subject:"\[videoblogging\] veoh"

sure seems that way.. ha. thank god for messages like Robert's! What a great reminder to the power of this medium.. that is underused.i'm such a monkey in the middle, ain't i? sull
On 4/20/06, Anne Walk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

hey sull!this is the internet. the metric is the message!(joke)On 4/20/06,
Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

but now veoh works differently. so whatever.and... their is no law about screwing up someones server stats.whats more important, making media and distributing it or reading your stats for novelty?the message or the metric?
sullOn 4/20/06, Joshua Kinberg <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm talking about HTTP stats that would be known to the server serving up the content.
If Veoh has taken your content via RSS unbeknownst to you and is redistributing it from their servers as though you are one of their users who has opted in to the service (but you are not), then you would never know your content is being redistributed there and would have zero knowledge of the viewing statistics.

-josh
On 4/20/06, Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/20/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

I'm sure Veoh will/does provide statistics to it's users.

It does. If you go to http://veoh.com/users/deirdre you can see my profile, click on View All above the videos to see all my videos with their individual stats, rate them, etc.

-- best regards,Deirdré Straughan
www.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work)

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

-- Sull
http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

-- Anne Walk
http://loadedpun.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Anne Walk

hey sull!this is the internet. the metric is the message!(joke)On 4/20/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

-josh
On 4/20/06, Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/20/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

I'm sure Veoh will/does provide statistics to it's users.

It does. If you go to http://veoh.com/users/deirdre you can see my profile, click on View All above the videos to see all my videos with their individual stats, rate them, etc.

-- best regards,Deirdré Straughan
www.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work)

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

-- Sull
http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- Anne Walkhttp://loadedpun.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

-josh
On 4/20/06, Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/20/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

I'm sure Veoh will/does provide statistics to it's users.

It does. If you go to http://veoh.com/users/deirdre you can see my profile, click on View All above the videos to see all my videos with their individual stats, rate them, etc.

-- best regards,Deirdré Straughan
www.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work)

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company




Wow, you should shave Steve.On 4/20/06, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Go look at 'my' profile:

http://veoh.com/users/steve

;-)

On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Deirdre Straughan wrote:

> go to http://veoh.com/users/deirdre you can see my profile

--Steve
-- 
http://SteveGarfield.com - Fighting the good fight
http://Rocketboom.com - Correspondent
http://hipcast.com (formerly audioblog)  - Community Manager




  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.



  









-- ~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Steve Garfield




Go look at 'my' profile:

http://veoh.com/users/steve

;-)

On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Deirdre Straughan wrote:

> go to http://veoh.com/users/deirdre you can see my profile

--Steve
-- 
http://SteveGarfield.com - Fighting the good fight
http://Rocketboom.com - Correspondent
http://hipcast.com (formerly audioblog)  - Community Manager



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Joshua Kinberg




I'm talking about HTTP stats that would be known to the server serving up the content.
If Veoh has taken your content via RSS unbeknownst to you and is redistributing it from their servers as though you are one of their users who has opted in to the service (but you are not), then you would never know your content is being redistributed there and would have zero knowledge of the viewing statistics.

 
-josh 
On 4/20/06, Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 4/20/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:




I'm sure Veoh will/does provide statistics to it's users.

It does. If you go to http://veoh.com/users/deirdre you can see my profile, click on View All above the videos to see all my videos with their individual stats, rate them, etc.   

-- best regards,Deirdré Straughan
www.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work) 

SPONSORED LINKS 




Fireant 

Individual 

Use 


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

 Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.  

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 






  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Deirdre Straughan




On 4/20/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I'm sure Veoh will/does provide statistics to it's users.It does. If you go to http://veoh.com/users/deirdre you can see my profile, click on View All above the videos to see all my videos with their individual stats, rate them, etc.  
-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work)





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread WWWhatsup

FLV previews of content is a recent development, prompted by the YouTube envy, no doubt,
& not entirely thought out before introduction, I'll give you that. I myself would have preferred
full flv previews, given the option.

But the actual Veoh distro does no transcoding.

joly

>On 4/20/06, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>they transcode the mp4, mov, wmv to a flash file that is not even complete, it is a derivative work because they cut off bits...
>
>
>You are able to watch the full thing if you sign-up and download their player.  Not cool, but you are able to see the full thing after jumping through their hoops. 
>
>
>--

---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--- 

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

I'm sure Veoh will/does provide statistics to it's users.I just cannot swallow an argument that puts P2P technology for independent media makers as being less significant than download statistics, especially when that P2P platform is also building a model to compensate media makers... financially and by giving them reach/exposure.
sullOn 4/20/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

but the full thing is distributed from Veoh's servers/network and the creator does not receive any statistics for that.-josh
On 4/20/06, Devlon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 4/20/06, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

they transcode the mp4, mov, wmv to a flash file that is not even complete, it is a derivative work because they cut off bits...You are able to watch the full thing if you sign-up and download their player. Not cool, but you are able to see the full thing after jumping through their hoops.

