocial has over 20 million remote views. Its a
clip from Family Guy (Peanut BUtter Jelly Time). It should be
removed of course, it is not in the interest of the service to
remove its top performing clip. This is where the problem lies.If Fox thought it should be removed, wouldn't they have requested it?Could it be that Family Guy or Fox hasn't requested them to take it down maybe because they enjoy the viral exposure? Exposure that gives them more value to advertisers?






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Well, that's debatable IMO. It wasn't an a priori assumption a few
years back that ISPs were not responsible for all traffic on their
networks. People made the arg that they should be treated more like a
phone company and that's become accepted (rightly IMO).


On 4/8/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 An ISP is not in the business of gaining traffic based on popularity
 of content.  Providers like veoh, YouTube, etc. are closer to
 broadcast networks on this in that they provide media entertainment.

   -- Enric


 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, T.Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  would you agree that ISPs should be responsible for all traffic on
  their network? IMO, that's a horrible idea.
 
  On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be
 responsible
with what they carry on their networks...
  
   Exactly! This is what I'm getting at.
  
  
   -Josh
  
  
   On 4/8/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, a good solution is for site providers to be
 responsible
with what they carry on their networks...
   
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I don't think looking the other way is a good solution.
  Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or
 move on
  to another service and do the same. But I think banning the
 user for
  violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the
 service for
  infringment) is a start.

  -Josh



  On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits?
  
   I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial,
   they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the
 bottle and
   etc first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then
 bittorrent
   and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on.
  
   You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their
 users doing
   it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an
 infringing user,
   user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell
 the smart
   ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around
 so that as
   they are banned they move to the new account not missing a
 step.
  
   I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or
 whatever) but
   the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US
 judicial
   system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all
 this
   infringement ;-)
  
   On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to
 track down
these infringing uses...
look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's
 network of
Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice...
 and vSocial
looks the other way.
   
Check out Ducksauce's videos:
   

 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
   
Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over
 million views.
   
Or Porshche911turbo:
   

 http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1
   
Similarly filled with infringing content which has
 generated over 2
million views.
   
Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious
 that they
are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost
 exclusively
infringing content.
   
Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know
 they are not the
only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and
immediately see where much of the infringing content
 originates. I'm
certain its the same with many other video clip sharing
 sites as well.
   
-Josh
   
   
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of
 something that has
 been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the
 new Flickrs
 of video -- and that's the institutional disregard for
 copyright and
 the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated.

 Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that
 seems
 targeted
 towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many
 of these other
 services include a lot of infringing content pulled
 from TV and other
 places on the web. They do not automate this process,
 but instead
 they
 hide behind their terms of use and say they are not
 liable for what
 users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the
 content on
 YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from
 Flickr where over
 90% of the images are uploaded by original creators.

 So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

It could be that Fox (or whomever owns the rights to Family Guy) is deliberately looking the other way too. Or it could be that in fact vSocial has a specific deal with rights owners of Family Guy that grants them permission to redistribute the content (doubtful). Assuming one has permission simply because no one has specifically requested removal of the content through legal action is not a good answer.
This gets back to the Veoh argument and whether its safe for them to assume an opt-out policy for videobloggers rather than requiring an opt-in first. vSocial and the rest are essentially telling content owners that they have the right to opt-out when in fact they were never given the choice of opt-in... that was merely assumed, which violates the rights of the content owners.
-JoshOn 4/8/06, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The top viral clip on vSocial has over 20 million remote views. Its a
clip from Family Guy (Peanut BUtter Jelly Time). It should be
removed of course, it is not in the interest of the service to
remove its top performing clip. This is where the problem lies.If Fox thought it should be removed, wouldn't they have requested it?
Could it be that Family Guy or Fox hasn't requested them to take it down maybe because they enjoy the viral exposure? Exposure that gives them more value to advertisers?

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still  
developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching  
everything that is going on.

Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not  
only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they  
were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity  
to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for  
the copyrighted material before it was even released.

iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just  
found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were  
rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the content  
where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements  
blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in front of  
the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it  
because they had no choice.

Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos  
themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded  
copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC  
round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for whats  
likely worth over 100million.

The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps  
aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not  
unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After  
all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be  
what people want.

Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the  
site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The  
kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching more  
fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.

So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and  
normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is  
that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are  
supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music  
royalties on coincidental background music, we are inspired by and  
want to see change in the way content has been so controlled and  
delivered. So its like everyone is trying to put out the fire that is  
the spark most likely to bring change.

So why all the kicking and screaming? If iFilm has never been sued,  
YouTube gets millions for hosting any video anyone puts there and  
even Google allows it and supports it, most of the content creators  
are looking the other way because its promotion for them and no  
bandwidth cost, lets take the opportunity perhaps to rejoice and be  
more free.

Before the lobby money rolls into Washington behind the traditional  
content gatekeepers, it's going to be common law by then. If I ever  
get stopped for J-walking on 42nd street when there is no traffic, I  
feel quite sure I can show that I was singled out unfairly.

Look at the Beatles for example. They have taken it upon themselves  
to enforce their own music use. We all know that we can't use Beatles  
music, they dont want us to, they will definitely find us and come  
try and get us to stop, they will try to sue us, and its pretty much  
been working. Its a cultural taboo now to use their music because we  
all know they don't want us to.

Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining  
about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers  
because of them?


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are
videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original
posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link back to
my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.

Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my
copyright.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining  
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers  
 because of them?








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

I think that this thread is pointed toward YouTube and iFilm as well.
I was just using the example of vSocial to point out how easy it is to
discover and ban the accounts of repeat offenders.

iFilm may have never been sued, but I'm certain they've received many
cease and desist letters over their life span (easy to remove content
once a legal request has been made and thus no need to spend money
fighting a lawsuit).

 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?

Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.

But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt
in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in
fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if
they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
content creators.

-Josh



On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
 developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
 everything that is going on.

 Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
 only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
 were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
 to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for
 the copyrighted material before it was even released.

 iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
 found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were
 rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the content
 where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements
 blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in front of
 the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it
 because they had no choice.

 Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
 themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded
 copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC
 round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for whats
 likely worth over 100million.

 The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps
 aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
 unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After
 all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be
 what people want.

 Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the
 site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The
 kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching more
 fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.

 So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and
 normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is
 that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are
 supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music
 royalties on coincidental background music, we are inspired by and
 want to see change in the way content has been so controlled and
 delivered. So its like everyone is trying to put out the fire that is
 the spark most likely to bring change.

 So why all the kicking and screaming? If iFilm has never been sued,
 YouTube gets millions for hosting any video anyone puts there and
 even Google allows it and supports it, most of the content creators
 are looking the other way because its promotion for them and no
 bandwidth cost, lets take the opportunity perhaps to rejoice and be
 more free.

 Before the lobby money rolls into Washington behind the traditional
 content gatekeepers, it's going to be common law by then. If I ever
 get stopped for J-walking on 42nd street when there is no traffic, I
 feel quite sure I can show that I was singled out unfairly.

 Look at the Beatles for example. They have taken it upon themselves
 to enforce their own music use. We all know that we can't use Beatles
 music, they dont want us to, they will definitely find us and come
 try and get us to stop, they will try to sue us, and its pretty much
 been working. Its a cultural taboo now to use their music because we
 all know they don't want us to.

 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?



 Yahoo! Groups Links










 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Ok, fair enough. Instead of rejecting the sytem though, why not use  
the system to be more creative and effective in advertising? For  
instance, if you made an advertisement that explained where to go and  
what to do INSIDE OF THE VIDEO and did not depend on the extra  
metadata, you could let them take it and it would increase your reach  
for new clients. You could let everyone have it and encourage people  
to spread it around and share it because that would increase the  
reach of your advertising.


On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:51 PM, David Howell wrote:

 For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are
 videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original
 posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link back to
 my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.

 Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my
 copyright.

 David
 http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?









 Yahoo! Groups Links










 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)


On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?

 Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
 hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.


So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people  
could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why  
Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes  
shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair  
use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was  
likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally  
got that video.


 But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
 service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt
 in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in
 fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
 community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
 participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if
 they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
 content creators.


Yea, that really is pretty shitty.


 -Josh



 On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
 developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
 everything that is going on.

 Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
 only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
 were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
 to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for
 the copyrighted material before it was even released.

 iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
 found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were
 rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the content
 where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements
 blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in front of
 the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it
 because they had no choice.

 Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
 themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded
 copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC
 round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for whats
 likely worth over 100million.

 The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps
 aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
 unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After
 all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be
 what people want.

 Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the
 site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The
 kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching more
 fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.

 So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and
 normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is
 that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are
 supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music
 royalties on coincidental background music, we are inspired by and
 want to see change in the way content has been so controlled and
 delivered. So its like everyone is trying to put out the fire that is
 the spark most likely to bring change.

 So why all the kicking and screaming? If iFilm has never been sued,
 YouTube gets millions for hosting any video anyone puts there and
 even Google allows it and supports it, most of the content creators
 are looking the other way because its promotion for them and no
 bandwidth cost, lets take the opportunity perhaps to rejoice and be
 more free.

 Before the lobby money rolls into Washington behind the traditional
 content gatekeepers, it's going to be common law by then. If I ever
 get stopped for J-walking on 42nd street when there is no traffic, I
 feel quite sure I can show that I was singled out unfairly.

