Wait.
You're only 27? Punk kid, what do you know. Sorry, my bad sense of humor is going to get me in trouble. :) LOL! -Mike On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: The thing with Veoh is only the latest example of something that has been pretty rampant and very troubling with many of the new "Flickrs of video" -- and that's the institutional disregard for copyright and the massive amount of infringement that is tolerated. Veoh just set up an automated infringement process that seems targeted towards videobloggers since it utilizes RSS. But many of these other services include a lot of infringing content pulled from TV and other places on the web. They do not automate this process, but instead they hide behind their terms of use and say they are not liable for what users happen to post. I've heard as much as 65% of the content on YouTube comes from TV. This is very different from Flickr where over 90% of the images are uploaded by original creators. So, I'm calling bullshit on this. Infringement is not a viable business practice, and it is not possible to continue claiming ignorance and paying lip service to "respecting copyright." If you are getting millions of views to a clip owned and produced by NBC-Universal, then you know you are infringing the rights of another entity and benefitting from such actions. Its the same for NBC as it is for any videoblogger. Moreover, I would bet that much of the infringing content comes from a relatively small proportion of users who can be easily tracked... take HH32 for example on vSocial: <http://www.vsocial.com/user/?d=451#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1> Here's a user who's uploaded over 800 clips and generated over 3 million remote views. Over 95% of this user's uploaded content comes from television. Some of it is clips from TV news, but most of it is the Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Daily Show, and Colbert Report. How is it possible that this user continues to have an account at vSocial? Shouldn't this user be banned from the service as s/he is repeatedly using vSocial for infringing purposes? If you're vSocial, you probably sit back and smile at the amount of views this one user is generating, which is obviously a benefit to your service and pumping up your Alexa rankings. Who knows when this user is going to uncover the next viral "Lazy Sunday" video? Oh, if only we had more users like HH32! Heck, I don't put it past YouTube and some others to be paying or specifically rewarding/encouraging users to engage in this type of activity. Maybe they could win a free iPod! Now, I'm happy to watch South Park as much as the next 27 year old guy. But that doesn't make it right for these companies to host and distribute content for which they do not have permission... maybe they should talk to South Park's syndicate and I'm sure they'd be happy to cut a deal, though it might cost a pretty penny. So, the argument is not simply limited to Veoh and the videoblogging community. But I think something needs to be done about businesses (some well-funded, I might add) who regularly engage in these practices. It gives us all a bad name. -Josh 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/
