*blink* *blink**blink*...
rubs eyes
*blink* *blink*...
David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My videos are hosted on a porn server--
Stephanie Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs
We were watching old home videos of the kids when they were just
babies tonight because the youngest one turns 9 tomorrow. All Hi-8
stuff, no DV back then...curious as to what people have done to
inexpensively convert the analog stuff to the highest quality digital?
Hardware, software or service?
I sent an email on my videos for Cirne and got the series ID to claim
it. I replied that my other vlog, Tech Alley (
http://techalley.cirne.com/ ) , is also showing up on veoh and how to
get the series id to claim it. A samples is this:
I honestly don't know how this can be made right.First thing, though, stop spidering immediately. Remove all unclaimed feeds at once. Not just the feeds of those who discover what you are doing. All of them.
Doing those things could go a long way in showing your intentions.On 4/7/06,
Hello,On 4/7/06, dmitry_veoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne,I undertand your frustration, but I assure you we are not doing thisto inflate numbers.We are just trying to create a good service.Iagree that this is serious business, but I think that our intent is in
line with video bloggers; to help
Devlon uses a tv tuner card in his computer (less than $100) to digitize the content. You need an RCA cord to plug into the cam and computer.One thing we've had terrible trouble with, though, is the sound going out of sync. It seems to capture audio at a slightly different rate than video. The
Er Um
My husband sells adult DVDs over the Internet. He's a very
above-the-board businessman, which is why we don't live in a mansion
in Beverly Hills. But, yeah. Porn servers tend to buy more bandwidth
than they need. So I use some. Just so it doesn't go to waste, you
understand.
My Sony Handicam takes Hi8 and Digital8. To get the Hi-8 tapes onto
the hard drive, I put them in the Handicam and import in iMovie like
normal, via firewire. The main difference from my standpoint is that
you have to manually press play on the camcorder: iMovie can't send
the play command for
Yes. I understand. Of course.
*blink*
I need to edit my videos earlier in the evening. My mind is playing
games with me.
David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er Um
My husband sells adult DVDs over
On 4/7/06, Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My Sony Handicam takes Hi8 and Digital8. To get the Hi-8 tapes onto
the hard drive, I put them in the Handicam and import in iMovie like
normal, via firewire. The main difference from my standpoint is that
you have to manually press play
On 4/7/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephanie Bryant wrote:
Actually, they're outright infringing on my husband's videoblog.
I empathize, and I appreciate that you wrote them directly, but how is
all this different from the way netculture has treated musicians via
MP3, or how
I have the same setup as Stephanie though I've also used it often for converting VHS also. I'll run a VCR into the analog imputs of the camera and record the video to DV (some cameras don't make you do this - they just pass the video on through to firewire). Then play back the DV and capture
Porn bandwidth is a terrible thing to waste.
Sowwy, couldn't resist.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er Um
My husband sells adult DVDs over the Internet. He's a very
above-the-board businessman, which is why we don't live in a mansion
Markus,
It is in our marketing group's to-do list, and is on my calendar. I
have already approved the budget for the terabyte sponsorship.
From the vloggercon web site --
Vloggercon needs sponsorships to keep the price of the conference
down we aren't a bunch of Hollywood Fat Cats, y'know. We
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:37:10 +0200, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(I think the Sonny Bono extensions to US copyright law were pretty
bogus, but more and more I'm realizing that creativity and privacy are
inextricably linked... if you create some digital bits, does that mean
anyone
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Little green tickets of money are one way to be selfish. Being the
center of attention is another way to be selfish. There are incentives
for Slashdot and Digg, just as for any commercial entity.
You're still not
Well, I did it. I managed to post a sixth day. I however, wasn't up to the
challenge of not
using a camera. It's been fun participating and checking other's work, even if
I haven't
followed all the rules. And if I knew my way around Technorati I might actually
tag my
videoblogs so they show
From: dmitry_veoh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Veoh ** We are hearing you loud and clear
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 04:56:03 -
Anne,
I undertand your frustration, but I assure you we are not doing this
Hi Markus,
Thanks for the tip. I'm terrible when it comes to typos
:o
CheersMonique
Daniellehttp://www.vlogchallenge.com- This Week's Challenge:
Dangerhttp://www.vlogdiva.com- This Weeks Video: Networking
Tips
-Original Message-From: Markus Sandy
[mailto:[EMAIL
On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You're still not respecting the rights of creators. If someone rips off
your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it matter if
they get something
What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.
Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of re-hosting
should be opt-in.
That would mean that:
1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
2) They only keep the ones for
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:39:09 +0200, Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You're still not respecting the rights of creators. If someone rips
off
your
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Peter Van Dijck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.
Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of re-hosting
should be opt-in.
That would mean that:
1) They remove ALL
I agree with removing the unclaimed feeds. Most definitely. And they should stop spidering other sites. As of this moment, the spiders are still rollling. I see that ZipZapZop has a new vid out.
On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm
Actually, that's not true. An artists work becomes copyright from
the instant it is created regardless whether or not you have actually
gone and registered it.
Regardless, everyone should be putting a © somewhere on their sites no
matter what the case.
David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
Did you read what I wrote?
Under US Copyright law you cannot sue for statutory damages unless you've
registered your work. You can still sue for actual damages. I never
claimed that you have to register your work to obtain copyrights (those
are automatic for anyone living in a country that
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Actually, that's not true. An artists work becomes copyright from
the instant it is created regardless whether or not you have actually
gone and registered it.
Andreas was talking about monetary damages - I think
actually you are wrong and andreas is quite correct about this
specifically the *statutory* damages part
his point is that without registration, you don't get that so easy (or
at all)
David Howell wrote:
Actually, that's not true. An artists work becomes "copyright" from
the instant it
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:23:24 +0200, Markus Sandy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually you are wrong and andreas is quite correct about this
specifically the *statutory* damages part
his point is that without registration, you don't get that so easy (or
at all)
US legislation is pretty stupid
Ok. We have asked to have our feeds removed from Veoh. Our new video was picked up this morning.I did notice, however, that they have stopped the ourmedia and blip feeds. Smart thinking as ripping off the content of other video hosting services will lead to major lawsuits (easily winnable ones
On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.Acceptable response? I am annoyed by Veoh's response already. A better question would be 'what is an acceptable action'. All I've heard is reposnse and not
My bad. However you can register your work any time before filing a
lawsuit. If you dont register your work within 3 months, then you can
sue for...
(1) an injunction against further infringement; (2) the recovery of
profits from the infringer; and (3) other provable damages.
So, that said, you
I agree with this.
The answer cannot be, we allow people to opt out.
The answer must be, we only host videos that users have uploaded or
have opted in for us to pull, trancode, and redistribute.
If there has not been an opt in action on behalf of the content
owner, then answer must be to remove
The point I am trying to make is: I want action, and removing all videos (not just feeds, videos) they gathered without opt-in would be a start.Peter--http://mefeedia.com
On 4/8/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is an acceptable
It is in our marketing group's to-do list, and is on my calendar. I
have already approved the budget for the terabyte sponsorship.
From the vloggercon web site --
Vloggercon needs sponsorships to keep the price of the conference
down– we aren't a bunch of Hollywood Fat Cats, y'know. We are
Lordy lordy. Here I was all high and mighty thinking they didnt have
any of my videos and I just found one there.
Guess what..
The video is less than 3 months old. I am within the limit to register
the video.
Guess who's heading down Monday to register this work? Guess who is
going to be hit
Adding linkbacks to the entries is not enough.
The issue is rehosting content that you do not have permission to
rehost and assuming it falls under your own terms of use (as though it
were willfully uploaded by a consenting user who has chosen to opt in
to the service).
This denies traffic from
This is exactly what I asked of Dmitry when I spoke with him on the
phone yesterday. I told him that I felt his best move was to
immediately remove all of this content and start from a clean, opt-in
only slate. I also asked him to remove all blip video from Veoh.
Apparently he misunderstood,
hi Jay,I don't agree that adding obvious linkback is a solution because Veoh is a social site with memberships, ratings, profiles, friends, etc. I do not like the implication that I am a member of a community because my stuff was spidered into it. Linking back may give a means to finding my
My videos from the blip.tv feed are still up on veoh -- and they don't
appear to be associated to my blip.tv blog. Here's an example:
http://veoh.com/videoDetails.html?v=e35579feature=1numResults=20query=dabble
http://tinyurl.com/s2wqk
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com,
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adding linkbacks to the entries is not enough.