 Look at the Beatles for example. They have taken it upon themselves
 to enforce their own music use. We all know that we can't use Beatles
 music, they dont want us to, they will definitely find us and come
 try and get us to stop, they will try to sue us, and its pretty much
 been working. Its a cultural taboo now to use their music because we
 all know they don't want us to.

 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?



 Yahoo! Groups Links











 Yahoo! Groups Links










 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Coulds, shoulds, and woulds.

The fact is that I didnt. The fact is that the videos are my property.
The fact is that Veoh is using my content to make money.

If you are telling me that the system is to take someone elses
property and make money off it then they might as well come in my
house and take my television or stereo. Better yet, take my truck out
of the driveway because they saw me driving in it and thought it
looked good.

I dont think you would be too happy if I took a Rocketboom episode,
lopped off the front and back of it and said it was mine. Would you?

My copyright is clear and precise. What they have done is pure theft.
I'll see them in court over this. Plain and simple.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ok, fair enough. Instead of rejecting the sytem though, why not use  
 the system to be more creative and effective in advertising? For  
 instance, if you made an advertisement that explained where to go and  
 what to do INSIDE OF THE VIDEO and did not depend on the extra  
 metadata, you could let them take it and it would increase your reach  
 for new clients. You could let everyone have it and encourage people  
 to spread it around and share it because that would increase the  
 reach of your advertising.
 
 
 On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:51 PM, David Howell wrote:
 
  For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are
  videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original
  posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link back to
  my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.
 
  Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my
  copyright.
 
  David
  http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
  andrew@ wrote:
 
 
  Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
  about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
  because of them?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Well, veoh just removed my Tech Alley feed that I asked them to take
out.  So it looks like they're following our requests.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
 
  Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
  about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
  because of them?
 
  Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
  hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.
 
 
 So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people  
 could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why  
 Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes  
 shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair  
 use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was  
 likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally  
 got that video.
 
 
  But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
  service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt
  in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in
  fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
  community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
  participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if
  they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
  content creators.
 
 
 Yea, that really is pretty shitty.
 
 
  -Josh
 
 
 
  On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
  developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
  everything that is going on.
 
  Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
  only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
  were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
  to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for
  the copyrighted material before it was even released.
 
  iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
  found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were
  rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the content
  where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements
  blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in front of
  the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it
  because they had no choice.
 
  Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
  themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded
  copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC
  round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for whats
  likely worth over 100million.
 
  The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps
  aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
  unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After
  all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be
  what people want.
 
  Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the
  site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The
  kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching more
  fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.
 
  So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and
  normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is
  that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are
  supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music
  royalties on coincidental background music, we are inspired by and
  want to see change in the way content has been so controlled and
  delivered. So its like everyone is trying to put out the fire that is
  the spark most likely to bring change.
 
  So why all the kicking and screaming? If iFilm has never been sued,
  YouTube gets millions for hosting any video anyone puts there and
  even Google allows it and supports it, most of the content creators
  are looking the other way because its promotion for them and no
  bandwidth cost, lets take the opportunity perhaps to rejoice and be
  more free.
 
  Before the lobby money rolls into Washington behind the traditional
  content gatekeepers, it's going to be common law by then. If I ever
  get stopped for J-walking on 42nd street when there is no traffic, I
  feel quite sure I can show that I was singled out unfairly.
 
  Look at the Beatles for example. They have taken it upon themselves
  to enforce their own music use. We all know that we can't use Beatles
  music, they dont want us to, they will definitely find us and come
  try and get us to stop, they will try to sue us, and its pretty much
  been working. Its a cultural taboo now to use their music because we
  all know they don't want us

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Anne Walk

if someone is receiving your work in it's entirety on Veoh, why, even if you have linkbacks placed in your videos, would they go back to your site? they are enjoying your stuff just fine at Veoh.also, on our site, we occassionally show other people's videos and comment on them, link to their site and tell people to go and watch. when the videos are taken out of that context, they lose the attributions will give the maker and are branded with our name.
yes, we could make a vlog soup out of them (props to steve) and brand our commentary in that way. i prefer not to. i prefer to leave their stuff as undisturbed as possible.mashups of popculture, to me, is another matter. it's far murkier than what we are talking about here and deserves another thread.
On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, fair enough. Instead of rejecting the sytem though, why not usethe system to be more creative and effective in advertising? Forinstance, if you made an advertisement that explained where to go andwhat to do INSIDE OF THE VIDEO and did not depend on the extra
metadata, you could let them take it and it would increase your reachfor new clients. You could let everyone have it and encourage peopleto spread it around and share it because that would increase thereach of your advertising.
On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:51 PM, David Howell wrote: For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link back to
my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients. Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my copyright. David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers because of them?
Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-- Anne Walkhttp://loadedpun.com

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Deirdre Straughan

FWIW, I put some of my video on Veoh ages ago, and checked back
recently when I started my comparison test page.

Seeing all the ruckus in here, I checked this evening and, sure
enough, there were some videos of mine that I had not added myself, in
an unclaimed feed. Still not clear to me which RSS feed they wanted
me to put their widget in, since my only extant feed is at an address
known only to FeedBurner.

I dropped them a note asking them to remove the spurious feed (but not
my original series that I created myself), and they did so within an
hour.

So, whatever mistakes they've made, they are on the ball in remedying
upon request.



On 4/8/06, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Coulds, shoulds, and woulds.

 The fact is that I didnt. The fact is that the videos are my property.
 The fact is that Veoh is using my content to make money.

 If you are telling me that the system is to take someone elses
 property and make money off it then they might as well come in my
 house and take my television or stereo. Better yet, take my truck out
 of the driveway because they saw me driving in it and thought it
 looked good.

 I dont think you would be too happy if I took a Rocketboom episode,
 lopped off the front and back of it and said it was mine. Would you?

 My copyright is clear and precise. What they have done is pure theft.
 I'll see them in court over this. Plain and simple.

 David
 http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Ok, fair enough. Instead of rejecting the sytem though, why not use
  the system to be more creative and effective in advertising? For
  instance, if you made an advertisement that explained where to go and
  what to do INSIDE OF THE VIDEO and did not depend on the extra
  metadata, you could let them take it and it would increase your reach
  for new clients. You could let everyone have it and encourage people
  to spread it around and share it because that would increase the
  reach of your advertising.
 
 
  On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:51 PM, David Howell wrote:
 
   For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are
   videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original
   posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link back to
   my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.
  
   Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my
   copyright.
  
   David
   http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
  
   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
   andrew@ wrote:
  
  
   Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
   about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
   because of them?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Yahoo! Groups Links
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 








 Yahoo! Groups Links









--
best regards,
Deirdré Straughan

www.beginningwithi.com (personal)
www.tvblob.com (work)


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)


On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:06 PM, David Howell wrote:

 Coulds, shoulds, and woulds.

 The fact is that I didnt. The fact is that the videos are my property.
 The fact is that Veoh is using my content to make money.


Veoh is making money off of your advertisement? Thats kinda weird.

 If you are telling me that the system is to take someone elses
 property and make money off it then they might as well come in my
 house and take my television or stereo.

YouTube does it. Google does it. Yahoo does it.


 Better yet, take my truck out
 of the driveway because they saw me driving in it and thought it
 looked good.

 I dont think you would be too happy if I took a Rocketboom episode,
 lopped off the front and back of it and said it was mine. Would you?


The point is, if you did that, you would just be hurting yourself,  
just like Veoh is really hurting themselves right now. They will down  
quickly for keeping it up.


 My copyright is clear and precise. What they have done is pure theft.
 I'll see them in court over this. Plain and simple.


I think you have a case and the laws support you on this. But I find  
it a bit sad because it all comes down to intent and your intent is  
to advertise a message and I feel like you are just shooting yourself  
in the foot for not being able to adapt to your environment, thick or  
thin.

Right now you are all steamed and pissed off and considering wasting  
a lot of time and money on legal action and when the judge asks you  
what you lost from this, what are you going to say? You lost people  
who would have never found you?




 David
 http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ok, fair enough. Instead of rejecting the sytem though, why not use
 the system to be more creative and effective in advertising? For
 instance, if you made an advertisement that explained where to go and
 what to do INSIDE OF THE VIDEO and did not depend on the extra
 metadata, you could let them take it and it would increase your reach
 for new clients. You could let everyone have it and encourage people
 to spread it around and share it because that would increase the
 reach of your advertising.


 On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:51 PM, David Howell wrote:

 For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are
 videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original
 posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link  
 back to
 my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.

 Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my
 copyright.

 David
 http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
 andrew@ wrote:


 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?









 Yahoo! Groups Links
















 Yahoo! Groups Links









 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Let's also not forget that it is a right of the content owner to *not*
allow someone to use their content if desired. This is the same as the
opt in argument I made before. SNL was never given the choice to
opt in on YouTube. They were forced into an opt out only
situation.

Now... several content owners may now opt in to YouTube at their own
discretion. And this is fine. But YouTube had no right to broadcast
their content without permission from the beginning. Same goes for
Google Video, vSocial, and any other video clip sharing site out
there.

-Josh


On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?

 Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
 business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
 money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
 someone is getting paid for that broadcast.

 This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
 night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own
 network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
 attention to their content -- for free!

 And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
 major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of
 Narnia) clip.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
  
   Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
   about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
   because of them?
  
   Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
   hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.
  
 
  So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
  could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why
  Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes
  shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair
  use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was
  likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally
  got that video.
 
 
   But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
   service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt
   in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in
   fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
   community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
   participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if
   they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
   content creators.
  
 
  Yea, that really is pretty shitty.
 
