[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[wtrainbow]

I completely agree with Andreas.

Sure, it's a change but not a "derivative." Each time you compress a video it's 
"changed" 
but this is not what is meant by derivative. An example of a derivative would 
be a mashup.

In fact in the license states that you allow the licensee to modifiy the work 
into other 
formats

"The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are 
technically 
necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats, but otherwise you 
have no 
rights to make Derivative Works."


Will
http://www.tiny-tube.com



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4/10/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I don't agree with Devlon that a video transcode constitutes a derrivative
> > work (IANAL!!!). Just as a xerox of a photo is a "copy" not a derrivative
> > work... It's a bad copy, but still a copy. IMO.
> >
> 
> This from the champion of interactive bloggy video? ;) If I have an
> interactive sprite track and someone transcodes that mov file to a flash
> file, all that interactivity is gone ... it's a significant change to the
> media isn't it?
> 
> - Dave
> 
> --
> http://www.DavidMeade.com
> feed:  http://www.DavidMeade.com/feed
>







 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[David Howell]

Damn you. Amuse me with some speculation! I'm stuck at work and it's
sunny and 74 outside. That's like the middle of freakin summer here in
Minnesota!

David
http;//www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Sullivan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, I didnt offer the thought as a "what if?" for Veoh...
> And I cannot speak for Veoh decisions.
> I could speculate... but their is enough of that going around
already ;-)
> 
> sull
> 
> On 4/10/06, David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > While I think that is a very good idea and appears to now be needed,
> > do you honestly think that would have changed matters with the Veoh
> > fiasco?
> >
> > David
> > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Sullivan"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to
> > modify
> > > cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing
> > media
> > > from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it is
> > allowed, then
> > > maybe that would streamline things?
> > >
> > > sull
> > >
> > > On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  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  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck  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 seen action.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to
Jarrod (a
> > > > > developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me
> > > > > personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't
> > want talk, I
> > > > > want action.
> > > > >
> > > > > His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've
> > seen him
> > > > > take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.
> > Does that tell
> > > > > us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now?
> > Doesn't
> > > > > sound like 'friendly actions'
> > > > >
> > > > >  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 feeds that the feed owners have
> > claimed
> > > > > > and where the feed owners have given permission for them to
> > "re-host".
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree
> > > > >
> > > > >  For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
> > > > > > companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> > > > > > understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of
> > their
> > > > > actions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site,
> > they have
> > > > > a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the
> > fact that out
> > > > > of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey
> > wait, we can't
> > > > > do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members
> > of this
> > > > > community that 'get it'...they know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds
is just
> > > > > compounding and really frustrating me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding
members here
> > > > > aside from Peter.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Comments?
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://mefeedia.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup  wrote:
> > > > >  > On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell 
> > > > > > 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 respecting the rights of creators. If
> > someone rips
> > > > > off
> > > > > > > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
> > matter
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > they get something other than little green tickets in
return?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Legally, yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > > > > > http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > > > > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Michael Sullivan]

Well, I didnt offer the thought as a "what if?" for Veoh... And I cannot speak for Veoh decisions.I could speculate... but their is enough of that going around already ;-)sull
On 4/10/06, David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I think that is a very good idea and appears to now be needed,do you honestly think that would have changed matters with the Veohfiasco?Davidhttp://www.davidhowellstudios.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Sullivan"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to
modify> cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributingmedia> from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it isallowed, then> maybe that would streamline things?
>> sull>> On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> >  The point I am trying to make is: I want action, and removing allvideos> > (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 response from Veoh? I'm throwing thisout 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 seen action.> > >> > > I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a> > > developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me
> > > personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don'twant talk, I> > > want action.> > >> > > His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've
seen him> > > take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.Does that tell> > > us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now? Doesn't> > > sound like 'friendly actions'
> > >> > >  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 feeds that the feed owners haveclaimed> > > > and where the feed owners have given permission for them to
"re-host".> > > >> > >> > > I agree> > >> > >  For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge> > > > companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> > > > understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."> > > >> > >> > > I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think oftheir
> > > actions.> > >> > > I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site,they have> > > a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the
fact that out> > > of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'heywait, we can't> > > do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are membersof this> > > community that 'get it'...they know.
> > >> > > Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just> > > compounding and really frustrating me.> > >> > > I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members here
> > > aside from Peter.> > >> > >  Comments?> > >> > > Peter> > > --> > > http://mefeedia.com
> > >> > > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > >  > 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 respecting the rights of creators. Ifsomeone rips> > > off> > > > > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
matter> > > if> > > > > they get something other than little green tickets in return?> > > >> > > > Legally, yes.> > > >> > > > --
> > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen> > > > http://www.solitude.dk/ >> > > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >  SPONSORED LINKS> > >Fireant<
http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fireant&w1=Fireant&w2=Individual&w3=Use&c=3&s=38&.sig=hfs_5_0lBhh4r_ghxepr0w>> > >Individual<
http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Individual&w1=Fireant&w2=Individual&w3=Use&c=3&s=38&.sig=GUaJZU-r1JDlLAUOsMLl8g>> > >Use<
http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Use&w1=Fireant&w2=Individual&w3=Use&c=3&s=38&.sig=LXDZ5r7JrGSXuirwFdbEXw>> > >  --> > >  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >> > >> > >> > >   Visit your group"videoblogging"
> > > on the web.> > >> > >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >> > >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is 

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[David Howell]

While I think that is a very good idea and appears to now be needed,
do you honestly think that would have changed matters with the Veoh
fiasco?

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Sullivan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to
modify
> cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing
media
> from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it is
allowed, then
> maybe that would streamline things?
> 
> sull
> 
> On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  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 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 seen action.
> > >
> > > I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a
> > > developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me
> > > personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't
want talk, I
> > > want action.
> > >
> > > His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've
seen him
> > > take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc. 
Does that tell
> > > us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now?
 Doesn't
> > > sound like 'friendly actions'
> > >
> > >  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 feeds that the feed owners have
claimed
> > > > and where the feed owners have given permission for them to
"re-host".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree
> > >
> > >  For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
> > > > companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> > > > understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
> > > >
> > >
> > > I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of
their
> > > actions.
> > >
> > > I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site,
they have
> > > a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the
fact that out
> > > of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey
wait, we can't
> > > do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members
of this
> > > community that 'get it'...they know.
> > >
> > > Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just
> > > compounding and really frustrating me.
> > >
> > > I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members here
> > > aside from Peter.
> > >
> > >  Comments?
> > >
> > > Peter
> > > --
> > > http://mefeedia.com
> > >
> > > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >  > 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 respecting the rights of creators. If
someone rips
> > > off
> > > > > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
matter
> > > if
> > > > > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
> > > >
> > > > Legally, yes.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > > > http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  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]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service
> > >  .
> > >

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[David Howell]

Have you had your videos removed out of there yet or are you claiming
them and leaving them there?

