Just as an aside I was not trying to be "flip" or dismiss the legit claim or frustration for YT making a ton of money off of people's legit content, but they did just announce a program to start paying content creaters did they not?
Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In [email protected], "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" > <BillCammack@> 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] > > > > > >
