--- 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.
Unfortunately, those are the perils of carrying on a non-realtime discussion on an internet message list. People post simultaneously, so sometimes, you end up having to repeat yourself. :) > 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. I agree with you that dealing with it on the front end is costly. How much does it cost Revver to review your videos before they're approved? The point isn't the small stuff. The point is when a group says to you that there are thousands upon thousands of instances of infringement of their material going on and insisting that you do something about it. YouTube has already settled lawsuits for the EXACT SAME THING! :D How many times do you need to get sued before you change your policies...... Unless..... The amount of money that you're making by placing ads on the pirated videos that you're NOT removing from your site outweighs the amount of money that you eventually pay out in settlements...... hmm....... > You mentioned someone, somehow, someway petiotined and had your video > taken down. If you own it, it shouldn't have happened No. I didn't own it. The dance company was given the tapes by whomever was in charge of such things at that festival. I had the actual raw feeds from two cameras... NOT what was shown on television. My point in bringing that up was that *I* was not consulted... The dance company was not consulted... Just like you say below, someone claiming some sort of connection to the festival served YouTube notice and the video was removed. Similarly, Viacom demanded over a month ago <http://newteevee.com/2007/02/02/viacom-demands-youtube-pull-its-clips/> that YouTube pull over 100,000 clips. Where's the action? Make it happen. Obviously, they don't need to consult the posters, so what's the holdup?...... Unless..... The amount of money that you're making by placing ads on the pirated videos that you're NOT removing from your site outweighs the amount of money that you eventually pay out in settlements...... hmm....... > 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? hahaha OK. Fine. :D hahaha The fact remains that YouTube knew damned well they were at fault, and they've settled similar cases in the past and were in negotiations to settle this one too. This fight has to go on now, because they have to set precedent for when Joost rolls out and Viacom clips are duplicated on YouTube, undermining their value as a content producer for Joost. > Yeah, people are uploading which brings me back to the point of there > being no known way of stopping pirated content at this time. You mean like using the YouTube _search_box_ and deleting the content with the names that Viacom told you to delete? > 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" I agree that if a site is trying to be legit, they're going to take whatever steps they can to get rid of pirated content AND THE PIRATES. However... When the amount of money that you're making by placing ads on the pirated videos that you're NOT removing from your site outweighs the amount of money that you eventually pay out in settlements, "the bottom line" dictates that you take your chances with getting sued. > 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. I've never considered that. It's not my problem. :D I can't tell you how that can be done. I CAN tell you that if Viacom tells you to take down over 100,000 clips that have been viewed over 1.2 billion times, you'd better do it, or you're in violation. :D > 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. People make businesses in order to make money. I agree with you. > 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. hahaha I didn't mean to imply that *I* was worried about YouTube getting paid. I probably have 16 videos on YouTube out of ~130. I was just passing through YT on the way to Brightcove, Revver and eventually Blip. I think their quality is bullshit and most of their videos are corny and worthless. My point was that you labeled it assumption of risk, while I label it assumption of responsibility. YouTube can't complain NOW that Viacom wants money from them after they sold a site full of pirated content and people's personally-created and uploaded videos (including my meager ~16 videos with maybe... MAYBE 3,000 views spread amongst all 16 of them over the span of six months) for tons of money. > 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, ok > 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. You can still get TV out of the air? :D What? UHF? :D I see what you're saying, and it's an interesting point of view. Actually, all of your points of view have been interesting. However... There is not now and has not ever been and will never be FREE Television. Television isn't paid for by YOU. It's paid for by THE ADVERTISERS. When you watch your UHF channels with your television with the antenna on top of it, yes, you are picking the signal out of the air for free. The question is "how did that signal GET in the air?". The station is outputing the signal. That requires electricity. That requires equipment. That requires buildings to shield said equipment from the elements. That requires humans to run the machines and change the tapes. Tapes have to be bought from suppliers. Producers, Editors, Executive Producers, Assistants, Librarians, Runners, etc have to be paid to make the content that goes on the tapes. Buildings are required to shield those workers and their equipment from the elements. Electricity is required to run their machines, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. THE ADVERTISERS pay for all this to happen. No advertising = No money. The exception is when you see something on PBS, where they say "This show was made possible by a grant from whoever's foundation, and the support of viewers like you". This means MONEY. Someone gave them money to make this video. The REASON these advertisers pay people to make television shows is that they know that they have a captive audience of people sitting at home, very happy that they're watching FREE television. :D I agree with your point about control, though. There was a big deal made about the fact that people would be able to use VHS recorders to tape shows that otherwise they would have had to wait and watch that channel again to see. It would have been a disaster if VHS had been shut down. -- Bill C. http://TheLab.blip.tv > 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] > > > > > >