On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Veoh allows distribution through it's P2P network but, apart from that,
what transcoding was involved? It's the original file that gets cached and distro'd.Apple provides no linkback facility in iTunes, which has also built in transcodingfor transfer of vids to the (very commercial) iPod.
joly>On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including
>DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed>specifically for them to verify my ownership.>>iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.

>>>The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute.
>>-Verdi- WWWhatsup NYC

http://pinstand.com
- http://punkcast.com---

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/
-- Josh Leowww.JoshLeo.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

-- ~Devlon

http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com

http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company




On 4/20/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Which means Veoh got membership sign-ups from people signing up to view
preview-only videos that shouldn't have been hacked up. Membership
sign-ups are a currency in the Internet. Using non-permitted works like
that = very not cool.Especially when that currency (I am sure of it) had something to do with funding.

--StephanieOn 4/20/06, Devlon <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




On 4/20/06, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:





they transcode the mp4, mov, wmv to a flash file that is not even complete, it is a derivative work because they cut off bits...You
are able to watch the full thing if you sign-up and download their
player.  Not cool, but you are able to see the full thing after
jumping through their hoops.
-- Stephanie Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
http://www.mortaine.com/blogs





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  


Fireant
  
  

Individual
  
  

Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.



  








-- ~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

On 4/20/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

but the full thing is distributed from Veoh's servers/network and the creator does not receive any statistics for that.Trust me, I wasn't defending them Josh.  This is a good point, one that doesn't get brought up. 
-josh
On 4/20/06, Devlon
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 4/20/06, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

they transcode the mp4, mov, wmv to a flash file that is not even complete, it is a derivative work because they cut off bits...You are able to watch the full thing if you sign-up and download their player.  Not cool, but you are able to see the full thing after jumping through their hoops.

On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Veoh allows distribution through it's P2P network but, apart from that,
what transcoding was involved? It's the original file that gets cached and distro'd.Apple provides no linkback facility in iTunes, which has also built in transcodingfor transfer of vids to the (very commercial) iPod.
joly>On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including
>DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed>specifically for them to verify my ownership.>>iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.

>>>The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute.
>>-Verdi- WWWhatsup NYC

http://pinstand.com
 - http://punkcast.com---

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/
-- Josh Leowww.JoshLeo.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

.

-- ~Devlon

http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com

http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

.

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- ~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Stephanie Bryant




Which means Veoh got membership sign-ups from people signing up to view
preview-only videos that shouldn't have been hacked up. Membership
sign-ups are a currency in the Internet. Using non-permitted works like
that = very not cool.

--StephanieOn 4/20/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On 4/20/06, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




they transcode the mp4, mov, wmv to a flash file that is not even complete, it is a derivative work because they cut off bits...You
are able to watch the full thing if you sign-up and download their
player.  Not cool, but you are able to see the full thing after
jumping through their hoops.
-- Stephanie Bryant[EMAIL PROTECTED]Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
http://www.mortaine.com/blogs





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Joshua Kinberg

but the full thing is distributed from Veoh's servers/network and the creator does not receive any statistics for that.-joshOn 4/20/06, Devlon
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 4/20/06, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

they transcode the mp4, mov, wmv to a flash file that is not even complete, it is a derivative work because they cut off bits...You are able to watch the full thing if you sign-up and download their player.  Not cool, but you are able to see the full thing after jumping through their hoops.

On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Veoh allows distribution through it's P2P network but, apart from that,
what transcoding was involved? It's the original file that gets cached and distro'd.Apple provides no linkback facility in iTunes, which has also built in transcodingfor transfer of vids to the (very commercial) iPod.
joly>On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including
>DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed>specifically for them to verify my ownership.>>iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.

>>>The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute.
>>-Verdi- WWWhatsup NYC

http://pinstand.com
 - http://punkcast.com---

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/
-- Josh Leowww.JoshLeo.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

.

-- ~Devlon
http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com

http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

On 4/20/06, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

they transcode the mp4, mov, wmv to a flash file that is not even complete, it is a derivative work because they cut off bits...You are able to watch the full thing if you sign-up and download their player.  Not cool, but you are able to see the full thing after jumping through their hoops.

On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Veoh allows distribution through it's P2P network but, apart from that,
what transcoding was involved? It's the original file that gets cached and distro'd.Apple provides no linkback facility in iTunes, which has also built in transcodingfor transfer of vids to the (very commercial) iPod.
joly>On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including
>DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed>specifically for them to verify my ownership.>>iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.

