First. I never made any request to have the videos your company stole from me to be removed from your site.
Second. My server log files already show that someone from VEOH (IP traces are fun.) came to my site and went to the area where the videos in question are. The stolen videos have been subsequently removed from VEOH. Had I not been so vocal on this list about slamming your company with a lawsuit for copyright infringement, you people probably wouldnt have done a thing to recify the situation. Like I said, I am glad that I took screenshots early today as proof that you had indeed stolen my videos and violated my copyright. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In [email protected], "dmitry_veoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David, > > There is nothing to cover up. We are trying to be responsive to your > requests. If you would like your videos removed, just tell us what > they are, and we will remove them. > > Dmitry > > --- In [email protected], "David Howell" <taoofdavid@> > wrote: > > > > My 3 videos there have no keywords there associated to my username or > > site name. The videos are just there. Not sure how I screwed myself. > > > > However...and this is priceless. The videos in question have been > > removed except for one. Glad I took screenshots. > > > > I saw in my logs that someone went to my site, saw the link to my > > older videos and saw the ones I am talking about that are/were on > > VEOH. So, does that indicate that VEOH is manually adding stuff as > > well as spidering for it? They must have known which ones to remove > > because I never actually said what videos they had there. > > > > Regardless, it makes me think that VEOH is reading these messages > > here, knows they have done wrong and are trying to fix or cover up > > what they had originally done. > > > > David > > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com > > > > --- In [email protected], andrew michael baron > > <andrew@> wrote: > > > > > > I just got this e-mail and I'm reposting it here less than one hour > > > before the below request; Veoh removed rocketboom videos. Of course > > > they did not remove the keyword 'rocketboom' so now Steve Garfield, > > > Richard Show, and everyone else who mentions Rocketboom appears. > > > Thus, I am realizing that for my intent, I kinda screwed myself a > bit > > > here, just like I think David Howell screwed himself, based on his > > > primary intent (not his new intent). > > > > > > My original intent being that I wasn't feeling threatened by Veoh, I > > > never hear about them except for on this list, I dont know anyone > who > > > uses their site, and feel that the way its set up, it going to fail > > > on its own without us, so thus, irregardless of my action in the > > > case, Rocketboom has likely lost out on this one by not having > > > Rocketboom's feed there. In otherwords, instead of moulding to the > > > environment (for there are no doubt some people who like to use the > > > site), knowing that a) most people who really like Rocketboom will > > > eventually figure out where it's coming from and how to get there > (we > > > say so in every video), and b) believing that the Veoh system will > > > self-destruct in its present form with or without us, so its not an > > > issue of morality, we might of been more effective for the people > > > that are still there. > > > > > > So many people, so many places around the world, so many > > > perspectives; Woe the aborigine on a video with an RSS feed - 'talk > > > about stealing a soul with a picture. At 15 frames per second thats > > > some pretty serious infringement for every subscriber. > > > > > > e-mail from Veoh: > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > Per your request, we have removed Rocketboom videos from the site. > > > > > > Mary Nielsen > > > > > > > > > Veoh Service wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Email: andrew [at] rocketboom.com > > > > > > > > Subject: ROCKETBOOM > > > > > > > > Personal message: Please remove all Rocketboom videos from your > > > > site immediately. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ---------- > > > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. This e-mail was sent > > > > from a > > > > notification-only address that will not accept incoming e-mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:27 PM, andrew michael baron 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 <andrew@> 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 <andrew@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
