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

  -- Enric

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







 
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/
 



Reply via email to