 
   -Josh
  
  
  
   On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
   developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
   everything that is going on.
  
   Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
   only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
   were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
   to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for
   the copyrighted material before it was even released.
  
   iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
   found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were
   rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the content
   where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements
   blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in front of
   the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it
   because they had no choice.
  
   Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
   themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded
   copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC
   round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for whats
   likely worth over 100million.
  
   The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps
   aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
   unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After
   all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be
   what people want.
  
   Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the
   site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The
   kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching more
   fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.
  
   So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and
   normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is
   that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are
   supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music
   royalties on coincidental background

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did what  
YouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?

On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked them  
to remove our feed before but its there again.

So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see how  
long it takes or if they do.

On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

 So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?

 Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
 business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
 money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
 someone is getting paid for that broadcast.

 This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
 night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own
 network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
 attention to their content -- for free!

 And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
 major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of
 Narnia) clip.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?

 Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
 hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.


 So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
 could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why
 Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes
 shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair
 use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was
 likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally
 got that video.


 But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
 service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt
 in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in
 fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
 community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
 participant. A user should always have the right to not  
 participate if
 they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
 content creators.


 Yea, that really is pretty shitty.


 -Josh



 On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
 developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
 everything that is going on.

 Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
 only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
 were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
 to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for
 the copyrighted material before it was even released.

 iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
 found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they  
 were
 rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the  
 content
 where they had the most invasive and likely profitable  
 advertisements
 blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in  
 front of
 the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it
 because they had no choice.

 Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
 themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have  
 disregarded
 copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC
 round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for  
 whats
 likely worth over 100million.

 The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps
 aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
 unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity.  
 After
 all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be
 what people want.

 Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the
 site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The
 kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching  
 more
 fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.

 So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and
 normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is
 that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are
 supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music
 royalties on coincidental background music, we are inspired by and
 want to see change in the way content has been so controlled and
 delivered. So its like everyone is trying to put out the fire  
 that is
 the spark most likely to bring change.

 So why all the kicking and screaming? If iFilm has never been sued,
 YouTube gets millions for hosting any video anyone puts

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Anne Walk

to me, Veoh is different from YouTube in this way:YouTube allows users to upload video. Users upload video that may or may not conform to copyright. YouTube either chooses not to monitor for copyright infringement or cannot do so.
Veoh is the same in this regard. The difference lies in the spidering. As well as a community site where users can upload content, Veoh also spiders other video hosting sites as well as individual vlog sites and inputs their content into their community. Veoh is directly involved in the copyright infringement. That is the difference and that difference is huge.
On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did whatYouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked themto remove our feed before but its there again.
So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see howlong it takes or if they do.On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
someone is getting paid for that broadcast. This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
attention to their content -- for free! And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of Narnia) clip.
-Josh On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers because of them?
Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips. So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair
use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally got that video. But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
community like that should require you first to opt in to be a participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
content creators. Yea, that really is pretty shitty. -Josh On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
everything that is going on. Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for the copyrighted material before it was even released.
iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the
content where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in
front of the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it because they had no choice. Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for
whats likely worth over 100million. The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be what people want.
Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching
more fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites. So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and normal, and not that unexpected. But

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Peter Van Dijck

Well said Anne.PeterOn 4/8/06, Anne Walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

to me, Veoh is different from YouTube in this way:YouTube allows users to upload video. Users upload video that may or may not conform to copyright. YouTube either chooses not to monitor for copyright infringement or cannot do so.
Veoh is the same in this regard. The difference lies in the spidering. As well as a community site where users can upload content, Veoh also spiders other video hosting sites as well as individual vlog sites and inputs their content into their community. Veoh is directly involved in the copyright infringement. That is the difference and that difference is huge.
On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did whatYouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked themto remove our feed before but its there again.
So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see howlong it takes or if they do.On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
someone is getting paid for that broadcast. This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
attention to their content -- for free! And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of Narnia) clip.
-Josh On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers because of them?
Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips. So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair
use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally got that video. But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
community like that should require you first to opt in to be a participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
content creators. Yea, that really is pretty shitty. -Josh On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
everything that is going on. Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for the copyrighted material before it was even released.
iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the
content where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in

front of the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it because they had no choice. Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have disregarded copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for
whats likely worth over 100million. The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity. After all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be what people want.
Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching
more fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites. So, everything I have

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

So for you its about liability.YouTube can claim ignorance because the liability rests with the individual users uploading the content that YouTube claims it cannot police.Whereas Veoh is in control of the spidering process of automatically acquiring content and thus the liability for that content rests with Veoh.
My disagreement however is that I believe that YouTube and others like it should be responsible for the content that is on their network that is obviously infringing. This is something that these companies consciously look the other way on because they know it will negatively impact their service. Unfortunetly, there is much to be gained by hosting popular but infringing content and supporting the minority of users who largely engage in such practice.
-JoshOn 4/8/06, Anne Walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

to me, Veoh is different from YouTube in this way:YouTube allows users to upload video. Users upload video that may or may not conform to copyright. YouTube either chooses not to monitor for copyright infringement or cannot do so.
Veoh is the same in this regard. The difference lies in the spidering. As well as a community site where users can upload content, Veoh also spiders other video hosting sites as well as individual vlog sites and inputs their content into their community. Veoh is directly involved in the copyright infringement. That is the difference and that difference is huge.
On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did whatYouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked themto remove our feed before but its there again.
So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see howlong it takes or if they do.On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
someone is getting paid for that broadcast. This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
attention to their content -- for free! And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of Narnia) clip.
-Josh On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers because of them?
Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips. So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair
use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally got that video. But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
community like that should require you first to opt in to be a participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
content creators. Yea, that really is pretty shitty. -Josh On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
everything that is going on. Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for the copyrighted material before it was even released.
iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the
content where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 Veoh is making money off of your advertisement? Thats kinda weird.


Money from investors.

 
 YouTube does it. Google does it. Yahoo does it.
 

Just because 100 people jump off a bridge doesnt make it a good idea.
Just because the majority of people that drive speed, doesnt make it
legal.

 
 I think you have a case and the laws support you on this. But I find  
 it a bit sad because it all comes down to intent and your intent is  
 to advertise a message and I feel like you are just shooting yourself  
 in the foot for not being able to adapt to your environment, thick or  
 thin.


My intent is for them not to steal from me. For them not to use my
work without permission. How is protecting my rights sad? How is
wanting control over my work sad? *I* am the one that did the work for
those videos. Not them. Why should they benefit when I am the one that
put in the time into creating the work?

 Right now you are all steamed and pissed off and considering wasting  
 a lot of time and money on legal action and when the judge asks you  
 what you lost from this, what are you going to say? You lost people  
 who would have never found you?
 

This is not so much about traffic to my site as it my rights.
Sometimes, one has to make a stand. If I spend money and it helps
others down the road from being taken advantage of, then I am doing
the right thing.

I used to paint for a living. No. Not houses. I know a couple artists
that had their paintings reproduced as prints and sold without their
knowledge or approval. When they went to court over the matter, the
judge didnt look to fondly on the printmakers. It wasnt the money the
artists were after. It was protecting their work.

Sure, I could lay down and have some website with venture capital kick
the shit out of me and just say, Oh well. That's the way it is. Or,
I could say that it is not right to treat me this way and that they
are not allowed to steal from me.

This is a rights issue. I am choosing the latter as my rights have
been violated.
 
David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Devlon

I am not denying Anne's point of view, but I do think it's it's on your site, you are responsible for it.If something goes down in my house, I am responsible for it. If something happens at place of business, it's that owners responsibility. I could go on.
If it is too much for the owner's to policy their site, hire moderators, I am sure some would even do it for free since everybody wants some sort of exposure these days.On 4/8/06,
Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did whatYouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked themto remove our feed before but its there again.
So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see howlong it takes or if they do.On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
someone is getting paid for that broadcast. This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
attention to their content -- for free! And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of Narnia) clip.
-Josh On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers because of them?
Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips. So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair
use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally got that video. But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
community like that should require you first to opt in to be a participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
content creators. Yea, that really is pretty shitty. -Josh On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
everything that is going on. Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for the copyrighted material before it was even released.
iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Dmitry, is Veoh actually spidering?

Please reply (this list), if are really as sincere as you claimed in your earlier email.




On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Anne Walk wrote:

to me, Veoh is different from YouTube in this way:

YouTube allows users to upload video. Users upload video that may or may not conform to copyright. YouTube either chooses not to monitor for copyright infringement or cannot do so. 

Veoh is the same in this regard. The difference lies in the spidering. As well as a community site where users can upload content, Veoh also spiders other video hosting sites as well as individual vlog sites and inputs their content into their community. Veoh is directly involved in the copyright infringement. That is the difference and that difference is huge.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

It's more complicated than you're making it sound Josh.

I've heard reports that folks at certain networks were uploading video
to these services at the same time their own lawyers were drafting the
cease and desists.

Plus, Lazy Sunday as an example, it hit YouTube and then was *free*
via iTunes, so obviousely NBC saw it as a promo opportunity -- which
it was. It was the best thing to ever happen to SNL. And all those
pirated Daily Show clips do nothing but help them.

I just don't see it as a black and white issue and it's not the time
to take a hard line on this stuff. There are folks busily creating
services and technologies to get independently produced content in
front of people, there's going to be bumps in the road and areas of
fog.

This may be too personal a question, please disregard if you think so.
I truly mean no offense. Do you have such a hard line because you feel
Fireant plays by the rules while these other services don't and
therefor they're competing unfairly?