david
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sounds like we need a "do not vlog list" like we have for our home
> telephones...
> 
> Susan
> http://vlog.kitykity.com
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Anne Walk"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Josh.
> > 
> > While searching for sites for testinggrounds.loadedpun.com, I've
> found tons
> > of vlogs listed in a great number of sites. They do, indeed, pick up
> media
> > feeds and list them. Check out Blinkx, for example. I bet you're in
> there.
> > 
> > It's a very strange feeling to go to a community site and find your
> > listings. These places usually have a way to get out of the listings
> if you
> > find your stuff, but they have no way to prevent you from getting in
> there
> > in the first place.
> > 
> > On 4/7/06, Josh Leo  wrote:
> > >
> > >  I looked at the "watch" tab on veoh and noticed a bunch of
vlogger's
> > > videos (including Bre, Markus, and Rocketboom) on the page. Markus
> didnt
> > > know anything about it, and I highly doubt Rocketboom submuts
> their content
> > > to Veoh to be transcoded into flash and hosted there...
> > >
> > > what is the deal? are they scraping feeds then transcoding and
hosting
> > > videos without permission?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Leo
> > >
> > > www.JoshLeo.com
> > >  --
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > >
> > >-  Visit your group
> "videoblogging"
> > >on the web.
> > >
> > >-  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >-  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > >Service .
> > >
> > >
> > >  --
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Anne Walk
> > http://loadedpun.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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Susan]

Sounds like we need a "do not vlog list" like we have for our home
telephones...

Susan
http://vlog.kitykity.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Anne Walk"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Josh.
> 
> While searching for sites for testinggrounds.loadedpun.com, I've
found tons
> of vlogs listed in a great number of sites. They do, indeed, pick up
media
> feeds and list them. Check out Blinkx, for example. I bet you're in
there.
> 
> It's a very strange feeling to go to a community site and find your
> listings. These places usually have a way to get out of the listings
if you
> find your stuff, but they have no way to prevent you from getting in
there
> in the first place.
> 
> On 4/7/06, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  I looked at the "watch" tab on veoh and noticed a bunch of vlogger's
> > videos (including Bre, Markus, and Rocketboom) on the page. Markus
didnt
> > know anything about it, and I highly doubt Rocketboom submuts
their content
> > to Veoh to be transcoded into flash and hosted there...
> >
> > what is the deal? are they scraping feeds then transcoding and hosting
> > videos without permission?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Leo
> >
> > www.JoshLeo.com
> >  --
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >-  Visit your group
"videoblogging"
> >on the web.
> >
> >-  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >-  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >Service .
> >
> >
> >  --
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Anne Walk
> http://loadedpun.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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[kelly belly]

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 one series.

I register most of my photographs... for me, one "series" is all the  
photographs I've published on the web in the past three months. So  
for the $30 registration fee I can get several hundred photos  
copyrighted.

Maybe I should start doing this for my videos...


/Kelly
-- 
http://kellybelly.net


 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Devlon]

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 words.
> How long will it take?
>
> What really makes this bullshit is that they know this is wrong and they
> have known it's wrong. They didn't just figure it out yesterday when these
> email started. They just got caught yesterday.

Yes, yes, yes.  This is what frustrates me the most about all of this.
 Dmitry can tell us all he wants how much of a friend of vloggers he
wants to be, but it's empty.

>
> -Verdi
>
>
>
>  
>  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.
>
>  
>


--
~Devlon
http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[David Howell]

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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 words.
> How long will it take?
> 
> What really makes this bullshit is that they know this is wrong and they
> have known it's wrong. They didn't just figure it out yesterday when
these
> email started. They just got caught yesterday.
> 
> -Verdi
>







 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Michael Verdi]

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 bullshit is that they know this is wrong and they have known it's wrong. They didn't just figure it out yesterday when these email started. They just got caught yesterday.
-Verdi


  




  
  
  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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Devlon]

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 it took me repeating myself to them that I wanted my stuff
removed...

On 4/8/06, mikehudack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  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:
>  >
>  >
> http://veoh.com/videoDetails.html?v=e35579&feature=1&numResults=20&query=dabble
>  > http://tinyurl.com/s2wqk
>  >
>  >   -- Enric
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "mikehudack"  wrote:
>  > >
>  > > 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, because so far he has only removed videos
>  > > from the main blip.tv RSS feed -- but none of the videos of specific
>  > > videoblogs hosted by blip.
>  > >
>  > > Something has to give here, and soon.
>  > >
>  > > Yours,
>  > >
>  > > Mike
>  > > Co-founder, blip.tv
>  > >
>  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
>  > >  wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > 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  wrote:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >  On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck  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 seen action.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to
>  Jarrod (a
>  > > > > developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me
>  > > > > personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want
>  > > talk, I
>  > > > > want action.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen
>  > > him take
>  > > > > is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that
>  > > tell us
>  > > > > that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now?
>  > > Doesn't sound
>  > > > > like 'friendly actions'
>  > > > >
>  > > > > 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 feeds that the feed owners have
>  > > claimed
>  > > > > > and where the feed owners have given permission for them to
>  > > "re-host".
>  > > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > I agree
>  > > > >
>  > > > >  For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
>  > > > > > companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
>  > > > > > understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
>  > > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of
>  > their
>  > > > > actions.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they
>  > > have a
>  > > > > lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact
>  > > that out
>  > > > > of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey
>  > > wait, we can't
>  > > > > do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members
>  > > of this
>  > > > > community that 'get it'...they know.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is
>  just
>  > > > > compounding and really frustrating me.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members
>  > > here aside
>  > > > > from Peter.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >  Comments?
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Peter
>  > > > > --
>  > > > > http://mefeedia.com
>  > > > >
>  > > > > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup  wrote:
>  > > > >  > On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell 
>  > > > > > 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.
>  > > > > > >
>  > > 

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[mikehudack]

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:
> 
>
http://veoh.com/videoDetails.html?v=e35579&feature=1&numResults=20&query=dabble
> http://tinyurl.com/s2wqk
> 
>   -- Enric
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "mikehudack"  wrote:
> >
> > 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, because so far he has only removed videos
> > from the main blip.tv RSS feed -- but none of the videos of specific
> > videoblogs hosted by blip.
> > 
> > Something has to give here, and soon.
> > 
> > Yours,
> > 
> > Mike
> > Co-founder, blip.tv
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 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  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck  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 seen action.
> > > >
> > > > I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to
Jarrod (a
> > > > developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me
> > > > personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want
> > talk, I
> > > > want action.
> > > >
> > > > His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen
> > him take
> > > > is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that
> > tell us
> > > > that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now? 
> > Doesn't sound
> > > > like 'friendly actions'
> > > >
> > > > 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 feeds that the feed owners have
> > claimed
> > > > > and where the feed owners have given permission for them to
> > "re-host".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree
> > > >
> > > >  For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
> > > > > companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> > > > > understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of
> their
> > > > actions.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they
> > have a
> > > > lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact
> > that out
> > > > of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey
> > wait, we can't
> > > > do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members
> > of this
> > > > community that 'get it'...they know.
> > > >
> > > > Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is
just
> > > > compounding and really frustrating me.
> > > >
> > > > I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members
> > here aside
> > > > from Peter.
> > > >
> > > >  Comments?
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > > > --
> > > > http://mefeedia.com
> > > >
> > > > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup  wrote:
> > > >  > On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell 
> > > > > 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 respecting the rights of creators. If someone
> > rips
> > > > off
> > > > > > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
> > matter if
> > > > > > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
> > > > >
> > > > > Legally, yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > > > > http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > > > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  SPONSORED LINKS
> > > >   
> >
>
Fireant
> > > >
> >
>
Individual

