Hello,I've been following the various threads on this. And my take on it is thisThe big issue here revolves around Copyright, Copyright Infringement, the Creative Commons, Fair Use and reform of Copyright law.
The arguing has come close to turning into a flame war. (I know some will say
I think copyright is only one part of the problem here. The bigger
problem in my eyes is that by Veoh caching and rehosting videos
without permission they are making it seem as though all these
vloggers are members of the Veoh community, agreeing to Veoh's terms
of service, when this is not the
Helo Josh,Just to address one very very specific thing that you said. (And not trying to address everything you said.)The HTTP protocol has a way of tell things not to cache something. HTTP has a no-cache header for this.
(Again I know people will probably very passionately NOT like what I'm
I just noticed Om has posted on his blog, the last link is to another of his posts (Its A Splog Planet) which is an interesting read on the situation.
http://gigaom.com/2006/04/09/veoh-vs-video-bloggers/>
On Apr 9, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
Veoh could argue that part of
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:23:15 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP
no-cache
header or not. And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP
no-cache
header or not. Just trying to give everyone a
Hello,On 4/9/06, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:23:15 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP
no-cache header or not.And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP no-cache header
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:40:49 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The HTTP no-cache header has gained a legal context also. I remember
reading about multiple court cases where this was perpetuated; both in
Canadian and USA court. (I don't have any links, but I'm pretty
On 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another
point I say this knowing that I'll probably get flamed for it, but
I think it's important to not to ignore points and try to silence them
just because we don't like hearing them (After all, if this
would go to
Uh, dude, this is so far off the subject.I'm not talking about browser caching.I'm talking about downloading videos from one server to another and then redistributing them as your own. Different subject entirely and not one having to do with HTTP protocol.
-JoshOn 4/9/06, Charles Iliya
Hello Andreas,On 4/9/06, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:40:49 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The HTTP no-cache header has gained a legal context also.I remember
reading about multiple court cases where this was perpetuated; both in
Hello Stephanie,Like I said in my original post, that you replied to, I was ONLY talking caching. Just caching and nothing else.I was NOT trying to address any of that other stuff that you said. And I was NOT trying to say that the only thing they did was caching.
Sorry for the confusion.See
Hello Josh,The HTTP no-cache header does NOT just pertain to browser caching. It's also used by transparent web caches, and other web caching systems. Caching, on the web, takes place at all sorts of places and on all sorts of levels. (You're ISP is very very likely doing alot of caching, and
But Charles they aren't caching. Caching is keeping a copy of an object to make new requests for it faster. They are hosting derivative works. The work was downloaded. Transcoded to a new format. And that completely new format is HOSTED (not cached) at a new location.
Requests for this new
Hello David,The point you made about requests for the new (cached/re-hosted) object having nothing to do with requests for the original work is a very good point. And one I don't think Veoh can argue away. (I even made the same point somewhere in this huge collection of e-mail.)
But, I don't
Please
forgive me, but I haven't followed this thread, and I'm too lazy to reread
everything.
Is
anyone willing to summarize why the emails and emotions are flying here? If
veoh charging folks to view others videos? I'm just curious about the core
problem here.
CheersMonique
15 matches
Mail list logo
