I'm not sure how many times I can say this but I am not defending the uploading of copyrighted works....The way the current law reads, the DMCA (and yes the law sucks but for right now it's still the law) the way the law reads is if they take down the material once they are notified they are following the law.
And as I stated a minute ago in another thread of know of no company or software that can completly stop copyrighted material from being uploaded. Do it on the front end? How big a staff would you need for that? You couldn't do it. That is why the law reads the way it does. It provides somewhat of a safe harbor to allow you to operate legitimatiley. You mentioned someone, somehow, someway petiotined and had your video taken down. If you own it, it shouldn't have happened but to use that and say that they can therefore find all pirated content, I don't see the connection. They received a notice and took down the clip per the DMCA, and by law they have to, they can't ask questions, they have to do it as soon as they receive a take down notice. It's the way the law reads (again part of the reason the law sucks because legit clips get taken down all the time in error) As far as the dog thing goes a more accurate portrayal would be some guy with a dog comes on to my property and bites you. Am I as the home owner responible or the guy who brought the dog? I didn't know this guy and I didn't know this dog, how is that my fault? Especially if I wasn't there? Yeah, people are uploading which brings me back to the point of there being no known way of stopping pirated content at this time. I mean let's be honest here what video site would NOT want a way to stop pirated content, at least those that are trying to be "legit" In a perfect world no, none of us would have to "search" to find violations of our content, tell me how it can be done, heck if you can do it, you will be a rich man. And as far as them making money, hey in every TOS I know there is some provision for the hosting site to be able to make money off advertising, (I am referring to legit content or content you own) And that is why you partner with studios so you can "legaly" show their clips and make money. And if you or anyone didn't make a dime on the sale of YT, what can I say, you knew the TOS when you uploaded your content, make a better system, make a better way. As far as my last thing, I am talking about how media is trying to get us as consumers used to the idea of paying for everything, nothing you have would be yours, You buy a DVD, it's not yours, you can't put it on a portable device, you can't back it up. You want to be able to do those things? You have to pay again and again...Mark my words, someday "free" TV will no longer exsist, TV over the air will no longer exsist, you will have to pay....it's only a matter of time if we let them. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com And I am not saying pirated content is ok.....I'm not, a billion dollars just seems a bit overinflated to me.... --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], sull <sulleleven@> 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 <heathparks@> 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] > > >