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Enric]

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=e35579&feature=1&numResults=20&query=dabble
http://tinyurl.com/s2wqk

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "mikehudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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, because so far he has only removed videos
> from the main blip.tv RSS feed -- but none of the videos of specific
> videoblogs hosted by blip.
> 
> Something has to give here, and soon.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Mike
> Co-founder, blip.tv
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
>  wrote:
> >
> > 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  wrote:
> > >
> > >  On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck  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 seen action.
> > >
> > > I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a
> > > developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me
> > > personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want
> talk, I
> > > want action.
> > >
> > > His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen
> him take
> > > is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that
> tell us
> > > that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now? 
> Doesn't sound
> > > like 'friendly actions'
> > >
> > > 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 feeds that the feed owners have
> claimed
> > > > and where the feed owners have given permission for them to
> "re-host".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree
> > >
> > >  For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
> > > > companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> > > > understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
> > > >
> > >
> > > I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of
their
> > > actions.
> > >
> > > I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they
> have a
> > > lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact
> that out
> > > of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey
> wait, we can't
> > > do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members
> of this
> > > community that 'get it'...they know.
> > >
> > > Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just
> > > compounding and really frustrating me.
> > >
> > > I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members
> here aside
> > > from Peter.
> > >
> > >  Comments?
> > >
> > > Peter
> > > --
> > > http://mefeedia.com
> > >
> > > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup  wrote:
> > >  > On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell 
> > > > 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 respecting the rights of creators. If someone
> rips
> > > off
> > > > > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
> matter if
> > > > > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
> > > >
> > > > Legally, yes.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > > > http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  SPONSORED LINKS
> > >   
>
Fireant
> > >
>
Individual
> > >
>
Use
> > >  --
> > >  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   Visit your group
> "videoblogging

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[mikehudack]

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, because so far he has only removed videos
from the main blip.tv RSS feed -- but none of the videos of specific
videoblogs hosted by blip.

Something has to give here, and soon.

Yours,

Mike
Co-founder, blip.tv

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 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 seen action.
> >
> > I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a
> > developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me
> > personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want
talk, I
> > want action.
> >
> > His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen
him take
> > is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that
tell us
> > that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now? 
Doesn't sound
> > like 'friendly actions'
> >
> > 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 feeds that the feed owners have
claimed
> > > and where the feed owners have given permission for them to
"re-host".
> > >
> >
> > I agree
> >
> >  For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
> > > companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> > > understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
> > >
> >
> > I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of their
> > actions.
> >
> > I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they
have a
> > lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact
that out
> > of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey
wait, we can't
> > do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members
of this
> > community that 'get it'...they know.
> >
> > Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just
> > compounding and really frustrating me.
> >
> > I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members
here aside
> > from Peter.
> >
> >  Comments?
> >
> > Peter
> > --
> > http://mefeedia.com
> >
> > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  > 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 respecting the rights of creators. If someone
rips
> > off
> > > > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
matter if
> > > > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
> > >
> > > Legally, yes.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > > http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >  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]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
> >  --
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ~Devlon
> > http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
> > http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com
> >
> >
> >  SPONSORED LINKS
> >  
Fireant

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[David Howell]

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 with a lawsuit?

Now I am really pissed.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 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 seen action.
> >
> > I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a
> > developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me
> > personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want
talk, I
> > want action.
> >
> > His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen
him take
> > is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that
tell us
> > that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now? 
Doesn't sound
> > like 'friendly actions'
> >
> > 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 feeds that the feed owners have
claimed
> > > and where the feed owners have given permission for them to
"re-host".
> > >
> >
> > I agree
> >
> >  For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
> > > companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> > > understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
> > >
> >
> > I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of their
> > actions.
> >
> > I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they
have a
> > lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact
that out
> > of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey
wait, we can't
> > do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members
of this
> > community that 'get it'...they know.
> >
> > Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just
> > compounding and really frustrating me.
> >
> > I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members
here aside
> > from Peter.
> >
> >  Comments?
> >
> > Peter
> > --
> > http://mefeedia.com
> >
> > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  > 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 respecting the rights of creators. If someone
rips
> > off
> > > > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
matter if
> > > > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
> > >
> > > Legally, yes.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > > http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >  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]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
> >  --
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ~Devlon
> > http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
> > http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com
> >
> >
> >  SPONSORED LINKS
> >  
Fireant
> >
Individual

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[David Howell]

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 can recover money that was made as a result of the
infringement not what a judge thinks you "might" have made.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 has ratrified the
berne  
> convention).
> 
> - Andreas
> 
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:07:06 +0200, 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.
> >
> > Regardless, everyone should be putting a © somewhere on their sites no
> > matter what the case.
> >
> > David
> > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
> >
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:39:09 +0200, Stephanie Bryant 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup  wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell 
> >> >> 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 other than little green tickets in return?
> >> >>
> >> >> Legally, yes.
> >> >
> >> > Not in the States. Copyright has nothing to do with whether or not
> >> > someone makes money off of it. It's just that you're more likely to
> >> > get monetary damages if there's money involved somewhere down the
> >> > line.
> >>
> >> Exactly it does matter. If you haven't registered with the copyright
> >> office (I doubt any vloggers have, it costs money for each work)
> > then you
> >> cannot sue for statutory damages so you have to prove an actual
> > loss. It
> >> makes a big difference.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> >> http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>







 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Anne Walk]

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 at that)
Dmitry has come in here with soft words and claims that he had no idea that he was infringing on anyone's copyright and how he just wants to make it right but don't let him have you think that he is like us - a grassroots organization just trying to help promote videoblogging and democratize video.
From Veoh's faq, I see that he has been involved in the business for some time and knows very well what copyright means. They know what they have done.
Veoh Networks was founded in 2004 by Dmitry Shapiro, a world recognized
P2P security pioneer. Prior to founding Veoh, Dmitry was the founder
and CTO of Akonix Systems, Inc., the world's leading P2P security
company with over 1 million licensed enterprise users. Akonix's
customers include Disney, Viacom, MTV, Fox News, Fox Films, Weather
Channel, Cingular, and countless other brand names. The Veoh team also
includes Chief Scientist Dr. Ted Dunning, formerly the Chief Scientist
at MusicMatch (now Yahoo Music), Chief Scientist at IDAnalytics (the
leading identity fraud detection company), and Chief Scientist at Aptex
Software (an HNC/FairIsaac company), and a core team of developers
responsible for the creation and development of products such as
Websense, Akonix and Collegeclub.com. Veoh received Series A financing
from Shelter Capital in mid-2005. See our team profiles for more information.On 4/8/06, Enric
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:--- 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 copyright isassumed in the conversation.>> Regardless, everyone should be putting a © somewhere on their sites no
> matter what the case.or a (cc).>> David> http://www.davidhowellstudios.com>>> --- In 
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup">  wrote:> >> > On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:39:09 +0200, Stephanie Bryant > > wrote:> >
> > > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup  wrote:> > >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell > > >> 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 other than little green tickets in return?
> > >>> > >> Legally, yes.> > >> > > Not in the States. Copyright has nothing to do with whether or not> > > someone makes money off of it. It's just that you're more likely to
> > > get monetary damages if there's money involved somewhere down the> > > line.> >> > Exactly it does matter. If you haven't registered with the copyright> > office (I doubt any vloggers have, it costs money for each work)
> then you> > cannot sue for statutory damages so you have to prove an actual> loss. It> > makes a big difference.> >> > --> > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > http://www.solitude.dk/ >> > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.> >>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/-- Anne Walkhttp://loadedpun.com