>>>The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute.
>>-Verdi- WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com
 - http://punkcast.com---
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/
-- Josh Leowww.JoshLeo.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- ~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Josh Leo




they transcode the mp4, mov, wmv to a flash file that is not even complete, it is a derivative work because they cut off bits...On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Veoh allows distribution through it's P2P network but, apart from that,
what transcoding was involved? It's the original file that gets cached and distro'd.Apple provides no linkback facility in iTunes, which has also built in transcodingfor transfer of vids to the (very commercial) iPod.
joly>On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including
>DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed>specifically for them to verify my ownership.>>iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.
>>>The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute.
>>-Verdi- WWWhatsup NYChttp://pinstand.com
 - http://punkcast.com---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/
-- Josh Leowww.JoshLeo.com





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Michael Verdi




On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Veoh allows distribution through it's P2P network but, apart from that,what transcoding was involved? It's the original file that gets cached and distro'd.Not sure where you've been for the last two weeks but, Veoh had sucked up a zillion RSS feeds and transcoded videos to flash. Then they were hosting them and displaying them on their site with no attribution and under thier own license.
Apple provides no linkback facility in iTunes, which has also built in transcoding
for transfer of vids to the (very commercial) iPod.Apple does many things wrong but they're certainly not doing what Veoh was doing. If you search for me on the iTunes music store you will see a link to my videoblog (it says "website" with a little arrow next to it). Also the transcoding happens on your own computer. Apple isn't serving up any of my videos.
It's a huge difference.-Verdi joly>On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including>DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed
>specifically for them to verify my ownership.>>iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.>>>The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute.
>>-Verdi- WWWhatsup NYChttp://pinstand.com
 - http://punkcast.com---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/
-- Me: http://michaelverdi.comR&D: http://evilvlog.comLearn to videoblog: 
http://freevlog.orgLearn to videoblog in person: http://node101.org


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company




Veoh.com is where you can see the transcoded flv previews.Btw, I like Veoh way more than crApple iTunes.  God forbid people speak out against precious Apple.At least people... humans... speak to us here from Veoh.  Christ, the CEO responded!
When has anyone from Apple contributed to the conversation of videoblogging?sullOn 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Veoh allows distribution through it's P2P network but, apart from that,
what transcoding was involved? It's the original file that gets cached and distro'd.Apple provides no linkback facility in iTunes, which has also built in transcodingfor transfer of vids to the (very commercial) iPod.
joly>On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including
>DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed>specifically for them to verify my ownership.>>iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.
>>>The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute.
>>-Verdi- WWWhatsup NYChttp://pinstand.com
 - http://punkcast.com---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/
-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread WWWhatsup

Veoh allows distribution through it's P2P network but, apart from that,
what transcoding was involved? It's the original file that gets cached and distro'd.

Apple provides no linkback facility in iTunes, which has also built in transcoding 
for transfer of vids to the (very commercial) iPod.

joly

>On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including
>DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed
>specifically for them to verify my ownership.
>
>iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like. 
>
>
>The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute. 
>
>-Verdi
>
> 

>
>--

---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--- 

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread Michael Verdi




On 4/20/06, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services includingDTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feedspecifically for them to verify my ownership.iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.
The difference was that Veoh was transcoding people's video and hosting them on their servers without any attribution and with a different license (all without permission). That's totally not cool. It's one thing to link to your stuff and another to copy and redisdtribute.
-Verdi -- Me: http://michaelverdi.comR&D: http://evilvlog.comLearn to videoblog: 
http://freevlog.orgLearn to videoblog in person: http://node101.org


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-20 Thread WWWhatsup

Well, I have submitted my feed to all nature of aggregating sites/services including
DTV, and Veoh is the only one ever to have me put code in my feed
specifically for them to verify my ownership. 

iTunes, as far as I know, still allows anyone to submit any feed they like.

joly

At 04:41 PM 4/19/2006, you wrote:
>http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/04/18/controversial_video_hosting_company_veoh_raises_125m.html
>
>"He said Veoh from the beginning had wanted to upload only content from RSS feeds which users had explicitly submitted to Veoh. He said Veoh had required publishers submitting feeds to insert a specific snippet of code verifying they were owners of the feed. However, he said Veoh's process was "bugged," and wasn't identifying which content was owned by the submitters and which wasn't. As a result, when outsiders submitted copyrighted content, Veoh ended up uploading it when it shouldn't have. He said he has since "nuked" all content that hasn't been adequately submitted."
>
>rewriting history so soon?
>
>-- 
>Anne Walk
>http://loadedpun.com 
>
>--

---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--- 

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[videoblogging] veoh article with "interesting" statements from the company

2006-04-19 Thread Anne Walk




http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/04/18/controversial_video_hosting_company_veoh_raises_125m.html
"He said Veoh from the beginning had wanted to upload only content from
RSS feeds which users had explicitly submitted to Veoh. He said Veoh
had required publishers submitting feeds to insert a specific snippet
of code verifying they were owners of the feed. However, he said Veoh's
process was "bugged," and wasn't identifying which content was owned by
the submitters and which wasn't. As a result, when outsiders submitted
copyrighted content, Veoh ended up uploading it when it shouldn't have.
He said he has since "nuked" all content that hasn't been adequately
submitted."rewriting history so soon?-- Anne Walkhttp://loadedpun.com





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[videoblogging] veoh

2006-04-18 Thread Peter Van Dijck

Veoh raises 12.5 million dollars.

http://gigaom.com/2006/04/17/veoh-raises-125-million/

Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com


 
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/

[videoblogging] Veoh upgrades and $12.5 Million Series B Financing

2006-04-17 Thread dmitry_veoh

Hope everyone is signing up for VloggerCon, as we are looking forward
to meeting everyone.

