I'm going to disagree to agree. Actually banning a user's feed is not just a start it's the solution... feed and user account mechanism are I think more than enough of a "trusted" unit to discourage abuse.
Exibits Exibit A... I thought technoratti tags would encourage spam... little did I realize how powerful a trust mechanism feeds were... you spam... you're feed gets banned. If you can trust a feed you can trust a the tags sufficiently Exibit B... I realized this on mefeedia too.. we can manage or porn spam problem (not to be confused with good legitimate adult content) through very simple user flagging and feed banning either by feed or domain. The amount of effort the inappropriate user has to put into setting up a feed and moving the media to a new new host or moving a domain is infinitely more effort then it takes to root out and ban them. Especially when that effort of discovery of inappropriate content by flagging is shared by the community. This is not to be confused by the way with self censorship... we're well past the point where we need a political oversight committee to determine what is appropriate for us... that's all about personal empowerment... you choose who you subscribe to (aka. trust) and we're even getting to the point of personal blacklisting on the internet in large scale ways. That is self censoring... what I'm talking about is out and out spam. Exibit C... the last exibit is wikipedia... i was disappointed that they had to actually stop allowing anyone to edit without even signing up. Not suprised... but the real revolution and innovation around social engineering with wikipedia is in how they proved how truely open and accessible a webservice could be if engineered properly. Their boundries were amazingly low... you had to have a computer with a basic browser on the internet... that's it for accessibility and trust. All systems have boundriess... this yahoo group has boundries. Part of the big revolution in vlogging and media... over TV is that the boundries have nearly evaporated. So... yeah... basic user accounts and the trusted system of feeds/ subscription is probably all the trust we'll ever need. If anything I think in the future these boundaries will get even shades more open, or shades softer as it is probably better put. All veoh has to do is kill this users feed and he's lost hundreds of hours of work and time... their effort is negligent... the real issue therefore is a) not abusing power, and b) their politics, particularly that they benifit from this sort of infringement... But let's be clear... this is not a crisis... it's damn good debate... I have yet to see the cricis in this issue if one exist. Veoh... at the most is using negligble judgement on fair use... and do to the state of copyright law neither them nor us can really make that call until they find themselves in court... which is why we need this knock down drag out debate about copyright issues, creative commons, copyleft and copyright reform. Good stuff. -Mike On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: I don't think looking the other way is a good solution. Yes, a user could get a new email address and start again, or move on to another service and do the same. But I think banning the user for violating the terms of use (which likely forbid using the service for infringment) is a start. -Josh On 4/8/06, 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 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/
