In regards to whether or not material should be considered simply re- purposed commercial material or videos that fall under the grey-area mash-up category, it seems that these videos should simply be flagged and a message sent to the creator of the questionable content. The user would then have to click on a link and write an appeal as to why this is an original work and not simply an extended excerpt of commercial media.
Josh On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Anne Walk wrote: > for me, that is the diffence between the two cases. > > Whether or not YouTube and the like are responsible for the > copyright infringement of their users is another matter. > > And so is the matter of utilizing popular culture in the making of > new work that comments on popular culture (mashups) > > All of these things must be looked at as separate copyright issues. > > On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > So for you its about liability. > > YouTube can claim ignorance because the liability rests with the > individual users uploading the content that YouTube claims it > cannot police. > > Whereas Veoh is in control of the spidering process of > automatically acquiring content and thus the liability for that > content rests with Veoh. > > My disagreement however is that I believe that YouTube and others > like it should be responsible for the content that is on their > network that is obviously infringing. This is something that these > companies consciously look the other way on because they know it > will negatively impact their service. Unfortunetly, there is much > to be gained by hosting popular but infringing content and > supporting the minority of users who largely engage in such practice. > > -Josh > > > On 4/8/06, Anne Walk < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > to me, Veoh is different from YouTube in this way: > > YouTube allows users to upload video. Users upload video that may > or may not conform to copyright. YouTube either chooses not to > monitor for copyright infringement or cannot do so. > > Veoh is the same in this regard. The difference lies in the > spidering. As well as a community site where users can upload > content, Veoh also spiders other video hosting sites as well as > individual vlog sites and inputs their content into their > "community". Veoh is directly involved in the copyright > infringement. That is the difference and that difference is huge. > > > On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Anne Walk > http://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 . > > > > 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 . > > > > > -- > Anne Walk > http://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. > > ____________________________________________ "We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into to peace." "Power to the peaceful!" Spearhead - Bomb the World 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/