We have launched the upgrades to our RSS submission system. If you
would like your feed added to Veoh, please follow the steps below.

1.  After logging in, go to the Upload Tab
2.  Choose Publish via RSS 
3.  Put in the Title of your Video Blog, the RSS URL, Website URL for
linkback to your site, any tags associated with your Video Blog,
Choose some categories, and press Submit.
4.  You will get a snippet of code to place anywhere in your RSS feed
(this could be in the XML itself, or somewhere in the body (right into
a post)).  Once you place the snippet in, push the Verify button.  Our
system will check your feed, make sure that the snippet of code is in
there, and you are done.  We will continue to get the latest videos
that you post to your video blog, and make them available to Veoh viewers.

This solves the problem that we had in the past of Unclaimed Feeds, as
only feeds that have been verified will show up in the system.

Also, we are happy to announce the closing of our Series B Venture
Capital financing.  This financing will help us expand our feature
set, and provide a service that we believe will be instrumental in
helping video bloggers move to the next level of broadcasting.

Release is below 

TIME WARNER, MICHAEL EISNER AND
SPARK CAPITAL JOIN SHELTER CAPITAL TO COMPLETE $12.5 MILLION STRATEGIC
SERIES B INVESTMENT IN VEOH NETWORKS

Veoh's Global Independent Broadcasting System Poised to Lead  
Television Broadcasting Revolution

Michael Eisner Joins Board of Directors
 

(SAN DIEGO) April 18, 2006  Veoh Networks, Inc., innovative, new
independent Internet television broadcasting system, announced today
the completion of a major strategic financing round, raising $12.5
million in a Series B venture capital financing.  Additionally,
Michael Eisner, former chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company,
and Todd Dagres, managing partner of Spark Capital, will join the Veoh
Networks board of directors.  

New investors Spark Capital, Time Warner Inc. and Mr. Eisner's The
Tornante Company joined existing investor Shelter Capital Partners in
the financing.  In addition to Messrs. Eisner and Dagres, Art Bilger,
managing partner of Shelter Capital Partners and former vice-chairman
of Akamai, and Dmitry Shapiro, founder and CEO of Veoh Networks, serve
on the board of directors.

Veoh Networks delivers broadcast-quality entertainment and
informational content via the Internet, using unique distribution
technologies to allow for unlimited capacity for both long- and
short-form programming.  Veoh presents consumers with unprecedented
choice in video and television content, by enabling anyone  from the
largest studio to up-and-coming independents to aspiring enthusiasts 
to broadcast without constraints of cost, geography or capacity issues. 

"Cable and satellite fundamentally changed the way television was
distributed by creating the capacity for greater choice in
programming. Veoh revolutionizes television again by leveraging the
Internet to expand broadcast capacity to the point that every single
user, whether an individual or a media company, can create their own
`channel' and every `channel' can be supported by its own business
model," said Mr. Eisner.  "In the past, distributing television
programming required an enormous broadcast infrastructure.  Veoh
enables anyone with an Internet connection to distribute and receive
programming in the highest quality."

Rachel Lam, group managing director of Time Warner Investments, said:
"Video delivery over the Internet is not a new concept, but the
ability to deliver long-form, high definition programming and provide
interactivity and community is an important differentiator.   Veoh's
unique combination of technologies creates a strategic content
distribution platform as well as the opportunity to greatly enhance
the consumer's experience with Internet-delivered video.  We're
excited to be a part of that."

Veoh allows entertainment professionals and enthusiasts to distribute
broadcast quality video content, while also providing a web-based
catalogue, previews and community. Using Veoh, consumers harness the
distribution power of the internet, while still watching content in
full-screen quality on their PC, television or portable device,
including iPods and PSPs. 

"Spark sees Veoh becoming the 'industry standard' for the conflux of
media, entertainment and technology," said Todd Dagres, a managing
partner at Spark Capital.  "We believe Veoh will reinvent the way rich
media is distributed, consumed and monetized."

