Well, veoh just removed my Tech Alley feed that I asked them to take out. So it looks like they're following our requests.
-- Enric --- In [email protected], andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: > > > >> Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining > >> about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers > >> because of them? > > > > Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites > > hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips. > > > > So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people > could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why > Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes > shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair > use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was > likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally > got that video. > > > > 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. > > > > Yea, that really is pretty shitty. > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
