And living in a cabin in Montanna. :)
On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Enric wrote: News of privacies death has been exaggerated; it's alive and well. -- Enric --- In [email protected], T.Whid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