On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Let's also not forget that it is a right of the content owner to *not*
 allow someone to use their content if desired. This is the same as the
 opt in argument I made before. SNL was never given the choice to
 opt in on YouTube. They were forced into an opt out only
 situation.

 Now... several content owners may now opt in to YouTube at their own
 discretion. And this is fine. But YouTube had no right to broadcast
 their content without permission from the beginning. Same goes for
 Google Video, vSocial, and any other video clip sharing site out
 there.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
 
  Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
  business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
  money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
  someone is getting paid for that broadcast.
 
  This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
  night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own
  network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
  attention to their content -- for free!
 
  And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
  major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of
  Narnia) clip.
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
   
Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
because of them?
   
Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.
   
  
   So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
   could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why
   Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes
   shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair
   use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was
   likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally
   got that video.
  
  
But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt
in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in
fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
participant. A user should always have the right to not participate if
they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
content creators.
   
  
   Yea, that really is pretty shitty.
  
  
-Josh
   
   
   
On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
everything that is going on.
   
Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for
the copyrighted material before it was even released.
   
iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they were
rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the content
where they had the most invasive and likely profitable advertisements
blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in front of
the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it
because they had no choice.
   
Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Anne Walk

for me, that is the diffence between the two cases.Whether or not YouTube and the like are responsible for the copyright infringement of their users is another matter.And so is the matter of utilizing popular culture in the making of new work that comments on popular culture (mashups)
All of these things must be looked at as separate copyright issues.On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Josh Wolf

FireAnt doesn't so much play by the rules as it plays outside the  
rules. While the FireANT directory may flag vlogs that predominantly  
re-purposed commercial content, their app works outside this ball- 
park. FireANT has no legal need to prohibit individual users from  
adding feeds to their aggregator that feature questionable content,  
and if they were to start doing so, it'd A, be a lot of fucking work,  
and B, would just result in many users refusing to upgrade to this  
new improved version of the program.

In terms of building a sustainable community of internet video within  
the legal framework of the US Government, Josh is absolutely right.  
By these companies continuing to highlight and look the other way in  
regards to content that they know is high-trafficked and uncleared  
material, then they are creating a situation akin to the Legal over- 
reactions set-off by Napster. To that ends, it isn't so much that  
Josh is battling against unfair competition, he is fighting against a  
legally unsound approach which could, conceivably, sabotage the  
future of internet video.

Josh


On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:50 PM, T.Whid wrote:

 It's more complicated than you're making it sound Josh.

 I've heard reports that folks at certain networks were uploading video
 to these services at the same time their own lawyers were drafting the
 cease and desists.

 Plus, Lazy Sunday as an example, it hit YouTube and then was *free*
 via iTunes, so obviousely NBC saw it as a promo opportunity -- which
 it was. It was the best thing to ever happen to SNL. And all those
 pirated Daily Show clips do nothing but help them.

 I just don't see it as a black and white issue and it's not the time
 to take a hard line on this stuff. There are folks busily creating
 services and technologies to get independently produced content in
 front of people, there's going to be bumps in the road and areas of
 fog.

 This may be too personal a question, please disregard if you think so.
 I truly mean no offense. Do you have such a hard line because you feel
 Fireant plays by the rules while these other services don't and
 therefor they're competing unfairly?

 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Let's also not forget that it is a right of the content owner to  
 *not*
 allow someone to use their content if desired. This is the same as  
 the
 opt in argument I made before. SNL was never given the choice to
 opt in on YouTube. They were forced into an opt out only
 situation.

 Now... several content owners may now opt in to YouTube at their own
 discretion. And this is fine. But YouTube had no right to broadcast
 their content without permission from the beginning. Same goes for
 Google Video, vSocial, and any other video clip sharing site out
 there.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?


 Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
 business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
 money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
 someone is getting paid for that broadcast.

 This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
 night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on  
 their own
 network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
 attention to their content -- for free!

 And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
 major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday  
 (Chronicles of
 Narnia) clip.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:



 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been  
 complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?


 Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
 hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.



 So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because  
 people
 could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is  
 why
 Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes
 shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the  
 fair
 use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was
 likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise  
 illegally
 got that video.



 But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
 service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you  
 to opt
 in by choice. They take your content to seed their community  
 and in
 fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
 community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
 participant. A user should always have the right to not  
 participate if
 they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
 content creators.



 Yea, that really is pretty shitty.



 -Josh



 On 4/8/06,

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Josh Wolf

In regards to whether or not material should be considered simply re- 
purposed commercial material or videos that fall under the grey-area  
mash-up category, it seems that these videos should simply be flagged  
and a message sent to the creator of the questionable content. The  
user would then have to click on a link and write an appeal as to why  
this is an original work and not simply an extended excerpt of  
commercial media.

Josh


On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Anne Walk wrote:

 for me, that is the diffence between the two cases.

 Whether or not YouTube and the like are responsible for the  
 copyright infringement of their users is another matter.

 And so is the matter of utilizing popular culture in the making of  
 new work that comments on popular culture (mashups)

 All of these things must be looked at as separate copyright issues.

 On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:
 So for you its about liability.

 YouTube can claim ignorance because the liability rests with the  
 individual users uploading the content that YouTube claims it  
 cannot police.

 Whereas Veoh is in control of the spidering process of  
 automatically acquiring content and thus the liability for that  
 content rests with Veoh.

 My disagreement however is that I believe that YouTube and others  
 like it should be responsible for the content that is on their  
 network that is obviously infringing. This is something that these  
 companies consciously look the other way on because they know it  
 will negatively impact their service. Unfortunetly, there is much  
 to be gained by hosting popular but infringing content and  
 supporting the minority of users who largely engage in such practice.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, Anne Walk  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 to me, Veoh is different from YouTube in this way:

 YouTube allows users to upload video. Users upload video that may  
 or may not conform to copyright. YouTube either chooses not to  
 monitor for copyright infringement or cannot do so.

 Veoh is the same in this regard. The difference lies in the  
 spidering. As well as a community site where users can upload  
 content, Veoh also spiders other video hosting sites as well as  
 individual vlog sites and inputs their content into their  
 community. Veoh is directly involved in the copyright  
 infringement. That is the difference and that difference is huge.


 On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  
 Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did what
 YouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?

 On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked them
 to remove our feed before but its there again.

 So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see how
 long it takes or if they do.

 On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

  So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
 
  Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
  business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
  money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
  someone is getting paid for that broadcast.
 
  This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
  night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on  
 their own
  network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
  attention to their content -- for free!
 
  And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
  major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday  
 (Chronicles of
  Narnia) clip.
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
 
  Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been  
 complaining
  about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
  because of them?
 
  Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
  hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.
 
 
  So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because  
 people
  could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is  
 why
  Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes
  shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the  
 fair
  use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was
  likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise  
 illegally
  got that video.
 
 
  But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
  service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you  
 to opt
  in by choice. They take your content to seed their community  
 and in
  fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
  community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
  participant. A user should always have the right to not
  participate if
  they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
  content creators.
 
 
  Yea, that really

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Michael Verdi




On 4/8/06, T. Whid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are folks busily creatingservices and technologies to get independently produced content infront of people, there's going to be bumps in the road and areas offog.That doesn't seem to be the case with the examples we're talking about here. Independent content needs a blog and some hosting. Available for free or about $5 - $10/month if you pay for it yourslef. They are more in the business of profiting off of user content as opposed to helping anyone. If that weren't the case they'd have much better terms of use - ie something like Ourmedia or 
Blip.tv.-Verdi-- Me: http://michaelverdi.comRD: http://evilvlog.comLearn to videoblog: 
http://freevlog.orgLearn to videoblog in person: http://node101.org





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

I just got this e-mail and I'm reposting it here less than one hour  
before the below request; Veoh removed rocketboom videos. Of course  
they did not remove the keyword 'rocketboom' so now Steve Garfield,  
Richard Show, and everyone else who mentions Rocketboom appears.  
Thus, I am realizing that for my intent, I kinda screwed myself a bit  
here, just like I think David Howell screwed himself, based on his  
primary intent (not his new intent).

My original intent being that I wasn't feeling threatened by Veoh, I  
never hear about them except for on this list, I dont know anyone who  
uses their site, and feel that the way its set up, it going to fail  
on its own without us, so thus, irregardless of my action in the  
case, Rocketboom has likely lost out on this one by not having  
Rocketboom's feed there. In otherwords, instead of moulding to the  
environment (for there are no doubt some people who like to use the  
site), knowing that a) most people who really like Rocketboom will  
eventually figure out where it's coming from and how to get there (we  
say so in every video), and b) believing that the Veoh system will  
self-destruct in its present form with or without us, so its not an  
issue of morality, we might of been more effective for the people  
that are still there.

So many people, so many places around the world, so many  
perspectives; Woe the aborigine on a video with an RSS feed - 'talk  
about stealing a soul with a picture. At 15 frames per second thats  
some pretty serious infringement for every subscriber.

e-mail from Veoh:


Per your request, we have removed Rocketboom videos from the site.

Mary Nielsen


Veoh Service wrote:


 Email: andrew [at] rocketboom.com

 Subject: ROCKETBOOM

 Personal message: Please remove all Rocketboom videos from your  
 site immediately.

 Thank you,
 Andrew


 -- 
 --
 Note: Please do not reply to this message.  This e-mail was sent  
 from a
 notification-only address that will not accept incoming e-mail.