  
  
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 in this regard (AFAIK it's a leftover from  
pre-Berne US copyrights). You cannot get statutory damages at all without  
registration - the court also cannot order the defendant to pay the legal  
fees. 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 vlog  
entry?) then you can only sue for actual damages (*you* have to prove that  
you had an actual loss instead of the court setting an amount) *and* no  
matter what you have to cover your own legal costs. It's a really stupid  
part of the law.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Markus Sandy]

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 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


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
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 website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
  

  

  
  matter if
  
  

  

  they get something other than little green tickets in return?
  

Legally, yes.

  
  Not in the States. Copyright has nothing to do with whether or not
someone makes money off of it. It's just that you're more likely to
get monetary damages if there's money involved somewhere down the
line.
  

Exactly it does matter. If you haven't registered with the copyright  
office (I doubt any vloggers have, it costs money for each work)

  
  then you  
  
  
cannot sue for statutory damages so you have to prove an actual

  
  loss. It  
  
  
makes a big difference.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


  
  






 
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/
 






  


-- 


Markus Sandy

http://apperceptions.org
http://spinflow.org


  




  
  
  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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Enric]

--- 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 copyright is
assumed in the conversation.

> 
> Regardless, everyone should be putting a © somewhere on their sites no
> matter what the case.

or a (cc).


> 
> David
> http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:39:09 +0200, Stephanie Bryant   
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup  wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell 
> > >> 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 other than little green tickets in return?
> > >>
> > >> Legally, yes.
> > >
> > > Not in the States. Copyright has nothing to do with whether or not
> > > someone makes money off of it. It's just that you're more likely to
> > > get monetary damages if there's money involved somewhere down the
> > > line.
> > 
> > Exactly it does matter. If you haven't registered with the copyright  
> > office (I doubt any vloggers have, it costs money for each work)
> then you  
> > cannot sue for statutory damages so you have to prove an actual
> loss. It  
> > makes a big difference.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> >
>







 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 has ratrified the berne  
convention).

- Andreas

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:07:06 +0200, 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.
>
> Regardless, everyone should be putting a © somewhere on their sites no
> matter what the case.
>
> David
> http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 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 website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
> matter if
>> >> > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
>> >>
>> >> Legally, yes.
>> >
>> > Not in the States. Copyright has nothing to do with whether or not
>> > someone makes money off of it. It's just that you're more likely to
>> > get monetary damages if there's money involved somewhere down the
>> > line.
>>
>> Exactly it does matter. If you haven't registered with the copyright
>> office (I doubt any vloggers have, it costs money for each work)
> then you
>> cannot sue for statutory damages so you have to prove an actual
> loss. It
>> makes a big difference.
>>
>> --
>> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
>> http://www.solitude.dk/ >
>> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[David Howell]

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


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
matter if
> >> > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
> >>
> >> Legally, yes.
> >
> > Not in the States. Copyright has nothing to do with whether or not
> > someone makes money off of it. It's just that you're more likely to
> > get monetary damages if there's money involved somewhere down the
> > line.
> 
> Exactly it does matter. If you haven't registered with the copyright  
> office (I doubt any vloggers have, it costs money for each work)
then you  
> cannot sue for statutory damages so you have to prove an actual
loss. It  
> makes a big difference.
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>







 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Enric]

--- 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 videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
> 2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
> and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".

   3) For videos claimed, option to remove video series that stops
veoh from pulling that feed.

> 
> For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
> companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Peter
> --
> http://mefeedia.com
> 
> On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 respecting the rights of creators. If someone
rips off
> > > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it
matter if
> > > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
> >
> > Legally, yes.
> >
> > --
> > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Joshua Kinberg]

I agree with this whole thread... I find the Veoh service very
troubling and first noticed their "revamped" site around SXSW. They
are basically seeding their community with other people's content to
make it seem like an active place. They make it seem as though all
these people (many vloggers) are using and enjoying and interacting in
the Veoh service when in fact that is not true. Anything marked
"unclaimed RSS" means content that was not opted in to be hosted on
Veoh.

This is different than MeFeedia, FireAnt, and other aggregators which
display content in context with attribution and linked from the
originating site. This helps promote vloggers and give them traffic
which they can track. Veoh makes it seem like all these users have
opted in to their service and agreed to their terms (another important
point when selecting a service), but this is untrue... it is dishonest
and is actually infringing people's rights.

I find this to be a very troubling example of wanton disregard for
copyright and the rights of users to select a service for themselves.

Side note... I also find the volume of copyright infringing content
posted to other sites to be very troubling as well... YouTube,
vSocial, Google Video and others... its just that I believe these
sites are not automating the infringing practice (well, perhaps Google
is...)

-Josh


 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[mikehudack]

I'm sorry I missed that.  As it happens, I don't think anyone
subscribed them to it.  They subscribed themselves.  That's what they
mean by "unclaimed RSS" - no one submitted it, they're just pulling in
the videos and pretending they're their own.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> I remember commenting here, months back, when I first signed up
> to VEOH, that someone seemed to have subdcribed them to bliptv's new
videos feed
> 
> nobody paid any attention..
> 
> 
> >Hey guys,
> >
> >I just got off the phone with Dmitri Shapiro, the CEO of Veoh.  I
> >tracked him down (thanks to a few great people) to discuss this
> >situation because it seems like much of the video Veoh has been
> >collecting comes from blip.tv -- and a lot of our users have asked us
> >to do something about it.
> >
> >Dmitri has just joined the group and will send an e-mail shortly that
> >will hopefully start us down the road to resolving this situation.
> >
> >Yours,
> >
> >Mike
> >Co-founder, blip.tv
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
>  WWWhatsup NYC
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[WWWhatsup]

I remember commenting here, months back, when I first signed up
to VEOH, that someone seemed to have subdcribed them to bliptv's new videos feed

nobody paid any attention..