The issue is rehosting content that you do not have permission to
rehost and assuming it falls under your own terms of use
Exactly.
Here's what I want to see Veoh do:
1) Stop spidering feeds
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Peter Van Dijck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adding linkbacks to the entries is not enough.
The issue is rehosting content that you do not have permission to
rehost and assuming it falls under your own
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
Adding link-backs is not the point. If you are extending such and
offer to Veoh please make it clear it's not representative of an
agreement by any class copyrightholders who may be vloggers on this
list and your own personal offer.
On Apr 8, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Jay dedman wrote:
It is in
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
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
This is almost funny. You've assigned "jibber jabber: the eddie
underworld" to my account. This is Eddie Codel's feed,
http://eddie.com/ http://blip.tv/users/view/ekai , not mine.
Please remove this immediately from my account and you should also
remove pulling his feed into veoh. The best
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
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
This is just unacceptable.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My videos from the blip.tv feed are still up on veoh -- and they don't
appear to be associated to my blip.tv blog. Here's an example:
Native booting of Windows as opposed to virtual computer approach
still has some speed/performance advantages.
Yes its true that less emulation is required when Macs with an Intel
Intel chip used, but any virtualisation stuff is still going to be
slower than booting straight to that OS.
If you
fyi, I've been in touch with Ted at Veoh (he contacted me) and has
removed my feeds from thier network.
It still shows up in searches, but anyone trying to see the media gets
a message indicating that it is not available.
I am not sure if this is becuase things have to be done manually, or
that
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
Vloggers, my personal opinion is a business person would immediately
take down and destroy all copies of everything he scraped without
authorisation, potential statutory damages and other liabilities are
too great (disclosure: IANAL). If I was operating a video hosting
company and my board was
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
Hello,On 4/7/06, robert a/k/a r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
?Begin forwarded message: From: Dmitry Shapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: August 10, 2005 1:23:16 PM EDT To:
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Veoh Networks Announces Financing - Get ready to upload your video Reply-To:
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
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
Hello,On 4/8/06, robert a/k/a r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:[...]
One more thing. Now adding link-backs will not remedy the breachdiscussed in this thread, I disagree fully with someone's earlier post
offering the addition of link-backs.I think the link-back thing was only a solution for content
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
In light of the hot discussion going on today, and the low turnout for
recent video conferences, I thought I would remind people of the Flash
conference which will start in about half an hour.
http://voxmedia.org/w/index.php/Videoblogger_Videoconferences
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit
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
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
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
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
How hard is it to delete stuff? Comon!My videos are on there. I haven't claimed my feed and I'm not going to. I'm also not going to ask that they remove them because I shouldn't have to. I'm waiting for them to align their actions with their words.
How long will it take?What really makes this
Charles, Hello.
Why are you snipping out the part where Dmitri Shapiro announces his Series A and says We will NOT transcode your video like Google does and changing the topic to bittorrent. Charles, if you have something about bittorrent please start a new thread.
Most of us know bittorrent
Enric said you should consider a "cc" instead of just a single copyright c. Is there a legal difference?I couldn't figure out how to create a copyright symbol. There isn't a key or anything on the keyboard. I copied it out of the earlier posting and added text. Isn't this the way it is
I really hope they dont remove my videos. I've now found 3 there that
I have never given my permission for them to show.
I am going to be talking to a lawyer Monday and registering the 3
videos that I've found so far with the US Copyright Office.
David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
--- In
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]
On 4/8/06, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How hard is it to delete stuff? Comon!
My videos are on there. I haven't claimed my feed and I'm not going to. I'm
also not going to ask that they remove them because I shouldn't have to. I'm
waiting for them to align their actions with their
On 4/8/06, robert a/k/a r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles, Hello.