On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:27 PM, andrew michael baron wrote:

 Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did what
 YouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?

 On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked them
 to remove our feed before but its there again.

 So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see how
 long it takes or if they do.

 On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

 So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?

 Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
 business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
 money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
 someone is getting paid for that broadcast.

 This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
 night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their  
 own
 network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
 attention to their content -- for free!

 And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
 major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of
 Narnia) clip.

 -Josh


 On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?

 Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
 hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.


 So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
 could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why
 Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes
 shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the  
 fair
 use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was
 likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise  
 illegally
 got that video.


 But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
 service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to  
 opt
 in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in
 fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
 community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
 participant. A user should always have the right to not
 participate if
 they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
 content creators.


 Yea, that really is pretty shitty.


 -Josh



 On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
 developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
 everything that is going on.

 Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
 only did they hold as much copyrighted

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

My 3 videos there have no keywords there associated to my username or
site name. The videos are just there. Not sure how I screwed myself.

However...and this is priceless. The videos in question have been
removed except for one. Glad I took screenshots.

I saw in my logs that someone went to my site, saw the link to my
older videos and saw the ones I am talking about that are/were on
VEOH. So, does that indicate that VEOH is manually adding stuff as
well as spidering for it? They must have known which ones to remove
because I never actually said what videos they had there.

Regardless, it makes me think that VEOH is reading these messages
here, knows they have done wrong and are trying to fix or cover up
what they had originally done.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I just got this e-mail and I'm reposting it here less than one hour  
 before the below request; Veoh removed rocketboom videos. Of course  
 they did not remove the keyword 'rocketboom' so now Steve Garfield,  
 Richard Show, and everyone else who mentions Rocketboom appears.  
 Thus, I am realizing that for my intent, I kinda screwed myself a bit  
 here, just like I think David Howell screwed himself, based on his  
 primary intent (not his new intent).
 
 My original intent being that I wasn't feeling threatened by Veoh, I  
 never hear about them except for on this list, I dont know anyone who  
 uses their site, and feel that the way its set up, it going to fail  
 on its own without us, so thus, irregardless of my action in the  
 case, Rocketboom has likely lost out on this one by not having  
 Rocketboom's feed there. In otherwords, instead of moulding to the  
 environment (for there are no doubt some people who like to use the  
 site), knowing that a) most people who really like Rocketboom will  
 eventually figure out where it's coming from and how to get there (we  
 say so in every video), and b) believing that the Veoh system will  
 self-destruct in its present form with or without us, so its not an  
 issue of morality, we might of been more effective for the people  
 that are still there.
 
 So many people, so many places around the world, so many  
 perspectives; Woe the aborigine on a video with an RSS feed - 'talk  
 about stealing a soul with a picture. At 15 frames per second thats  
 some pretty serious infringement for every subscriber.
 
 e-mail from Veoh:
 
 
 Per your request, we have removed Rocketboom videos from the site.
 
 Mary Nielsen
 
 
 Veoh Service wrote:
 
 
  Email: andrew [at] rocketboom.com
 
  Subject: ROCKETBOOM
 
  Personal message: Please remove all Rocketboom videos from your  
  site immediately.
 
  Thank you,
  Andrew
 
 
 
-- 
  --
  Note: Please do not reply to this message.  This e-mail was sent  
  from a
  notification-only address that will not accept incoming e-mail.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:27 PM, andrew michael baron wrote:
 
  Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did what
  YouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?
 
  On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked them
  to remove our feed before but its there again.
 
  So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see how
  long it takes or if they do.
 
  On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
 
  So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
 
  Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
  business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
  money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
  someone is getting paid for that broadcast.
 
  This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
  night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their  
  own
  network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
  attention to their content -- for free!
 
  And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
  major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of
  Narnia) clip.
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
 
  Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
  about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
  because of them?
 
  Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
  hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.
 
 
  So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
  could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why
  Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes
  shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the  
  fair
  use potential and supported change, especially

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

We are still removing feeds manually while programmers are working on
fixing the automated systems.   Thanks so much for the patience with
your personal requests...moving as fast as we can over the weekend!

Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that checks
RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT crawl.

As you have seen, we have been responsive to taking down feeds, and
will continue to be responsive.  We want to be good citizens and hope
that you bear with us while we retool.

There is lots of talk about what's wrong with the system, and we
appreciate the feedback.  I hope that some of you will take this as an
opportunity to guide a product that we can all use to change the
world.  We have the resources to invest in making a real difference in
the world of video blogging, help guide us.

Would anyone be available for some consulting work to help us spec out
changes in the system?  Looking for 2 to 3 people or to form a video
blogger advisory group (5-10 people).  If any of you are developers,
we are looking to staff up there as well.

Dmitry

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, robert a/k/a r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Dmitry, is Veoh actually spidering?
 
 Please reply (this list), if are really as sincere as you claimed in 
 your earlier email.
 
 
 
 
 On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Anne Walk wrote:
 
  to me, Veoh is different from YouTube in this way:
 
  YouTube allows users to upload video. Users upload video that may or 
  may not conform to copyright. YouTube either chooses not to monitor 
  for copyright infringement or cannot do so.
 
  Veoh is the same in this regard. The difference lies in the
spidering. 
  As well as a community site where users can upload content, Veoh also 
  spiders other video hosting sites as well as individual vlog sites
and 
  inputs their content into their community. Veoh is directly
involved 
  in the copyright infringement. That is the difference and that 
  difference is huge.








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread brook


  Regardless, it makes me think that VEOH is reading these messages
  here, knows they have done wrong and are trying to fix or cover up
  what they had originally done.


But not very quickly. I just went to VEOH and checked the 10 most recent
added videos. 7 or the 10 are unclaimed RSS. The remaining 3 are from a
single person.

Randomly browsing through, it seems like MOST of the content is unclaimed
RSS.

Legalities aside, given this is a commercial venture, they appear to be
building the bulk of the enterprise on the content of people who don't
even know they are there.

I'm much more of a negativland/culture-jamming/genie-is-out-the-bottle
sort when it comes to this stuff, but this is about someone building a
BUSINESS. Not ok. You wanna help a group of people, you gotta, you know,
talk to them to find out what they're about, not enlist them, names and
all, to aid the cause of your business not only for nothing but without
even telling them they're doing it.

(saith a newbie to the group looking at his foot wondering if he's
shooting himself in it...)
___
Brook Hinton
www.brookhinton.com
brookhinton.typepad.com/tracegarden
___


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

David,

There is nothing to cover up.  We are trying to be responsive to your
requests.  If you would like your videos removed, just tell us what
they are, and we will remove them.

Dmitry

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 My 3 videos there have no keywords there associated to my username or
 site name. The videos are just there. Not sure how I screwed myself.
 
 However...and this is priceless. The videos in question have been
 removed except for one. Glad I took screenshots.
 
 I saw in my logs that someone went to my site, saw the link to my
 older videos and saw the ones I am talking about that are/were on
 VEOH. So, does that indicate that VEOH is manually adding stuff as
 well as spidering for it? They must have known which ones to remove
 because I never actually said what videos they had there.
 
 Regardless, it makes me think that VEOH is reading these messages
 here, knows they have done wrong and are trying to fix or cover up
 what they had originally done.
 
 David
 http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
 
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
 andrew@ wrote:
 
  I just got this e-mail and I'm reposting it here less than one hour  
  before the below request; Veoh removed rocketboom videos. Of course  
  they did not remove the keyword 'rocketboom' so now Steve Garfield,  
  Richard Show, and everyone else who mentions Rocketboom appears.  
  Thus, I am realizing that for my intent, I kinda screwed myself a
bit  
  here, just like I think David Howell screwed himself, based on his  
  primary intent (not his new intent).
  
  My original intent being that I wasn't feeling threatened by Veoh, I  
  never hear about them except for on this list, I dont know anyone
who  
  uses their site, and feel that the way its set up, it going to fail  
  on its own without us, so thus, irregardless of my action in the  
  case, Rocketboom has likely lost out on this one by not having  
  Rocketboom's feed there. In otherwords, instead of moulding to the  
  environment (for there are no doubt some people who like to use the  
  site), knowing that a) most people who really like Rocketboom will  
  eventually figure out where it's coming from and how to get there
(we  
  say so in every video), and b) believing that the Veoh system will  
  self-destruct in its present form with or without us, so its not an  
  issue of morality, we might of been more effective for the people  
  that are still there.
  
  So many people, so many places around the world, so many  
  perspectives; Woe the aborigine on a video with an RSS feed - 'talk  
  about stealing a soul with a picture. At 15 frames per second thats  
  some pretty serious infringement for every subscriber.
  
  e-mail from Veoh:
  
  
  Per your request, we have removed Rocketboom videos from the site.
  
  Mary Nielsen
  
  
  Veoh Service wrote:
  
  
   Email: andrew [at] rocketboom.com
  
   Subject: ROCKETBOOM
  
   Personal message: Please remove all Rocketboom videos from your  
   site immediately.
  
   Thank you,
   Andrew
  
  
  
 -- 
   --
   Note: Please do not reply to this message.  This e-mail was sent  
   from a
   notification-only address that will not accept incoming e-mail.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:27 PM, andrew michael baron wrote:
  
   Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did what
   YouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?
  
   On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked them
   to remove our feed before but its there again.
  
   So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see how
   long it takes or if they do.
  
   On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
  
   So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
  
   Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
   business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
   money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
   someone is getting paid for that broadcast.
  
   This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
   night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on
their  
   own
   network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing
more
   attention to their content -- for free!
  
