Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did what  
YouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?

On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked them  
to remove our feed before but its there again.

So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see how  
long it takes or if they do.

On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

>> So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
>
> Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
> business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
> money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
> someone is getting paid for that broadcast.
>
> This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
> night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own
> network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
> attention to their content -- for free!
>
> And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
> major traffic spike they got from the SNL "Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of
> Narnia)" clip.
>
> -Josh
>
>
> On 4/8/06, 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 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/
 



Reply via email to