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