>Hey guys,
>
>I just got off the phone with Dmitri Shapiro, the CEO of Veoh.  I
>tracked him down (thanks to a few great people) to discuss this
>situation because it seems like much of the video Veoh has been
>collecting comes from blip.tv -- and a lot of our users have asked us
>to do something about it.
>
>Dmitri has just joined the group and will send an e-mail shortly that
>will hopefully start us down the road to resolving this situation.
>
>Yours,
>
>Mike
>Co-founder, blip.tv




---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Enric]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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 the net has treated Hollywood via BitTorrent?
> 
> jd
>

The difference is I rather then they :)






 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Brad Webb]

Thanks, Mike. I'm sure we're all waiting to get this dealt with.

mikehudack wrote:

>Hey guys,
>
>I just got off the phone with Dmitri Shapiro, the CEO of Veoh.  I
>tracked him down (thanks to a few great people) to discuss this
>situation because it seems like much of the video Veoh has been
>collecting comes from blip.tv -- and a lot of our users have asked us
>to do something about it.
>
>Dmitri has just joined the group and will send an e-mail shortly that
>will hopefully start us down the road to resolving this situation.
>
>Yours,
>
>Mike
>Co-founder, blip.tv
>
>--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Let me put it this way. Imagine you are starting an online video
>>company (isn't everyone these days?).
>>
>>Is it ok to take all YouTube's feeds, download all the videos in
>>there, transcode them and host them on your own site? No.
>>
>>Is it ok to take all Google video's feeds, download all the videos in
>>there, transcode them and host them on your own site? No.
>>
>>
>>Is it ok to take individual videobloggers' feeds, download all the
>>videos in there, transcode them and host them on your own site? No.
>>Except if their license were to allow that quite explicitly.
>>
>>You'd be crazy to do that.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>On 4/7/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 4/7/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  
>>>
 Hello,

I know many people probably won't like hearing this, but

I don't know if it is possible to have "people" subscribe to


>your feed and
>  
>
not have other site's aggregate and redistribute your feed


>without your
>  
>
control.


>>>Ahem.
>>>
>>>Charles, you seem to misunderstand the situation here.
>>>
>>>A feed with video enclosures implies this:
>>>- yes, you can download those videos to watch them.
>>>- yes, you can (like Bloglines) aggregate the text, linking back to
>>>the original.
>>>- no, you can NOT download the video, transcode it, and host it on
>>>*your* commercial website.
>>>
>>>I think that's fairly clearcut.
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Brad Webb, Founder/CTO

vSocial (http://www.vsocial.com)
51 W. Third Street, #301
Tempe, AZ 85281
(480) 967-9543 - Direct Line
(480) 967-9575 - Fax



 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[mikehudack]

Hey guys,

I just got off the phone with Dmitri Shapiro, the CEO of Veoh.  I
tracked him down (thanks to a few great people) to discuss this
situation because it seems like much of the video Veoh has been
collecting comes from blip.tv -- and a lot of our users have asked us
to do something about it.

Dmitri has just joined the group and will send an e-mail shortly that
will hopefully start us down the road to resolving this situation.

Yours,

Mike
Co-founder, blip.tv

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let me put it this way. Imagine you are starting an online video
> company (isn't everyone these days?).
> 
> Is it ok to take all YouTube's feeds, download all the videos in
> there, transcode them and host them on your own site? No.
> 
> Is it ok to take all Google video's feeds, download all the videos in
> there, transcode them and host them on your own site? No.
> 
> 
> Is it ok to take individual videobloggers' feeds, download all the
> videos in there, transcode them and host them on your own site? No.
> Except if their license were to allow that quite explicitly.
> 
> You'd be crazy to do that.
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 4/7/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/7/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >  Hello,
> > >
> > > I know many people probably won't like hearing this, but
> > >
> > > I don't know if it is possible to have "people" subscribe to
your feed and
> > > not have other site's aggregate and redistribute your feed
without your
> > > control.
> >
> > Ahem.
> >
> > Charles, you seem to misunderstand the situation here.
> >
> > A feed with video enclosures implies this:
> > - yes, you can download those videos to watch them.
> > - yes, you can (like Bloglines) aggregate the text, linking back to
> > the original.
> > - no, you can NOT download the video, transcode it, and host it on
> > *your* commercial website.
> >
> > I think that's fairly clearcut.
> >
> > Peter
> >
>







 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Brad Webb]

There is a huge and distinct line between "My user did X" and "We 
created a systematic way of doing X" -- I can live with the former, but 
I'm EXTRODINARILY unhappy about the latter.

Charles Hope wrote:

>--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>The problem with that is that there is NO requirement for
>>
>>
>machines/software
>  
>
>>to understand or obey the license.
>>
>>
>
>
>Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
>
>So OK, it's not the responsibility of the computers themselves, but
>their human operators.
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Charles Hope]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> 
> The problem with that is that there is NO requirement for
machines/software
> to understand or obey the license.


Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So OK, it's not the responsibility of the computers themselves, but
their human operators.





 
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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Casey McKinnon]

Exactly what I mean... MeFeedia takes the producers into account by
not stealing stats and providing a link back to the original post.

Go MeFeedia!
Casey
http://www.kitkast.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For the record, Mefeedia only downloads the media to make thumbs. 
The media
> permalink points to where ever it was when the feed was spidered.
> 
> On 4/7/06, Casey McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  I agree... why should I be forced to become a member and claim my
feed
> > by entering code into my RSS feed.  I ALREADY have to do so much to
> > make sure my RSS feed caters to iTunes...
> >
> > I personally prefer sites like MeFeedia who download the original .mov
> > file to their service.  When people change my show to Flash, I can't
> > keep track of all those extra downloads in my statistics.
> >
> > Casey
> > http://www.kitkast.com/
> >
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
> >
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Bullshit: they are clearly, blatantly violating licenses by
> > > re-encoding and not linking back.
> > >
> > > All they need to do is attribute, and it'll be mostly ok. Saying:
> > > "contact us and we'll stop violating your license" isn't enough.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > > --
> > > http://mefeedia.com
> > >
> > > On 4/7/06, Halcyon Lujah  wrote:
> > > > I have talked to Dmitry Shapiro, the CEO and he seemed VERY
willing to
> > > > do what it takes to please broadcasters. They are  working on some
> > > > sort of "claim your feed" campaign as well.
> > > >
> > > > If you don't want to claim your feed, and don't want your content
> > > > available to Veoh users, email them.  I would be very suprised
if they
> > > > didn't remove your feed immediately.
> > > >
> > > > -Halcyon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/7/06, Stephanie Bryant  wrote:
> > > > > Veoh has my whole feed in their service. They have ripped my
> > videos to
> > > > > their formats and are re-distributing them, using their own
> > > > > permalinks.
> > > > >
> > > > > From their own TOS:
> > > > > " As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright infringing
> > > > > activities on the Veoh Service and reserves the right to
terminate
> > > > > access to the Veoh Service, and remove all User Materials
posted, by
> > > > > any persons who are found to be repeat infringers (i.e., persons
> > found
> > > > > to have uploaded copyright infringing User Material on more
than two
> > > > > occasions)."
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the email I sent them:
> > > > > Dear Veoh,
> > > > >
> > > > > You are infringing on my license terms for Hold My Beer and
Watch
> > > > > This!
(http://mortaine.blogspot.com).
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a creative commons license on my videoblog. My
license terms
> > > > > are derivs-ok, non-commercial, and must-attribute. This means
> > that if
> > > > > you make a derivative work by ripping my videos to your
format for
> > > > > re-distribution, it must be for non-commercial purposes.
>From what I
> > > > > can see, Veoh is a commercial entity. If this is not the case,
> > please
> > > > > send me your 501c status documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, you are still violating the "must-attribute"
portion of my
> > > > > videoblog's license, and that is not acceptable. You are
> > displaying my
> > > > > work on your website without attribution to the creator. Please
> > create
> > > > > a clear, unambiguous link-back to my website. Personally, I
would
> > > > > prefer it if you made the permalink space on your site as a
> > permalink
> > > > > to the vlog entries on my blog site. It's not as if you
don't have
> > > > > that data available, and doesn't seem like it would be too
> > technically
> > > > > difficult.
> > > > >
> > > > > Failure to comply with my CC license means that you are
> > infringing on
> > > > > my copyright, something that is specifically prohibited in
the Veoh
> > > > > Terms of Service.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know how you are rectifying this situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > > > mortaine@
> >
> > > > > Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
> > > > > http://www.mortaine.com/blogs
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > www.SpreadingThePink.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  SPONSORED LINKS
> >  
Fireant
> >
Individual
> >
Use