"The World Wide Web allowed anyone to distribute print information,
fundamentally changing the media industry through unprecedented choice
and new business models. Veoh's mission is to do the same for video
and television content," said Dmitry Shapiro, founder and CEO of Veoh
Networks.  "We are extremely excited that we have been able to attract
such a st

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

2006-04-10 Thread WWWhatsup

I'm pretty sure google already won some cases like this. It's image search
 'transcodes' images into thumbnails and hosts them on it's commercial site..
permitted.

Flash 'previews' to see if something is worth downloading is the only 
transcoding
that VEOH does. The actual files hosted for d/l are bit-identical to those 
originally
published, thus that is 'caching' - also permitted under several test cases I 
believe,
and as pointed out permissible non-deriv sharing as per CC.

It could be argued that the the actual vlog itself, including HTML format and 
comment section etc, is an interactive work in itself, and propagating a part 
of it such as
the podcast content and not the whole thing is derivative, perhaps.

IT does seem to me that these issues expose a different in outlook between 
those like me,
who are essentially vodcasters, looking to get our content, in my case 
promotional music
material, as far as possible, and those who use there vlogs as a kind of 
personal dialog.

One of the things I particularly like about the VEOH concept is that, via the 
P2P aspect,
it allows viewers to actually participate in the propagation process, not just 
be consumers.

Another nice 'transcoding' feature of the VEOH client  is that generates a 
local rss feed 
of all one's subs on one's own machine that can then be entered into iTunes, 
which can 
in turn be used as a viewer, or to transfer videos to an iPod.

joly

At 06:13 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote:
>"or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, " 
>sounds like transcoding to me.
>
>to my mind this does require permission.  It changes the nature of the media.  
>For example if I create an interactive quicktime movie, just  trancoding it to 
>flash will remove the interactive portions of the file ... a significant 
>change to The Work. 
>
>I guess this is why I had such issue with Veoh.  The transcoding.  To do that 
>in bulk off of feeds is hardly getting permission.
>
>Blip for example does things right.  Not only do they only transcode material 
>that is explicitly uploaded, they even let you (effectively) turn off that 
>feature. 
>
>
>
>--

---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--- 

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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:44:32 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think Fair Use overrides here.  In other words, even if that Creative
> Commons license does NOT allow derivative works, people can still  
> transcode
> it.  That Fair Use right is inalienable.  (I.e., you can't sign it away  
> in a
> contract.)
>
> So basically... from what I understand of it... transcoding is a
> derivation.  And "nd" Creative Commons licenses say you can't do it.   
> But it
> does NOT matter since Fair Use overrides and says you can.

Handful of things:

  * Fair Use is US-centric. It doesn't cover the rest of the world.
  * Fair Use is voodoo.

There are some guidelines regarding what is and is not Fair Use. Straight  
 from the handy-dandy wikipedia entry:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of  
a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the  
copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the  
copyrighted work.

Doing a transcoding is a video would hardly ever fall under Fair Use. You  
are making a copy of the complete work (big drawback, Fair Use covers  
citations mostly), sometimes you are doing it for profit (Fair Use favours  
educational and non-profit use). From the books I've read on US copyright  
law I highly doubt that doing systematic transcoding of videos would be  
covered by Fair Use.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:37:20 +0200, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

> On 4/10/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree with Devlon that a video transcode constitutes a  
>> derrivative
>> work (IANAL!!!). Just as a xerox of a photo is a "copy" not a  
>> derrivative
>> work... It's a bad copy, but still a copy. IMO.
>>
> This from the champion of interactive bloggy video? ;) If I have an
> interactive sprite track and someone transcodes that mov file to a flash
> file, all that interactivity is gone ... it's a significant change to the
> media isn't it?

First: I don't think I deserve the honour of being called champion of  
interactive bloggy video. :o)
Secondly: This is the problem is trying to be general in an area where  
there are no generalities. In the case you describe significant qualities  
of how the work works have changed. You have changed one form (an  
interactive video) to another form (a regular video). This is not  
identical to the types of transcoding I should have made clear I was  
talking about (changing regular video in one file format to regular video  
in another file format).

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:41:50 +0200, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I was interpretting the 'translation' part of the definition.  I  
> understood
> (incorrectly maybe) that a translation was a derivative.  Isn't  
> transcoding
> a translation?

Okay, I don't know about US law, but in Danish copyright law translation  
is a specific term that I don't think applies in this case. A translation  
is a derrivative, but a translation is about either natural language  
(translating a book from English to Danish) or translating from one  
artform to another (adapting a book for a movie). Changing a file format  
 from MOV to FLV would not qualify. IANAL.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?