   And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
   major traffic spike they got from the SNL Lazy Sunday
(Chronicles of
   Narnia) clip.
  
   -Josh
  
  
   On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron andrew@ wrote:
  
   On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
  
   Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been
complaining
   about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
   because of them?
  
   Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
   hosting content that is normally

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

First. I never made any request to have the videos your company stole
from me to be removed from your site.

Second. My server log files already show that someone from VEOH (IP
traces are fun.) came to my site and went to the area where the videos
in question are. The stolen videos have been subsequently removed from
VEOH.

Had I not been so vocal on this list about slamming your company with
a lawsuit for copyright infringement, you people probably wouldnt have
done a thing to recify the situation. Like I said, I am glad that I
took screenshots early today as proof that you had indeed stolen my
videos and violated my copyright.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, dmitry_veoh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 David,
 
 There is nothing to cover up.  We are trying to be responsive to your
 requests.  If you would like your videos removed, just tell us what
 they are, and we will remove them.
 
 Dmitry
 
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@
 wrote:
 
  My 3 videos there have no keywords there associated to my username or
  site name. The videos are just there. Not sure how I screwed myself.
  
  However...and this is priceless. The videos in question have been
  removed except for one. Glad I took screenshots.
  
  I saw in my logs that someone went to my site, saw the link to my
  older videos and saw the ones I am talking about that are/were on
  VEOH. So, does that indicate that VEOH is manually adding stuff as
  well as spidering for it? They must have known which ones to remove
  because I never actually said what videos they had there.
  
  Regardless, it makes me think that VEOH is reading these messages
  here, knows they have done wrong and are trying to fix or cover up
  what they had originally done.
  
  David
  http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
  
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
  andrew@ wrote:
  
   I just got this e-mail and I'm reposting it here less than one
hour  
   before the below request; Veoh removed rocketboom videos. Of
course  
   they did not remove the keyword 'rocketboom' so now Steve
Garfield,  
   Richard Show, and everyone else who mentions Rocketboom appears.  
   Thus, I am realizing that for my intent, I kinda screwed myself a
 bit  
   here, just like I think David Howell screwed himself, based on his  
   primary intent (not his new intent).
   
   My original intent being that I wasn't feeling threatened by
Veoh, I  
   never hear about them except for on this list, I dont know anyone
 who  
   uses their site, and feel that the way its set up, it going to
fail  
   on its own without us, so thus, irregardless of my action in the  
   case, Rocketboom has likely lost out on this one by not having  
   Rocketboom's feed there. In otherwords, instead of moulding to the  
   environment (for there are no doubt some people who like to use
the  
   site), knowing that a) most people who really like Rocketboom will  
   eventually figure out where it's coming from and how to get there
 (we  
   say so in every video), and b) believing that the Veoh system will  
   self-destruct in its present form with or without us, so its not
an  
   issue of morality, we might of been more effective for the people  
   that are still there.
   
   So many people, so many places around the world, so many  
   perspectives; Woe the aborigine on a video with an RSS feed -
'talk  
   about stealing a soul with a picture. At 15 frames per second
thats  
   some pretty serious infringement for every subscriber.
   
   e-mail from Veoh:
   
   
   Per your request, we have removed Rocketboom videos from the site.
   
   Mary Nielsen
   
   
   Veoh Service wrote:
   
   
Email: andrew [at] rocketboom.com
   
Subject: ROCKETBOOM
   
Personal message: Please remove all Rocketboom videos from your  
site immediately.
   
Thank you,
Andrew
   
   
   
 
-- 
--
Note: Please do not reply to this message.  This e-mail was sent  
from a
notification-only address that will not accept incoming e-mail.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:27 PM, andrew michael baron wrote:
   
Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did what
YouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?
   
On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have
asked them
to remove our feed before but its there again.
   
So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see how
long it takes or if they do.
   
On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
   
So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
   
Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is
in the
business of licensing that content to other people in
exchange for
money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Dmitry,

Manually by whom, specifically. Is anyone employed or volunteering 
(i.e., working in the interest of Veoh for pay or not) making these RSS 
submissions or are you claiming that 100% of the RSS feed you use to 
harvest are entered by non-affiliated and non-interested persons?

Let's have a straight-up conversation, here. Direct conversation. For 
example, Halcyon (screen-name) forwards messages from you however we do 
not know if he is an affiliated party, please advise.


On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:48 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:

 ...
 Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that checks
 RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT crawl.



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Eddie Codel

David. Don't you think you're overreacting just a bit here? From what I
can tell, Veoh has been responsive in removing content fairly quickly.
The fact that they are here, listening and participating in the community should
count for something. Give 'em a chance already. 

On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 12:00:08AM -, David Howell wrote:
 Had I not been so vocal on this list about slamming your company with
 a lawsuit for copyright infringement, you people probably wouldnt have
 done a thing to recify the situation. Like I said, I am glad that I
 took screenshots early today as proof that you had indeed stolen my
 videos and violated my copyright.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

You have got to be kidding me.

Fine. From what you are saying, I can go over to your house and take
whatever I feel like I want to take that is yours and it's ok with you
as long as I say golly gee whiz...I am sorry.

Give them a break when they have ALREADY stolen from me!?!? Next to
Dmitry's posts, that's got to be one of the most assinine things I
have read here all day.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Codel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 David. Don't you think you're overreacting just a bit here? From what I
 can tell, Veoh has been responsive in removing content fairly quickly.
 The fact that they are here, listening and participating in the
community should
 count for something. Give 'em a chance already. 
 
 On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 12:00:08AM -, David Howell wrote:
  Had I not been so vocal on this list about slamming your company with
  a lawsuit for copyright infringement, you people probably wouldnt have
  done a thing to recify the situation. Like I said, I am glad that I
  took screenshots early today as proof that you had indeed stolen my
  videos and violated my copyright.







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Robert,

The feeds were put in manually by early users of Veoh 1.0 (before we
had a web-based service).  Veoh does not add to these feeds, and does
not pay people to add to these feeds.

As I said, we are working on adding links back to originating sites,
automatically obeying CC licenses, and are quickly taking down any
feed that we are notified about.  We are working on automated systems
to do this.  Our web service has only been operational since March 1.

Halcyon is a friend, and is a video blogger just like all of you.

Please bear with us while we make these fixes.

Thanks,


Dmitry


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, robert a/k/a r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Dmitry,
 
 Manually by whom, specifically. Is anyone employed or volunteering 
 (i.e., working in the interest of Veoh for pay or not) making these RSS 
 submissions or are you claiming that 100% of the RSS feed you use to 
 harvest are entered by non-affiliated and non-interested persons?
 
 Let's have a straight-up conversation, here. Direct conversation. For 
 example, Halcyon (screen-name) forwards messages from you however we do 
 not know if he is an affiliated party, please advise.
 
 
 On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:48 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:
 
  ...
  Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that checks
  RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT crawl.








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Dmitry,

Please be perfectly clear here, have any persons who work for Veoh or 
with Veoh (for pay or not) manually input RSS feeds into the system?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

And thanks for clarifying the situation re Halcyon, I had the 
impression he was compensated in some manner or form or expected to be 
compensated, I didn't realise he was just a friend helping you out.




On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:37 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:

 Robert,

 The feeds were put in manually by early users of Veoh 1.0 (before we
 had a web-based service).  Veoh does not add to these feeds, and does
 not pay people to add to these feeds.

 As I said, we are working on adding links back to originating sites,
 automatically obeying CC licenses, and are quickly taking down any
 feed that we are notified about.  We are working on automated systems
 to do this.  Our web service has only been operational since March 1.

 Halcyon is a friend, and is a video blogger just like all of you.

 Please bear with us while we make these fixes.

 Thanks,


 Dmitry


 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, robert a/k/a r
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Dmitry,

 Manually by whom, specifically. Is anyone employed or volunteering
 (i.e., working in the interest of Veoh for pay or not) making these 
 RSS
 submissions or are you claiming that 100% of the RSS feed you use to
 harvest are entered by non-affiliated and non-interested persons?

 Let's have a straight-up conversation, here. Direct conversation. For
 example, Halcyon (screen-name) forwards messages from you however we 
 do
 not know if he is an affiliated party, please advise.


 On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:48 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:

 ...
 Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that checks
 RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT crawl.









 Yahoo! Groups Links









 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Dmitry,

Please be perfectly clear here, have any persons who work for Veoh or 
with Veoh (for pay or not) manually input RSS feeds into the system?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

And thanks for clarifying the situation re Halcyon, I had the 
impression he was compensated in some manner or form or expected to be 
compensated, I didn't realise he was just a friend helping you out.




On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:37 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:

 Robert,

 The feeds were put in manually by early users of Veoh 1.0 (before we
 had a web-based service).  Veoh does not add to these feeds, and does
 not pay people to add to these feeds.

 As I said, we are working on adding links back to originating sites,
 automatically obeying CC licenses, and are quickly taking down any
 feed that we are notified about.  We are working on automated systems
 to do this.  Our web service has only been operational since March 1.

 Halcyon is a friend, and is a video blogger just like all of you.

 Please bear with us while we make these fixes.

 Thanks,


 Dmitry


 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, robert a/k/a r
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Dmitry,

 Manually by whom, specifically. Is anyone employed or volunteering
 (i.e., working in the interest of Veoh for pay or not) making these 
 RSS
 submissions or are you claiming that 100% of the RSS feed you use to
 harvest are entered by non-affiliated and non-interested persons?