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Devlon]

As a suggestion, I reccomend that anyone using FeedBurner for their
feeds take advantage of the FeedFlare feature to add a 'View CC
license' to each post.  You can do it for every post iten on
your site (by adding some code to your temaplte, or have it added to
your feed (with no extra steps on your part)-DevlonOn 4/7/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the record, Mefeedia only downloads the media to make thumbs.  The media permalink points to where ever it was when the feed was spidered.
On 4/7/06, Casey McKinnon
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




I agree... why should I be forced to become a member and claim my feed
by entering code into my RSS feed.  I ALREADY have to do so much to
make sure my RSS feed caters to iTunes...

I personally prefer sites like MeFeedia who download the original .mov
file to their service.  When people change my show to Flash, I can't
keep track of all those extra downloads in my statistics.

Casey
http://www.kitkast.com/


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"


<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bullshit: they are clearly, blatantly violating licenses by
> re-encoding and not linking back.
> 
> All they need to do is attribute, and it'll be mostly ok. Saying:
> "contact us and we'll stop violating your license" isn't enough.
> 
> Peter
> --
> http://mefeedia.com
> 
> On 4/7/06, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have talked to Dmitry Shapiro, the CEO and he seemed VERY willing to
> > do what it takes to please broadcasters. They are  working on some
> > sort of "claim your feed" campaign as well.
> >
> > If you don't want to claim your feed, and don't want your content
> > available to Veoh users, email them.  I would be very suprised if they
> > didn't remove your feed immediately.
> >
> > -Halcyon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/7/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Veoh has my whole feed in their service. They have ripped my
videos to
> > > their formats and are re-distributing them, using their own
> > > permalinks.
> > >
> > > From their own TOS:
> > > " As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright infringing
> > > activities on the Veoh Service and reserves the right to terminate
> > > access to the Veoh Service, and remove all User Materials posted, by
> > > any persons who are found to be repeat infringers (i.e., persons
found
> > > to have uploaded copyright infringing User Material on more than two
> > > occasions)."
> > >
> > > Here's the email I sent them:
> > > Dear Veoh,
> > >
> > > You are infringing on my license terms for Hold My Beer and Watch
> > > This! (http://mortaine.blogspot.com).
> > >
> > > I have a creative commons license on my videoblog. My license terms
> > > are derivs-ok, non-commercial, and must-attribute. This means
that if
> > > you make a derivative work by ripping my videos to your format for
> > > re-distribution, it must be for non-commercial purposes. From what I
> > > can see, Veoh is a commercial entity. If this is not the case,
please
> > > send me your 501c status documentation.
> > >
> > > However, you are still violating the "must-attribute" portion of my
> > > videoblog's license, and that is not acceptable. You are
displaying my
> > > work on your website without attribution to the creator. Please
create
> > > a clear, unambiguous link-back to my website. Personally, I would
> > > prefer it if you made the permalink space on your site as a
permalink
> > > to the vlog entries on my blog site. It's not as if you don't have
> > > that data available, and doesn't seem like it would be too
technically
> > > difficult.
> > >
> > > Failure to comply with my CC license means that you are
infringing on
> > > my copyright, something that is specifically prohibited in the Veoh
> > > Terms of Service.
> > >
> > > Please let me know how you are rectifying this situation.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Stephanie Bryant
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
> > > http://www.mortaine.com/blogs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.SpreadingThePink.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>










  
  
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

.



  









-- ~Devlon
http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com

http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

-- ~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com





  
  
SPONSORED 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Devlon]

For the record, Mefeedia only downloads the media to make thumbs.  The media permalink points to where ever it was when the feed was spidered.On 4/7/06, Casey McKinnon
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I agree... why should I be forced to become a member and claim my feed
by entering code into my RSS feed.  I ALREADY have to do so much to
make sure my RSS feed caters to iTunes...

I personally prefer sites like MeFeedia who download the original .mov
file to their service.  When people change my show to Flash, I can't
keep track of all those extra downloads in my statistics.

Casey
http://www.kitkast.com/


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bullshit: they are clearly, blatantly violating licenses by
> re-encoding and not linking back.
> 
> All they need to do is attribute, and it'll be mostly ok. Saying:
> "contact us and we'll stop violating your license" isn't enough.
> 
> Peter
> --
> http://mefeedia.com
> 
> On 4/7/06, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have talked to Dmitry Shapiro, the CEO and he seemed VERY willing to
> > do what it takes to please broadcasters. They are  working on some
> > sort of "claim your feed" campaign as well.
> >
> > If you don't want to claim your feed, and don't want your content
> > available to Veoh users, email them.  I would be very suprised if they
> > didn't remove your feed immediately.
> >
> > -Halcyon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/7/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Veoh has my whole feed in their service. They have ripped my
videos to
> > > their formats and are re-distributing them, using their own
> > > permalinks.
> > >
> > > From their own TOS:
> > > " As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright infringing
> > > activities on the Veoh Service and reserves the right to terminate
> > > access to the Veoh Service, and remove all User Materials posted, by
> > > any persons who are found to be repeat infringers (i.e., persons
found
> > > to have uploaded copyright infringing User Material on more than two
> > > occasions)."
> > >
> > > Here's the email I sent them:
> > > Dear Veoh,
> > >
> > > You are infringing on my license terms for Hold My Beer and Watch
> > > This! (http://mortaine.blogspot.com).
> > >
> > > I have a creative commons license on my videoblog. My license terms
> > > are derivs-ok, non-commercial, and must-attribute. This means
that if
> > > you make a derivative work by ripping my videos to your format for
> > > re-distribution, it must be for non-commercial purposes. From what I
> > > can see, Veoh is a commercial entity. If this is not the case,
please
> > > send me your 501c status documentation.
> > >
> > > However, you are still violating the "must-attribute" portion of my
> > > videoblog's license, and that is not acceptable. You are
displaying my
> > > work on your website without attribution to the creator. Please
create
> > > a clear, unambiguous link-back to my website. Personally, I would
> > > prefer it if you made the permalink space on your site as a
permalink
> > > to the vlog entries on my blog site. It's not as if you don't have
> > > that data available, and doesn't seem like it would be too
technically
> > > difficult.
> > >
> > > Failure to comply with my CC license means that you are
infringing on
> > > my copyright, something that is specifically prohibited in the Veoh
> > > Terms of Service.
> > >
> > > Please let me know how you are rectifying this situation.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Stephanie Bryant
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
> > > http://www.mortaine.com/blogs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.SpreadingThePink.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>










  
  
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
.