Hello,I think Fair Use overrides here.  In other words, even if that Creative Commons license does NOT allow derivative works, people can still transcode it.  That Fair Use right is inalienable.  (I.e., you can't sign it away in a contract.)
So basically... from what I understand of it... transcoding is a derivation.  And "nd" Creative Commons licenses say you can't do it.  But it does NOT matter since Fair Use overrides and says you can.
See yaOn 4/10/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/10/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Thanks David.  Sounds like transcode = derivation?If so, I wonder if services that provide transcoding would require
explicit permission to transcode?>> "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and> other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,> art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the> Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
> constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for> the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a> musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in
> timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a> Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.[...]
-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.casupercanadian @ 
gmail.comdeveloper weblog: 
http://ChangeLog.ca/___
 Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

2006-04-10 Thread Anne Walk

hey fellas! how about starting a new thread for this discussion on transcoding? this one is getting unwieldy!On 4/10/06, Devlon <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 4/10/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:53:05 +0200, Michael Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to
> modify
> cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing
> media
> from that host? If a license can state whether or not it is allowed,
> then
> maybe that would streamline things?

I was tagged, but I'm not lawyer (just vocal). Charles has got it right.
This is already covered in the CC licenses. All CC licenses grant rights
to make copies and distribute those copies - it's the whole point. Then
there are the two limitations. The non-commercial clause limits who can
make the copies and no-derrivs limits derrivative works (straight copies
are still fine). So there's no reason to ammend the licenses.

I don't agree with Devlon that a video transcode constitutes a derrivative
work (IANAL!!!). Just as a xerox of a photo is a "copy" not a derrivative
work... It's a bad copy, but still a copy. IMO.I was interpretting the 'translation' part of the definition. I understood (incorrectly maybe) that a translation was a derivative. Isn't transcoding a translation?

--
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

-- ~Devlon
http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com

http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- Anne Walkhttp://loadedpun.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

On 4/10/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:53:05 +0200, Michael Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

--
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- ~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?




Hello,I think Fair Use overrides in this case.  In other words, it doesn't matter whaOn 4/10/06, Devlon <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On 4/10/06, David Meade <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Thanks David.  Sounds like transcode = derivation?If so, I wonder if services that provide transcoding would requireexplicit permission to transcode?>
> "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and> other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
> art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the> Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that> constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
> the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a> musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in> timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
> Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.>>> --> http://www.DavidMeade.com> feed:  http://www.DavidMeade.com/feed
  >  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS>>>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.>>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.>>  
>--~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.comhttp://8bitme.blogspot.com | 
http://devlonduthie.comYahoo! 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/-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.charles @ 
reptile.casupercanadian @ gmail.comdeveloper weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/___
 Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

2006-04-10 Thread David Meade




On 4/10/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't agree with Devlon that a video transcode constitutes a derrivativework (IANAL!!!). Just as a xerox of a photo is a "copy" not a derrivativework... It's a bad copy, but still a copy. IMO.
This from the champion of interactive bloggy video? ;) If I have an interactive sprite track and someone transcodes that mov file to a flash file, all that interactivity is gone ... it's a significant change to the media isn't it?
- Dave-- http://www.DavidMeade.comfeed:  http://www.DavidMeade.com/feed


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:53:05 +0200, Michael Sullivan  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to  
> modify
> cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing  
> media
> from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it is allowed,  
> then
> maybe that would streamline things?

I was tagged, but I'm not lawyer (just vocal). Charles has got it right.  
This is already covered in the CC licenses. All CC licenses grant rights  
to make copies and distribute those copies - it's the whole point. Then  
there are the two limitations. The non-commercial clause limits who can  
make the copies and no-derrivs limits derrivative works (straight copies  
are still fine). So there's no reason to ammend the licenses.

I don't agree with Devlon that a video transcode constitutes a derrivative  
work (IANAL!!!). Just as a xerox of a photo is a "copy" not a derrivative  
work... It's a bad copy, but still a copy. IMO.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

This is what I was curious about.  I am glad that they were thinking
forward and provided something like this.  I'd hate to see a good
company doing the right thing get bogged down by this.

Another feather in the cap for blip. (ok, I am putting my blip
cheerleader pom-poms down now)

On 4/10/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  "or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or
> adapted, " sounds like transcoding to me.
>
> to my mind this does require permission.  It changes the nature of the
> media.  For example if I create an interactive quicktime movie, just
> trancoding it to flash will remove the interactive portions of the file ...
> a significant change to The Work.
>
> I guess this is why I had such issue with Veoh.  The transcoding.  To do
> that in bulk off of feeds is hardly getting permission.
>
> Blip for example does things right.  Not only do they only transcode
> material that is explicitly uploaded, they even let you (effectively) turn
> off that feature.
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>  
>


--
~Devlon
http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com


 
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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

2006-04-10 Thread David Meade




"or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, " sounds like transcoding to me.to my mind this does require permission.  It changes the nature of the media.  For example if I create an interactive quicktime movie, just  trancoding it to flash will remove the interactive portions of the file ... a significant change to The Work.
I guess this is why I had such issue with Veoh.  The transcoding.  To do that in bulk off of feeds is hardly getting permission.Blip for example does things right.  Not only do they only transcode material that is explicitly uploaded, they even let you (effectively) turn off that feature.