Why are you snipping out the part where Dmitri Shapiro announces his
Series A and says We will NOT transcode your video like Google does
and changing the topic to bittorrent. Charles, if you have something
about bittorrent
Hello,Sorry. I was just trying to respond to one specific part. (I just snipped it down to the part of I was trying to respond to.)See yaOn 4/8/06,
robert a/k/a r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles, Hello.Why are you snipping out the part where Dmitri Shapiro announces hisSeries A and says We
On Apr 8, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
(and who's going to pay $20 to register each vlog entry?)
I know that this applies for photos -- so it most likely also applies
to video -- but you do have the option for group registration if
you have several works that are all part of
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
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:44:01 +0200, Randolfe Wicker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enric said you should consider a cc instead of just a single
copyright c. Is there a legal difference?
I think Enric's comment was referring to a Creative Commons License
(shortened CC).
I couldn't figure out
in HTML you can make a copyright symbol like this: copy;
But, no, according to copyright law you do not have to display a
symbol or date in order to have copyright protection. Every work is
immediately copyrighted at the point of creation, and if no mark is
present then it is assumed to be All
Andreas Haugstrup write:"This hit independent artists way too hard, and vloggers even harder.If you don't register (and who's going to pay $20 to register each vlogentry?) then you can only sue for actual damages (*you* have to prove thatyou had an actual loss instead of the court setting an
On 4/8/06, Anne Walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't agree that adding obvious linkback is a solution because Veoh is a
social site with memberships, ratings, profiles, friends, etc. I do not like
the implication that I am a member of a community because my stuff was
spidered into it.
what else would you expect?
http://flash.kmi.open.ac.uk:8080/fm/index.php?pwd=58fa55-3961
going on now
--
Markus Sandy
http://apperceptions.org
http://spinflow.org
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/
* To
My guess is that Dmitry didn't say anything about spidering for precisely
one reason, VEOH does not actually do any spidering.
What they do is allow anyone to sign up and submit any RSS feed they
fancy to their network, which will then proceed to distribute
that to them, and to any other
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 22:09:09 +0200, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that Dmitry didn't say anything about spidering for precisely
one reason, VEOH does not actually do any spidering.
What they do is allow anyone to sign up and submit any RSS feed they
fancy to their network,
This is beginning to seem almost reminiscent of the Blogumentary
episode that transpired a few months ago. This is quite the
reactionary group, and history has demonstrated that when this group
is united around a particular, results are definitely within the
realm of possibility. Now, the
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,
WWWhatsup wrote:
My guess is that Dmitry didn't say anything about spidering for
precisely
one reason, VEOH does not actually do any spidering.
Are you saying that somebody sat down and entered in all the zillions
of feeds that they have listed here? I think it's pretty
hi joly,if you upload a feed to Veoh, it is my understanding that the feed will fall under the name of the user submitting the feed. it will be claimed by them. unclaimed feeds have gotten into the system through means of automation. that's why they are not affiliated with any Veoh user.
that's weird. i'm waiting to see how this all shakes out before i decide
if i want my feeds removed. i think i'm happy for it to be there as long as
there
is proper attribution and link backs.
-eddie
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 10:51:23AM -0700, Enric wrote:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, unlike fireant, say, one can ramp up one's viewership without
taking a bandwidth hit.
A pretty good wheeze and a valuable one to the vidcasting community.
But its not necessarily valuable to everyone, so it
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
2. Very personal/emotional/real. I can't think of an entire
vlog that is like this, as nobody has intense moments all the time. But I do
like when I see a spot like that.
If you want very personal/emotional/real, if not
exactly terrific production values, I recommend
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
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
Well cool, they removed the claim in my veoh account of your vlogs,
Eddie. You can probably get your feed associated to your account on
veoh. Email them with some sample urls of your video entries in veoh.
On your veoh page you can put your website.
-- Enric
--- In
http://veoh.com/videoDetails.html?v=e55696wg9YwjDythis page actually shows my entire video in flash.THE ENTIRE VIDEO. not just a previewwith no link back to my vlog.
please take me off veoh.thanks-ryanne-- me: http://ryanedit.blogspot.com educate in person: http://nyc.node101.org
educate
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
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
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
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
1. How long has your vlog been up?
I
had a blog which was a supplement to my daily journal (which I've been keeping
since 2000). I turned the blog into a vlog in September of
2005.
2. How many vlog entries do you have posted?
More than 200. I don't know the exact
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
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