 Let's have a straight-up conversation, here. Direct conversation. For
 example, Halcyon (screen-name) forwards messages from you however we 
 do
 not know if he is an affiliated party, please advise.


 On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:48 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:

 ...
 Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that checks
 RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT crawl.









 Yahoo! Groups Links








--
cheers
r

Deconstructing the status quo, collaboratively

my vlog: http://r.24x7.com
hosting: http://foo.24x7.com


This email is:  [x] confidential[x] request my permission before 
forwarding to others[ ] ok to quote or blog




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Josh Leo

Just another videoblogger friend?http://veoh.digitalintimacy.com/vcrew.htmOn 4/8/06, dmitry_veoh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Halcyon is a friend, and is a video blogger just like all of you.Please bear with us while we make these fixes.Thanks,Dmitry--- In
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, robert a/k/a r[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dmitry, Manually by whom, specifically. Is anyone employed or volunteering (i.e., working in the interest of Veoh for pay or not) making these RSS
submissions or are you claiming that 100% of the RSS feed you use to harvest are entered by non-affiliated and non-interested persons? Let's have a straight-up conversation, here. Direct conversation. For
example, Halcyon (screen-name) forwards messages from you however we do not know if he is an affiliated party, please advise. On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:48 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:
... Veoh is NOT spidering.We have an automated RSS reader that checks RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.We DO NOT crawl.
Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Josh Leowww.JoshLeo.com

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Yes, just a friend!  He is passionate about Veoh, and helps us with
interface design once in a while when he has some free time.  He and I
used to work together at CollegeClub.com.  No conspiracy here.

Dmitry

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Just another videoblogger friend?
 
 http://veoh.digitalintimacy.com/vcrew.htm
 
 On 4/8/06, dmitry_veoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  Halcyon is a friend, and is a video blogger just like all of you.
 
  Please bear with us while we make these fixes.
 
  Thanks,
 
 
  Dmitry
 
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, robert a/k/a r
  robert.videoblogging@ wrote:
  
   Dmitry,
  
   Manually by whom, specifically. Is anyone employed or volunteering
   (i.e., working in the interest of Veoh for pay or not) making
these RSS
   submissions or are you claiming that 100% of the RSS feed you use to
   harvest are entered by non-affiliated and non-interested persons?
  
   Let's have a straight-up conversation, here. Direct
conversation. For
   example, Halcyon (screen-name) forwards messages from you
however we do
   not know if he is an affiliated party, please advise.
  
  
   On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:48 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:
   
...
Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that
checks
RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT
crawl.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 Josh Leo
 
 www.JoshLeo.com








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Daryl Watson

Copyright is an issue for filmmakers as well as vloggers. So how do
film-makers ensure their films are correctly credited and the copyright
status of their films made clear to their audience? They include it within
the film/video itself.

Is it that hard for a vlogger to include a plate at the end of each vlog
that gives credit to the author of the vlogger, and a symbol indicating it's
copyright  status (trad. Or creative commons or otherwise)? And add a
link-back as well so the vlogger can be contacted if need be?

This wouldn't solve the Veoh issue, but it would mean that if your work was
being used in contexts outside of your knowing, it would at the very least
retain attribution and an address that would enable you to be contacted so
interested parties could find more of the work that you've made.

Daryl
http://feztv.blogspot.com



On 8/4/06 2:03 PM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 
 Message: 20  
  Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:51:05 -
  From: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)
 
 For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are
 videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original
 posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link back to
 my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.
 
 Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my
 copyright.
 
 David
 http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
 
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
 about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
 because of them?
 
 
 
 



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Brook Hinton

This, it seems to me, is what Dmitry/Veoh need to do for a good faith 
showing here, though I'm sure there are some for whom (and I understand 
this) nothing would suffice. I'm new to this community, but this kind 
of stuff comes up in other film and video worlds as well, so I just 
hope this might be helpful.

Dmitry, could you commit to these?

1. Disable the unclaimed RSS feeds. All of them. And disable access to 
their VEOH pages, as these make it look like the authors are part of 
the VEOH community unless a user looks REALLY closely.
2. Contact the owners of all of those feeds. Apologize for making it 
appear that they were part of the VEOH community without their having 
signed up for it, and for transcoding their work to the (horrible 
blurry mess... ok, maybe just...) flash previews.
3. Ask them if they would like to be PART of Veoh. For those who do, 
set up a system where the feeds come from the actual RSS and provide 
links back to the originating sites, in a way that makes it clear this 
is EXTERNAL content - the mefeedia model, basically. OF course, you 
could try to sell them on hosting AT Veoh, but that's another matter.
4. If you want to function partly as a portal to non-Veoh video, set up 
a system where the distinction between links to external work and Veoh 
community work is crystal clear.
5. Make a vow NEVER TO TRANSCODE WITHOUT PERMISSION and to honor all 
copyright and creative commons licenses in any actions taken by Veoh.

  And would this enough peace for some sort of fresh start?

- brook

___
Brook Hinton
www.brookhinton.com
brookhinton.typepad.com/tracegarden
___



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Perhaps some of us over-reacted.  It looks like Veoh is headed to
fulfilling videoblogging needs.  And their new viewer has a much
better image quality.

  -- Enric
  -==-
  http://www.cirne.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, dmitry_veoh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Robert,
 
 The feeds were put in manually by early users of Veoh 1.0 (before we
 had a web-based service).  Veoh does not add to these feeds, and does
 not pay people to add to these feeds.
 
 As I said, we are working on adding links back to originating sites,
 automatically obeying CC licenses, and are quickly taking down any
 feed that we are notified about.  We are working on automated systems
 to do this.  Our web service has only been operational since March 1.
 
 Halcyon is a friend, and is a video blogger just like all of you.
 
 Please bear with us while we make these fixes.
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 Dmitry
 
 
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, robert a/k/a r
 robert.videoblogging@ wrote:
 
  Dmitry,
  
  Manually by whom, specifically. Is anyone employed or volunteering 
  (i.e., working in the interest of Veoh for pay or not) making
these RSS 
  submissions or are you claiming that 100% of the RSS feed you use to 
  harvest are entered by non-affiliated and non-interested persons?
  
  Let's have a straight-up conversation, here. Direct conversation. For 
  example, Halcyon (screen-name) forwards messages from you however
we do 
  not know if he is an affiliated party, please advise.
  
  
  On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:48 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:
  
   ...
   Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that checks
   RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT crawl.
 








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

First. Each one of the videos that was stolen from me by VEOH
originally had my website address at the end of them. I could not
verify that it was still there as I had to register with VEOH's site
to actually view my own videos. That is not going to happen.

Second. Each of the videos that was stolen came from my site which has
All content is Copyright © 2005/2006 David Howell As well, there is
a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License for all
content on my site.

Nevermind that they have removed all but one of my videos, VEOH
violated my copyright. Plain and simple.

You know what? I am a pretty easy going guy. All VEOH had to do was
ask me to use my videos. That's all. A simple email. They couldnt have
been bothered though. They chose to steal them. Petty thievery.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Copyright is an issue for filmmakers as well as vloggers. So how do
 film-makers ensure their films are correctly credited and the copyright
 status of their films made clear to their audience? They include it
within
 the film/video itself.
 
 Is it that hard for a vlogger to include a plate at the end of each vlog
 that gives credit to the author of the vlogger, and a symbol
indicating it's
 copyright  status (trad. Or creative commons or otherwise)? And add a
 link-back as well so the vlogger can be contacted if need be?
 
 This wouldn't solve the Veoh issue, but it would mean that if your
work was
 being used in contexts outside of your knowing, it would at the very
least
 retain attribution and an address that would enable you to be
contacted so
 interested parties could find more of the work that you've made.
 
 Daryl
 http://feztv.blogspot.com
 
 
 
 On 8/4/06 2:03 PM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
  
  Message: 20  
   Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:51:05 -
   From: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)
  
  For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are
  videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original
  posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link back to
  my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.
  
  Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my
  copyright.
  
  David
  http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
  
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
  andrew@ wrote:
  
  
  Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
  about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
  because of them?
  
  
  
 








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

OK, this thread got out of whack... it was not about Veoh, but how
other services are doing roughly what Veoh has done but to mainstream
content owners while hiding behind their supposed inability to enforce
their own terms of use

Just trying to get back on track here. This thread was about the large
amount of copyright infringment happening on the various video clip
sharing services (YouTube, vSocial, et al) and how those services
look the other way and, much to their own benefit, tolerate the
copyright infringing practice of a relative minority of users.

-Josh


On 4/8/06, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 First. Each one of the videos that was stolen from me by VEOH
 originally had my website address at the end of them. I could not
 verify that it was still there as I had to register with VEOH's site
 to actually view my own videos. That is not going to happen.

 Second. Each of the videos that was stolen came from my site which has
 All content is Copyright (c) 2005/2006 David Howell As well, there is
 a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License for all
 content on my site.

 Nevermind that they have removed all but one of my videos, VEOH
 violated my copyright. Plain and simple.

 You know what? I am a pretty easy going guy. All VEOH had to do was
 ask me to use my videos. That's all. A simple email. They couldnt have
 been bothered though. They chose to steal them. Petty thievery.

 David
 http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Copyright is an issue for filmmakers as well as vloggers. So how do
  film-makers ensure their films are correctly credited and the copyright
  status of their films made clear to their audience? They include it
 within
  the film/video itself.
 
  Is it that hard for a vlogger to include a plate at the end of each vlog
  that gives credit to the author of the vlogger, and a symbol
 indicating it's
  copyright  status (trad. Or creative commons or otherwise)? And add a
  link-back as well so the vlogger can be contacted if need be?
 
