>
> On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
>
> Please, its dead easy to recognize where most of the infringement
> occurs and to cut it down. Simply banning the accounts of those users
> would likely eliminate much of the infringing cases.
>
> You could also sample a user's first several uploads to see if they
> have a pattern of infringement. Or check the clips that generate the
> most traffic and weed out the infringing cases. Its really not so
> difficult, and if these services are worth their salt they are
> tracking EVERYTHING!
>
> I think its the duty of these services to enforce their terms of use
> and to eliminate violations. Especially high profile violations that
> are getting millions of views.
>
> The top viral clip on vSocial has over 20 million remote views. Its a
> clip from Family Guy ("Peanut BUtter Jelly Time"). It should be
> removed.... of course, it is not in the interest of the service to
> remove its top performing clip. This is where the problem lies.
>
> These services directly benefit from the traffic generated by prolific
> infringement. In fact, vSocial goes so far as to feature infringing
> content all over the front of their website, thus further encouraging
> these cases.
>
> And you're telling me they can't identify what is infringing and where
> its coming from? Give me a break! They have a duty to enforce their
> terms of use and they strategically look the other way. YouTube did
> the same thing with "Lazy Sunday," and its what catapulted their
> traffic into a surging upswing.Josh, while I 100% agree with you, I think that this mess is unavoidable and necessary. I think this is where we line up opposing boing boing on the whole youtube issue. I think boingboing was wrong about it being OK that Youtube violated NBC's copyright by hosting and offering lazy sunday. Just because it helps NBC doesn't make it ok... Someone mentioned link-backs. As important as permalinks are to the original site... the implication is the same.. it still doesn't make it legal. However.... therein is the rub... I'm secretly cheering because this is precisely what's getting worked out. The law is being broken, but business cases are being bad... we (and by we I mean Youtube and NBC) are simultaneously learning. a) where is the line on fair use b) that there's a huge business case for media sharing... which is something everyone in the world has been saying for years but traditional media companies and record labels haven't been getting. It's throw down, knockout time in the street... and that's just fine by me... the 'conversation' is what's important. We have a huge amount to learn about the upsides and downsides and business cases for a future where media is participatory and social... and a huge amount of push back and reform on copyright law. Experimentation is important. Oh, and BTW, You did notice that The Last minute vlog... or was it Jackson's Junction slayed Rocketboom and Mobuzz in the last bloggies. No contest... and btw, that's NO reflection on value... everyone should be clear by now that popularity doesn't equal value in this word of thousands of vlogs most with less than 100 viewers... but the point is the last minute vlog and Jackson's junction are also made up of almost nothing but news clips... but these vlogs ROCK, and this is fair use at it's finest because the clips are being use specifically for media and political debate. This is the essence of pushing fair use to it's finest point. Much like the movie Outfox which used tremendous amounts of TV news clips to shape commentary. This is not to be confused though with posting the "lazy sunday" video or entertaining tv clips for enjoyment and to boost your traffic. Somewhere between those two there is a very very fine, complex and very argumentative line. -Mike > -josh > > > On 4/8/06, T. Whid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But it may be these web sites only option if they are going to >> provide >> tools to allow users to upload videos. Once one institutes a >> policy of >> policing every user video, it seems you could open yourself up to all >> sorts of legal complications. It would also be very costly. >> >> My point here isn't that it's OK for a company to grab enclosures >> from >> feeds and use it as content for their site. But if a company is >> providing tools for users to upload video, there may be no business >> model that allows that service with the amount of policing it would >> require to make sure those videos aren't infringing on people's IP >> and >> copyrights. >> >> >> >> On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> <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/