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

On 4/10/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

Thanks David.  Sounds like transcode = derivation?

If so, I wonder if services that provide transcoding would require
explicit permission to transcode?

>
> "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
> other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
> art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
> Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
> constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
> the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a
> musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in
> timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
> Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
>
>
> --
> http://www.DavidMeade.com
> feed:  http://www.DavidMeade.com/feed
>
>
>
>  
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>  
>


--
~Devlon
http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com


 
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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

2006-04-10 Thread David Meade




On 4/10/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I can't right now, but I guess one could find out from the creative commons site what they define a derivation as.
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or
upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation,
musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture
version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation,
or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or
adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not
be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For
the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or
sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with
a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for
the purpose of this License.-- http://www.DavidMeade.comfeed:  http://www.DavidMeade.com/feed


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

I can't right now, but I guess one could find out from the creative commons site what they define a derivation as.On 4/10/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hello,That was my argument actually.  Regardless of what the Creative Commons licenses says you can NOT do  Or the fact that you have a copyright  That transcoding (even though it is still a derivative) is still fair use.  (
I.e., it is inalienable.)See yaOn 4/10/06, Devlon
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I would think a transcode (especially an ugly one) is a derivative, no?  I might be getting into semantics now, but...On 4/10/06, 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hello,This is my take on it.  (And sorry, I should probably just let Andreas respond) But isn't one of the things that the CC licenses is about is "re-distribution".  Specifically, that "re-distribution" is good.  And that "re-hosting" is just one way of accomplishing "re-distribution".
Now, there are Creative Commons licenses that prevent modifications.  But I'm pretty sure transcoding will (legally) fall under fair use regardless of what a Creative Commons license says.Other than not giving attribution (and possibly by having ads on their site), Veoh didn't do anything (else) wrong in terms of the videos licensed under a Creative Commons license.
See yaOn 4/10/06, Michael Sullivan

 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to modify cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing media from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it is allowed, then maybe that would streamline things?  
sullOn 4/8/06, 
Peter Van Dijck
 <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The point I am trying to make is: I want action, and removing all videos (not just feeds, videos) they gathered without opt-in would be a start.Peter

--http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Devlon <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> wrote:

What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.Acceptable response?  I am annoyed by Veoh's response already.  A better question would be 'what is an acceptable action'.  All I've heard is reposnse and not seen action.

I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want talk, I want action.

His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen him take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that tell us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now?  Doesn't sound like 'friendly actions'

Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
should be opt-in.

That would mean that:
1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".I agree 

For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."

I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of their actions.
I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they have a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact that out of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey wait, we can't do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members of this community that 'get it'...they know.
Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just compounding and really frustrating me.I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members here aside from Peter.

Comments?

Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> wrote:
>
> > Little green tickets of money are one way to be selfish. Being the
> > center of attention is another way to be selfish. There are incentives
> > for Slashdot and Digg, just as for any "commercial" entity.
> >
> > You're still not respecting the rights of creators. If someone rips off
> > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it matter if
> > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
>
> Legally, yes.

[...]-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc
.
charles @ 
reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com

developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___
 Make Television
http://maketelevision.com/

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Indiv

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

Hello,That was my argument actually.  Regardless of what the Creative Commons licenses says you can NOT do  Or the fact that you have a copyright  That transcoding (even though it is still a derivative) is still fair use.  (
I.e., it is inalienable.)See yaOn 4/10/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I would think a transcode (especially an ugly one) is a derivative, no?  I might be getting into semantics now, but...On 4/10/06, 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hello,This is my take on it.  (And sorry, I should probably just let Andreas respond) But isn't one of the things that the CC licenses is about is "re-distribution".  Specifically, that "re-distribution" is good.  And that "re-hosting" is just one way of accomplishing "re-distribution".
Now, there are Creative Commons licenses that prevent modifications.  But I'm pretty sure transcoding will (legally) fall under fair use regardless of what a Creative Commons license says.Other than not giving attribution (and possibly by having ads on their site), Veoh didn't do anything (else) wrong in terms of the videos licensed under a Creative Commons license.
See yaOn 4/10/06, Michael Sullivan
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to modify cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing media from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it is allowed, then maybe that would streamline things?  
sullOn 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck
 <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The point I am trying to make is: I want action, and removing all videos (not just feeds, videos) they gathered without opt-in would be a start.Peter

--http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Devlon <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.Acceptable response?  I am annoyed by Veoh's response already.  A better question would be 'what is an acceptable action'.  All I've heard is reposnse and not seen action.

I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want talk, I want action.

His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen him take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that tell us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now?  Doesn't sound like 'friendly actions'

Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
should be opt-in.

That would mean that:
1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".I agree 

For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of their actions.
I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they have a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact that out of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey wait, we can't do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members of this community that 'get it'...they know.
Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just compounding and really frustrating me.I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members here aside from Peter.