  This wouldn't solve the Veoh issue, but it would mean that if your
 work was
  being used in contexts outside of your knowing, it would at the very
 least
  retain attribution and an address that would enable you to be
 contacted so
  interested parties could find more of the work that you've made.
 
  Daryl
  http://feztv.blogspot.com
 
 
 
  On 8/4/06 2:03 PM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
  videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
  
   Message: 20
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:51:05 -
From: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)
  
   For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has are
   videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the original
   posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not link back to
   my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.
  
   Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation of my
   copyright.
  
   David
   http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
  
   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
   andrew@ wrote:
  
  
   Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
   about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
   because of them?
  
  
  
  
 








 Yahoo! Groups Links









 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Fwd: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

Dmitry,

Simple answers are good, your last email reminded me of the one you sent the group back on 19 August 2005 when you first called attention by mysteriously coming up with a list of emaill addresses. Oh yes, you remember that incident, the one where you stated.

We have sent out one email to our [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, announcing the
launch of our video uploader.  The only emails on our list are people
that have sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  If your name is
inappropriately on the list, please email me directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED]

We do NOT harvest any email, will not release our email list to any
third party, and will not spam.

Please be perfectly clear here, don't avoid the question again by creating a new thread.

Have any persons who work for Veoh or with Veoh (for pay or not) manually input RSS feeds into the system?

Simple yes or no will suffice.




Begin forwarded message:

From: robert a/k/a r [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: April 8, 2006 8:51:38 PM EDT
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Halcyon Lujah [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)
Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

Dmitry,

Please be perfectly clear here, have any persons who work for Veoh or 
with Veoh (for pay or not) manually input RSS feeds into the system?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

And thanks for clarifying the situation re Halcyon, I had the 
impression he was compensated in some manner or form or expected to be 
compensated, I didn't realise he was just a friend helping you out.




On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:37 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:

Robert,

The feeds were put in manually by early users of Veoh 1.0 (before we
had a web-based service).  Veoh does not add to these feeds, and does
not pay people to add to these feeds.

As I said, we are working on adding links back to originating sites,
automatically obeying CC licenses, and are quickly taking down any
feed that we are notified about.  We are working on automated systems
to do this.  Our web service has only been operational since March 1.

Halcyon is a friend, and is a video blogger just like all of you.

Please bear with us while we make these fixes.

Thanks,


Dmitry


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, robert a/k/a r
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry,

Manually by whom, specifically. Is anyone employed or volunteering
(i.e., working in the interest of Veoh for pay or not) making these 
RSS
submissions or are you claiming that 100% of the RSS feed you use to
harvest are entered by non-affiliated and non-interested persons?

Let's have a straight-up conversation, here. Direct conversation. For
example, Halcyon (screen-name) forwards messages from you however we 
do
not know if he is an affiliated party, please advise.


On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:48 PM, dmitry_veoh wrote:
...
Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that checks
RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT crawl.









Yahoo! Groups Links








--
cheers
r

Deconstructing the status quo, collaboratively

my vlog: http://r.24x7.com
hosting: http://foo.24x7.com


This email is:  [x] confidential[x] request my permission before 
forwarding to others[ ] ok to quote or blog





Yahoo! Groups Links

*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread hpbatman7

Thank you for saying this Josh...I have to say this whole thread 
has really taken me by surpriseit seems that everyone is out 
to vilify VEOH.look I don't like what they did but you head the 
nail on the head when you talk about ALL the sites that are 
infringing..in various ways...

What I don't get and maybe someone can explain this to me in a simple 
manner, (I am not a real tech guy, I know enough and am learning but 
on a thread like this I realize how much I don't know.) I put my 
videos out, what is to stop someone from putting my RSS feed into a 
site without my knowledge and how does that site know it's not me?  
What is to stop someone from uploading my video to YouTube and have 
it link back to their site?  How does a site that gathers 
video control that?  You can have all the opt in you want but by 
putting our video out there we all take the risk of 
someone highjacking our stuffdon't we?

Heath - Batman Geek
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 OK, this thread got out of whack... it was not about Veoh, but how
 other services are doing roughly what Veoh has done but to 
mainstream
 content owners while hiding behind their supposed inability to 
enforce
 their own terms of use
 
 Just trying to get back on track here. This thread was about the 
large
 amount of copyright infringment happening on the various video clip
 sharing services (YouTube, vSocial, et al) and how those services
 look the other way and, much to their own benefit, tolerate the
 copyright infringing practice of a relative minority of users.
 
 -Josh
 
 
 On 4/8/06, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  First. Each one of the videos that was stolen from me by VEOH
  originally had my website address at the end of them. I could not
  verify that it was still there as I had to register with VEOH's 
site
  to actually view my own videos. That is not going to happen.
 
  Second. Each of the videos that was stolen came from my site 
which has
  All content is Copyright (c) 2005/2006 David Howell As well, 
there is
  a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License for all
  content on my site.
 
  Nevermind that they have removed all but one of my videos, VEOH
  violated my copyright. Plain and simple.
 
  You know what? I am a pretty easy going guy. All VEOH had to do 
was
  ask me to use my videos. That's all. A simple email. They couldnt 
have
  been bothered though. They chose to steal them. Petty thievery.
 
  David
  http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Watson djwatson@ 
wrote:
  
   Copyright is an issue for filmmakers as well as vloggers. So 
how do
   film-makers ensure their films are correctly credited and the 
copyright
   status of their films made clear to their audience? They 
include it
  within
   the film/video itself.
  
   Is it that hard for a vlogger to include a plate at the end of 
each vlog
   that gives credit to the author of the vlogger, and a symbol
  indicating it's
   copyright  status (trad. Or creative commons or otherwise)? And 
add a
   link-back as well so the vlogger can be contacted if need be?
  
   This wouldn't solve the Veoh issue, but it would mean that if 
your
  work was
   being used in contexts outside of your knowing, it would at the 
very
  least
   retain attribution and an address that would enable you to be
  contacted so
   interested parties could find more of the work that you've made.
  
   Daryl
   http://feztv.blogspot.com
  
  
  
   On 8/4/06 2:03 PM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
   videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote:
  
   
Message: 20
 Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:51:05 -
 From: David Howell taoofdavid@
Subject: Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding 
Feeds...)
   
For me, the problem is that the videos of mine that Veoh has 
are
videos that I made to advertise my wifes business. On the 
original
posts on my site, I put a link to her site. Veoh does not 
link back to
my site. Thus my wife is losing possible clients.
   
Also, I am not credited with making the videos. A violation 
of my
copyright.
   
David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
   
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
andrew@ wrote:
   
   
Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been 
complaining
about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or 
viewers
because of them?
   
   
   
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Eddie Codel

On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 12:18:58AM -, David Howell wrote:
 You have got to be kidding me.
 
 Fine. From what you are saying, I can go over to your house and take
 whatever I feel like I want to take that is yours and it's ok with you
 as long as I say golly gee whiz...I am sorry.

You know, that analogy just doesn't fly. What we're talking about here
is digital content that can be replicated infinitely. You still have the
original copies, you still retain rights to them. You have suffered no
monetary loss as a result. 

 Give them a break when they have ALREADY stolen from me!?!? Next to
 Dmitry's posts, that's got to be one of the most assinine things I
 have read here all day.

Well, then I must be an ass in 9. How about taking a walk around the
neighborhood and looking at the beautiful sunset? Relax, take a deep
breath. Your posts are fueled by your anger, which is totally
understandable but it leads to overreaction and irrational thinking. I'm
just saying as one human to another. 

What would you want Veoh to do to make things right for YOU? Is it
possible?

-eddie


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Charles HOPE







dmitry_veoh wrote:

  We are still removing feeds manually while programmers are working on
fixing the automated systems.   Thanks so much for the patience with
your personal requests...moving as fast as we can over the weekend!
  


Clearly you still don't get it. The only proper thing to do at this
point is to delete all the feeds that are unclaimed. Your system must
be opt in, not opt out. Why is it people's responsibility to go all
over the Internet looking for web
sites that are re-serving their videos and ask that they be taken
down?


  
Veoh is NOT spidering.  We have an automated RSS reader that checks
RSS feeds that were put into the system manually.  We DO NOT crawl.
  


Sorry, but I don't believe you. There's nary a video blogger here that
hasn't found their feed on your system. Who entered all these 1600+
feeds in? Not the feed owners themselves, because virtually none of
them are claimed.

For a technology company to pay people to sit around manually entering
1600 feeds into their system instead of doing this through software
stretches credulity.



  
If any of you are developers,
we are looking to staff up there as well.
  


Turning a fiasco like this into a job offer! Impressive levels of
chutzpah.



  Yes, just a friend!  He is passionate about Veoh, and helps us with
interface design once in a while when he has some free time.  


Here's a man with a Veoh e-mail address who says "To help
steer this revolution, I have been charged with kick-starting the Veoh
programming." Just a friend?






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)

2006-04-08 Thread Kath O'Donnell




On 4/9/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The top viral clip on vSocial has over 20 million remote views. Its aclip from Family Guy (Peanut BUtter Jelly Time). It should beremoved of course, it is not in the interest of the service to
remove its top performing clip. This is where the problem lies.how do we know the user posting it doesn't work for the company making family Guy and this isn't just another method for them to get more coverage.. 
Kath-- http://www.aliak.com


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[videoblogging] Re: massive infringement (was: Veoh Transcoding Feeds...)