When I said dragging culture back out of the darknets and onto the open web this is hardly what I though. But heh if you want to try and run a business on copyright infringement go right a head...
...get yourself sued. This particular veoh user, that's just mad, crazy copyright infringement. However I don't personally believe everything is such a clean cut and dry thing. Basically we're in the middel of a prohibition era. Except it's not alchohol and speak easy's, it's about digital culture and darknets. Media is a fundamental part of our cultural language it's use in online discussion is enevitable and in the case of fair use a right. All this is to say... it's going to be a dirty stinking mess for a few years yet, at least. It's probably going to get worse before it get's better. But basically this mess of disturbing actions going both ways from copyright maximalists and copyright infringers through this mess of disturbing actions and precisely because of it is going to sort itself out. What's more... this is a HUGE step forward from the darknet days we've had since napster... by getting media and in essence the cultural dialogue back out onto the open web we can duke it out and make progress on this issue... and it's better to be bloodied and brawling in the streets that it is to be laying in a dark alley in a pool of your own blood. I'm definitely not saying i condone it, what I'm saying is I think it's absolutely freaking awesome this debate is happening... and when and if it hits the press and these issues become the topic of the nightly news like the MySpace and kiddy porn/ stalker /whatever issue... well then no matter how much we loath the mischaracterizations and hype we have to recognize that the very act of debate is progress itself. It's dirty and I don't know about you but I wouldn't want it any other way. Chaos breeds creativity. And so... what's going to come out of this shakedown is nothing less than the future of media... how to monetize... what is fair use... a new definition and pardigm for copyright... the next CNN... the next Time/Warner... this is what we're talking about. The stakes are very high... and people are going to experiment and take risks and get burner and there's going to be hype... Most obviously that people will think that when I say the next Time Warner that this will happen in anything less than the next 20 or so years. It's those people who like in the .com boom are living in the future and don't even realize it... don't realize that the rest of the world is not changing at the same speed as our clicque that are eventually going to get burned. What I'm saying is... slow down. Change doesn't happen overnight. Veoh is way a head of itself here... and it's going to catch up with them, and I don't just mean a lot of vloggers either. I'm starting to wonder if for example Youtube isn't going to end up getting owned by the very people who's media it's profiting off of... in much the same way as napster was owned and is now a shill company for a closed, proprietary, DRM, rent-a-music service noone would ever use. Ohh... such irony. Fun stuff here, this is a good thread, and I've barely gotten into it. -Mike On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:47 PM, T.Whid wrote: So what is the answer? More RIAA and MPAA lawsuits? I'm not excusing it, but if these people are banned on vSocial, they'll just move somewhere else. The genie is out of the bottle and etc.... first it was napster, then other p2p networks, then bittorrent and now it's these social sites. It will go on and on. You also say you don't buy their excuse that it's their users doing it, but it is really hard to police isn't it? Ban an infringing user, user gets a new email address and starts all over.. hell the smart ones would simply have a few dormant accounts laying around so that as they are banned they move to the new account not missing a step. I'm not excusing the infringers (be they users, corps or whatever) but the solution to this problem is the hard part. Maybe the US judicial system will be Flash out of bizness since it's allowing all this infringement ;-) On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And just to hammer home the point at how easy it is to track down > these infringing uses... > look at HH32 on vSocial, and then check out that user's network of > Friends, many of whom also engage in the same practice... and vSocial > looks the other way. > > Check out Ducksauce's videos: > <http://www.vsocial.com/user/? > d=1397#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1> > > Almost all Family Guy clips, and has generated 3.5 over million views. > > Or Porshche911turbo: > <http://www.vsocial.com/user/? > d=190#pagekeep::p,new::b,NewContext::g,1> > > Similarly filled with infringing content which has generated over 2 > million views. > > Why aren't these user accounts banned? Its pretty obvious that they > are generating a huge amount of viewers for almost exclusively > infringing content. > > Sorry to specifically pick on vSocial, because I know they are not the > only ones doing this, but its just very easy to go there and > immediately see where much of the infringing content originates. I'm > certain its the same with many other video clip sharing sites as well. > > -Josh > > > On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > > > > > -- <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid> 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/
