--- In [email protected], sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline... > BROADCAST YOURSELF. > Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated Content.
Absolutely. > But they realized, or maybe knew all along, that a more lucrative goal would > be to become TV for the net. > And as the inevitable happened... pirated shows being uploaded, they were > fine with it and the loads of traffic it brought them. That's my point. That's not YouTube. That's ThemTube or TheirTube or OwnedBySomeoneElseTube. It seems that YouTube got 'lucky' and came up with a TOS that would force major corporations to sue kids on skateboards that have no earning potential but the very least internet literacy to be able to copy a video from one location and repost it in another location. It's a sweet deal. It's not YouTube's fault that the pirated videos are on the site. The only people liable for the videos being there are broke.... penniless. Even if Viacom wanted to sue, they had to issue Cease & Desist orders (I believe) which would allow the offender time to remove the material or face the consequences. I had an interesting situation happen to me. A dance group performed at a festival. The dance group was given two feeds from two different cameras of their performance. Those tapes and others were given to me and I edited them together and added highlight video from other performances that the group did. It was CLEARLY my own work, not only because nobody edited the raw footage in the same way I did, but because I added so many other performance clips. The video was on YT for months, then, all of a sudden, I get this message that my video was removed. Nobody asked me where I got the footage. Nobody asked me if I had permission to use anything. I got the message, and when I checked, the video was no longer playable. If some idiot who knows nothing about the genesis of a project or about who gave tapes to whom, or who had permission to do what with footage of their own dance group's performance can petition YouTube to take my video down, and it disappears with ZERO INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS, then YouTube could clearly have found ALLLLL the music videos and everything else owned by Viacom and not only removed those videos but deleted the offending members' accounts. There's no reason why this shouldn't have been done when they initially requested it, so I agree with you that they were waiting it out to get more hits and more advertisement in and now they may just have to pay for that. > It might not be the case now but at one point these pirated shows were > regularly featured on their front page. > > So.... if they really want to avoid the problem, they would need to do > things like curating/moderating (could be crowdsourced), banning users, > limiting upload sizes and relying more on webcam recordings etc... But they > dont want to only be the longtail king. They want that juicy torso content > be they want that MSM head too. Directors? MSM deals? > > Fact is, they got lucky but they also took advantage of the sudden boom of > this online video revolution and enjoyed the ride to being the top > trafficked video site. > > This has nothing to do with the open media revolution. This is the open > pirate video revolution. And it doesnt last forever. > > > On 13 Mar 2007 13:16:20 -0700, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the > > users are. I see... So if I have a dog and I let that dog bite you, it's not my fault? This is ENTIRELY YouTube's fault. You don't aggregate rss feeds to YouTube... You upload video to THEIR servers. Not only that, but once you upload it, you're not suposed to be able to get it back out. The way the system's built, you're _supposed_ to have to go back to YouTube every time you want to see that clip. It's ENTIRELY the owner's fault if the dog gets off the leash... out of the house... out of the yard... down the street and bites you. Entirely. Especially when it happened before, and the owner was warned to change the situation and make sure the dog didn't get out again. > > Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending > > the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once > > they have been notified, that is a fact. That's part of Viacom's beef. WHY should Viacom have to go to the expense of finding every single Shabba Ranks video and clips from The Real World or whatever the offending material is and give YouTube a list of the videos it wants removed? Meanwhile, YouTube still gets more hits and does more advertising and as you mention right now, more people upload MORE Viacom videos while we chat about it. > > Now does it stop people from > > uploading clips? Of course not. That is why they (big media) is > > fighting so hard for DRM, which is another story for another day. YT > > may have it's fault but I have to say that they have been extremely > > proactive in trying to secure content and partner with studios. > > > > My guess is that they money Viacom wanted up front was so outragous the > > Google balked and now they are suing them. That is why I said it will > > only get worse. the sums that they are asking for effectly guarentees > > that companies like YT can not make a profit from advertising, because > > what they would have to charge in turn for said advertising no one > > could afford. ummmmm... They're not SUPPOSED to make money off of advertising when they don't own the content and neither does the skateboarding kid that uploaded it. They're not SUPPOSED to be able to prosper by pirating stuff, even from large corporations that already got paid to make the content by their advertisers when they first put it on television. That's why people have to _pay_ for syndication. If Seinfeld comes on for the 50th time, there are STILL going to be people watching it, and stations are STILL going to be able to sell ad space. That's why people have to pay to buy the box set of a season of a show or pay to rent that box set. The work still has value after it's been shown the first time. YouTube isn't supposed to be able to advertise or get people to come to their site to watch gags from "I Love Lucy", and the poster isn't supposed to gain hits and subscriptions from posting "I Love Lucy" clips in the first place. > > The whole attitude of the RIAA and these media companies right now > > is, "OK, we realize that people are going to pirate our stuff so to > > make up for it, you need to give us X amount of dollars for the > > privlage of showing our stuff AND Y sum to make up for those nasty > > pirates". They are forceing these start ups to assume the risk, for > > their own failing.....it's silly.....but it will happen. And that will > > be bad for all of us. They are forcing startups to assume RESPONSIBILITY, not risk. There's no risk in hosting video content created by the people posting it and then advertising on that. YouTube is cheating, and they _have_been_ cheating, and now they might have to pay for that. They weren't worried about it when none of their content creators or pirates got a dime from their buyout, did they? The rules have to be defined, or else startups will adopt the same cheating practices. > > Look at how much you spend each month on re-occuring bills right now, > > that are not directly related to your living expenses... > > > > phone bill, cell bill, cable bill, a fee for this, a fee for > > that....think about it..... Can you elaborate on the connection between your idea here and the rest of the conversation? -- Bill C. http://TheLab.blip.tv > > Heath > > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > > > --- In [email protected] <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have > > > been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and > > > essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to > > > remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same >argument > > > that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to > > > aggregate our content sans repercussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sull > http://vlogdir.com (a project) > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) > http://interdigitate.com (otherly) > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