  









-- ~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com





  
  
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.



  

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Casey McKinnon]

I agree... why should I be forced to become a member and claim my feed
by entering code into my RSS feed.  I ALREADY have to do so much to
make sure my RSS feed caters to iTunes...

I personally prefer sites like MeFeedia who download the original .mov
file to their service.  When people change my show to Flash, I can't
keep track of all those extra downloads in my statistics.

Casey
http://www.kitkast.com/


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bullshit: they are clearly, blatantly violating licenses by
> re-encoding and not linking back.
> 
> All they need to do is attribute, and it'll be mostly ok. Saying:
> "contact us and we'll stop violating your license" isn't enough.
> 
> Peter
> --
> http://mefeedia.com
> 
> On 4/7/06, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have talked to Dmitry Shapiro, the CEO and he seemed VERY willing to
> > do what it takes to please broadcasters. They are  working on some
> > sort of "claim your feed" campaign as well.
> >
> > If you don't want to claim your feed, and don't want your content
> > available to Veoh users, email them.  I would be very suprised if they
> > didn't remove your feed immediately.
> >
> > -Halcyon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/7/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Veoh has my whole feed in their service. They have ripped my
videos to
> > > their formats and are re-distributing them, using their own
> > > permalinks.
> > >
> > > From their own TOS:
> > > " As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright infringing
> > > activities on the Veoh Service and reserves the right to terminate
> > > access to the Veoh Service, and remove all User Materials posted, by
> > > any persons who are found to be repeat infringers (i.e., persons
found
> > > to have uploaded copyright infringing User Material on more than two
> > > occasions)."
> > >
> > > Here's the email I sent them:
> > > Dear Veoh,
> > >
> > > You are infringing on my license terms for Hold My Beer and Watch
> > > This! (http://mortaine.blogspot.com).
> > >
> > > I have a creative commons license on my videoblog. My license terms
> > > are derivs-ok, non-commercial, and must-attribute. This means
that if
> > > you make a derivative work by ripping my videos to your format for
> > > re-distribution, it must be for non-commercial purposes. From what I
> > > can see, Veoh is a commercial entity. If this is not the case,
please
> > > send me your 501c status documentation.
> > >
> > > However, you are still violating the "must-attribute" portion of my
> > > videoblog's license, and that is not acceptable. You are
displaying my
> > > work on your website without attribution to the creator. Please
create
> > > a clear, unambiguous link-back to my website. Personally, I would
> > > prefer it if you made the permalink space on your site as a
permalink
> > > to the vlog entries on my blog site. It's not as if you don't have
> > > that data available, and doesn't seem like it would be too
technically
> > > difficult.
> > >
> > > Failure to comply with my CC license means that you are
infringing on
> > > my copyright, something that is specifically prohibited in the Veoh
> > > Terms of Service.
> > >
> > > Please let me know how you are rectifying this situation.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Stephanie Bryant
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
> > > http://www.mortaine.com/blogs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.SpreadingThePink.com
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Devlon]

Since the media's delivery method is a feed, would it be required to have the license information in the feed?On 4/7/06, Bill Streeter <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Yeah this addresses the atribution issue, what about the commercial 
clauses? Is Veoh violating the non-commercial clause in peoples CC 
licenses? Is Veoh a commercial entity? It would see so.

Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jarrod at veoh has been in touch with me and I've mentioned how 
simple it is
> to adhere to most of these concerns by simply adding a permalink 
to the site
> and to the individual clips.
> 
> I used the aggregators that do get it as examples of how very 
simple it is
> to do this.  The info is in the feed...they are purposely not 
mining that
> information and not using it on their site.
> 
> On 4/7/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  Bullshit: they are clearly, blatantly violating licenses by
> > re-encoding and not linking back.
> >
> > All they need to do is attribute, and it'll be mostly ok. Saying:
> > "contact us and we'll stop violating your license" isn't enough.
> >
> > Peter
> > --
> > http://mefeedia.com
> >
> >
> > On 4/7/06, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have talked to Dmitry Shapiro, the CEO and he seemed VERY 
willing to
> > > do what it takes to please broadcasters. They are  working on 
some
> > > sort of "claim your feed" campaign as well.
> > >
> > > If you don't want to claim your feed, and don't want your 
content
> > > available to Veoh users, email them.  I would be very suprised 
if they
> > > didn't remove your feed immediately.
> > >
> > > -Halcyon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/7/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Veoh has my whole feed in their service. They have ripped my 
videos to
> > > > their formats and are re-distributing them, using their own
> > > > permalinks.
> > > >
> > > > From their own TOS:
> > > > " As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright 
infringing
> > > > activities on the Veoh Service and reserves the right to 
terminate
> > > > access to the Veoh Service, and remove all User Materials 
posted, by
> > > > any persons who are found to be repeat infringers (i.e., 
persons found
> > > > to have uploaded copyright infringing User Material on more 
than two
> > > > occasions)."
> > > >
> > > > Here's the email I sent them:
> > > > Dear Veoh,
> > > >
> > > > You are infringing on my license terms for Hold My Beer and 
Watch
> > > > This! 
(http://mortaine.blogspot.com).<
http://mortaine.blogspot.com%29.>
> > > >
> > > > I have a creative commons license on my videoblog. My 
license terms
> > > > are derivs-ok, non-commercial, and must-attribute. This 
means that if
> > > > you make a derivative work by ripping my videos to your 
format for
> > > > re-distribution, it must be for non-commercial purposes. 
>From what I
> > > > can see, Veoh is a commercial entity. If this is not the 
case, please
> > > > send me your 501c status documentation.
> > > >
> > > > However, you are still violating the "must-attribute" 
portion of my
> > > > videoblog's license, and that is not acceptable. You are 
displaying my
> > > > work on your website without attribution to the creator. 
Please create
> > > > a clear, unambiguous link-back to my website. Personally, I 
would
> > > > prefer it if you made the permalink space on your site as a 
permalink
> > > > to the vlog entries on my blog site. It's not as if you 
don't have
> > > > that data available, and doesn't seem like it would be too 
technically
> > > > difficult.
> > > >
> > > > Failure to comply with my CC license means that you are 
infringing on
> > > > my copyright, something that is specifically prohibited in 
the Veoh
> > > > Terms of Service.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know how you are rectifying this situation.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
> > > > http://www.mortaine.com/blogs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > www.SpreadingThePink.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >  SPONSORED LINKS
> >   Fireant
> > Individual
> > Use
> >  --
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >    -  Visit your 
group "videoblogging"

> >    on the web.
> >
> >    -  To u

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Bill Streeter]

Yeah what I said ... ;)

Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> It isn't as simple as adding a link back. Most people use some 
version of
> the non-commercial cc license. If that's the case they shouldn't 
be allowed
> to host your stuff at all unless you specifically grant them that 
license.
> What you are saying with the NC license is that it is NOT okay to 
use this
> for commercial purposes (since VEOH is hosting your content on 
their
> commercial site instead of just linking to it, it's a commercial 
use)
> without first obtaining permission from the creator. They are not 
doing
> this. Providing a link back only fixes the attribution clause.
> 
> -Verdi
> 
> On 4/7/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  Jarrod at veoh has been in touch with me and I've mentioned how 
simple it
> > is to adhere to most of these concerns by simply adding a 
permalink to the
> > site and to the individual clips.
> >
> > I used the aggregators that do get it as examples of how very 
simple it is
> > to do this.  The info is in the feed...they are purposely not 
mining that
> > information and not using it on their site.
> >
> > On 4/7/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >  Bullshit: they are clearly, blatantly violating licenses by
> > re-encoding and not linking back.
> >
> > All they need to do is attribute, and it'll be mostly ok. Saying:
> > "contact us and we'll stop violating your license" isn't enough.
> >
> > Peter
> > --
> > http://mefeedia.com
> >
> >
> > On 4/7/06, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  > I have talked to Dmitry Shapiro, the CEO and he seemed VERY 
willing to
> > > do what it takes to please broadcasters. They are  working on 
some
> > > sort of "claim your feed" campaign as well.
> > >
> > > If you don't want to claim your feed, and don't want your 
content
> > > available to Veoh users, email them.  I would be very suprised 
if they
> > > didn't remove your feed immediately.
> > >
> > > -Halcyon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/7/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Veoh has my whole feed in their service. They have ripped my 
videos to
> > > > their formats and are re-distributing them, using their own
> > > > permalinks.
> > > >
> > > > From their own TOS:
> > > > " As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright 
infringing
> > > > activities on the Veoh Service and reserves the right to 
terminate
> > > > access to the Veoh Service, and remove all User Materials 
posted, by
> > > > any persons who are found to be repeat infringers (i.e., 
persons found
> > > > to have uploaded copyright infringing User Material on more 
than two
> > > > occasions)."
> > > >
> > > > Here's the email I sent them:
> > > > Dear Veoh,
> > > >
> > > > You are infringing on my license terms for Hold My Beer and 
Watch
> > > > This! 
(http://mortaine.blogspot.com).
> > > >
> > > > I have a creative commons license on my videoblog. My 
license terms
> > > > are derivs-ok, non-commercial, and must-attribute. This 
means that if
> > > > you make a derivative work by ripping my videos to your 
format for
> > > > re-distribution, it must be for non-commercial purposes. 
>From what I
> > > > can see, Veoh is a commercial entity. If this is not the 
case, please
> > > > send me your 501c status documentation.
> > > >
> > > > However, you are still violating the "must-attribute" 
portion of my
> > > > videoblog's license, and that is not acceptable. You are 
displaying my
> > > > work on your website without attribution to the creator. 
Please create
> > > > a clear, unambiguous link-back to my website. Personally, I 
would
> > > > prefer it if you made the permalink space on your site as a 
permalink
> > > > to the vlog entries on my blog site. It's not as if you 
don't have
> > > > that data available, and doesn't seem like it would be too 
technically
> > > > difficult.
> > > >
> > > > Failure to comply with my CC license means that you are 
infringing on
> > > > my copyright, something that is specifically prohibited in 
the Veoh
> > > > Terms of Service.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know how you are rectifying this situation.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
> > > > http://www.mortaine.com/blogs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > www.SpreadingThePink.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >  SPONSORED LINKS
> >Fireant
> > Individual

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Bill Streeter]

Yeah this addresses the atribution issue, what about the commercial 
clauses? Is Veoh violating the non-commercial clause in peoples CC 
licenses? Is Veoh a commercial entity? It would see so.

Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jarrod at veoh has been in touch with me and I've mentioned how 
simple it is
> to adhere to most of these concerns by simply adding a permalink 
to the site
> and to the individual clips.
> 
> I used the aggregators that do get it as examples of how very 
simple it is
> to do this.  The info is in the feed...they are purposely not 
mining that
> information and not using it on their site.
> 
> On 4/7/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  Bullshit: they are clearly, blatantly violating licenses by
> > re-encoding and not linking back.
> >
> > All they need to do is attribute, and it'll be mostly ok. Saying:
> > "contact us and we'll stop violating your license" isn't enough.
> >
> > Peter
> > --
> > http://mefeedia.com
> >
> >
> > On 4/7/06, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have talked to Dmitry Shapiro, the CEO and he seemed VERY 
willing to
> > > do what it takes to please broadcasters. They are  working on 
some
> > > sort of "claim your feed" campaign as well.
> > >
> > > If you don't want to claim your feed, and don't want your 
content
> > > available to Veoh users, email them.  I would be very suprised 
if they
> > > didn't remove your feed immediately.
> > >
> > > -Halcyon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/7/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Veoh has my whole feed in their service. They have ripped my 
videos to
> > > > their formats and are re-distributing them, using their own
> > > > permalinks.
> > > >
> > > > From their own TOS:
> > > > " As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright 
infringing
> > > > activities on the Veoh Service and reserves the right to 
terminate
> > > > access to the Veoh Service, and remove all User Materials 
posted, by
> > > > any persons who are found to be repeat infringers (i.e., 
persons found
> > > > to have uploaded copyright infringing User Material on more 
than two
> > > > occasions)."
> > > >
> > > > Here's the email I sent them:
> > > > Dear Veoh,
> > > >
> > > > You are infringing on my license terms for Hold My Beer and 
Watch
> > > > This! 
(http://mortaine.blogspot.com).
> > > >
> > > > I have a creative commons license on my videoblog. My 
license terms
> > > > are derivs-ok, non-commercial, and must-attribute. This 
means that if
> > > > you make a derivative work by ripping my videos to your 
format for
> > > > re-distribution, it must be for non-commercial purposes. 
>From what I
> > > > can see, Veoh is a commercial entity. If this is not the 
case, please
> > > > send me your 501c status documentation.
> > > >
> > > > However, you are still violating the "must-attribute" 
portion of my
> > > > videoblog's license, and that is not acceptable. You are 
displaying my
> > > > work on your website without attribution to the creator. 
Please create
> > > > a clear, unambiguous link-back to my website. Personally, I 
would
> > > > prefer it if you made the permalink space on your site as a 
permalink
> > > > to the vlog entries on my blog site. It's not as if you 
don't have
> > > > that data available, and doesn't seem like it would be too 
technically
> > > > difficult.
> > > >
> > > > Failure to comply with my CC license means that you are 
infringing on
> > > > my copyright, something that is specifically prohibited in 
the Veoh
> > > > Terms of Service.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know how you are rectifying this situation.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephanie Bryant
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
> > > > http://www.mortaine.com/blogs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > www.SpreadingThePink.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >  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 

[videoblogging] Re: Veoh transcoding feeds?

[Enric]

Yup, I claimed mine to my Veoh account.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Josh Leo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I looked at the "watch" tab on veoh and noticed a bunch of vlogger's
videos
> (including Bre, Markus, and Rocketboom) on the page. Markus didnt know
> anything about it, and I highly doubt Rocketboom submuts their
content to
> Veoh to be transcoded into flash and hosted there...
> 
> what is the deal? are they scraping feeds then transcoding and hosting
> videos without permission?
> 
> --
> 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/