Comments?

Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Little green tickets of money are one way to be selfish. Being the
> > center of attention is another way to be selfish. There are incentives
> > for Slashdot and Digg, just as for any "commercial" entity.
> >
> > You're still not respecting the rights of creators. If someone rips off
> > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it matter if
> > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
>
> Legally, yes.
[...]-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/___
 Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscri

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

I would think a transcode (especially an ugly one) is a derivative, no? I might be getting into semantics now, but...On 4/10/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hello,This is my take on it. (And sorry, I should probably just let Andreas respond) But isn't one of the things that the CC licenses is about is "re-distribution". Specifically, that "re-distribution" is good. And that "re-hosting" is just one way of accomplishing "re-distribution".
Now, there are Creative Commons licenses that prevent modifications. But I'm pretty sure transcoding will (legally) fall under fair use regardless of what a Creative Commons license says.Other than not giving attribution (and possibly by having ads on their site), Veoh didn't do anything (else) wrong in terms of the videos licensed under a Creative Commons license.
See yaOn 4/10/06, Michael Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to modify cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing media from that host? If a license can state whether or not it is allowed, then maybe that would streamline things?
sullOn 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The point I am trying to make is: I want action, and removing all videos (not just feeds, videos) they gathered without opt-in would be a start.Peter

--http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Devlon <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.Acceptable response? I am annoyed by Veoh's response already. A better question would be 'what is an acceptable action'. All I've heard is reposnse and not seen action.

I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed. Once to Jarrod (a developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime. I don't want talk, I want action.

His words mean nothing without action. The only action I've seen him take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc. Does that tell us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now? Doesn't sound like 'friendly actions'

Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
should be opt-in.

That would mean that:
1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".I agree

For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."I judge companies by acitons as well. See above what I think of their actions.
I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they have a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact that out of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey wait, we can't do this, this is licence infringement' Some of them are members of this community that 'get it'...they know.
Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just compounding and really frustrating me.I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members here aside from Peter.

Comments?

Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Little green tickets of money are one way to be selfish. Being the
> > center of attention is another way to be selfish. There are incentives
> > for Slashdot and Digg, just as for any "commercial" entity.
> >
> > You're still not respecting the rights of creators. If someone rips off
> > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it matter if
> > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
>
> Legally, yes.
[...]
-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @
gmail.com
developer weblog:
http://ChangeLog.ca/___

Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- ~Devlonhttp://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videobl

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

I think this is already handled by the sharealike, by-attribution thing already isn't it?On 4/10/06, Michael Sullivan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to modify cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing media from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it is allowed, then maybe that would streamline things?  
sullOn 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The point I am trying to make is: I want action, and removing all videos (not just feeds, videos) they gathered without opt-in would be a start.Peter

--http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.Acceptable response?  I am annoyed by Veoh's response already.  A better question would be 'what is an acceptable action'.  All I've heard is reposnse and not seen action.

I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want talk, I want action.

His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen him take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that tell us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now?  Doesn't sound like 'friendly actions'

Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
should be opt-in.

That would mean that:
1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".I agree 

For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of their actions.
I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they have a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact that out of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey wait, we can't do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members of this community that 'get it'...they know.
Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just compounding and really frustrating me.I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members here aside from Peter.

Comments?

Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Little green tickets of money are one way to be selfish. Being the
> > center of attention is another way to be selfish. There are incentives
> > for Slashdot and Digg, just as for any "commercial" entity.
> >
> > You're still not respecting the rights of creators. If someone rips off
> > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it matter if
> > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
>
> Legally, yes.
>
> --
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "
videoblogging
" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
Yahoo! Terms of Service

.

-- ~Devlon

http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com

http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging
" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

.

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! G

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

2006-04-10 Thread Stephanie Bryant

On 4/10/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

My CC license says nothing about re-distribution.
Now, there are Creative Commons licenses that prevent
modifications. But I'm pretty sure transcoding will (legally)
fall under fair use regardless of what a Creative Commons license says.
My CC license prohibits derivs for commercial purposes. Veoh is a
commercial purpose. Ergo: no derivs for them. There are two things that
Veoh did to change these videos: changed their format and therefore the
quality of the video (very important part there), and excerpted them
for purposes of an unlicensed "sale" via the proprietary
download-our-viewe/become-a-member structure. It's fine to excerpt an
item for purpose of sale, but not if you don't have the right to sell
that item in the first place.
Other
than not giving attribution (and possibly by having ads on their site),
Veoh didn't do anything (else) wrong in terms of the videos licensed
under a Creative Commons license.

Well, see, that's the thing. You're talking as if everyone has the same
CC license, which they don't. Also, the presence of ads, the round of
funding they just completed, and their intent to make a profit make
Veoh a commercial entity. The lack of attribution is key as well-- I'm
already annoyed with all my photos being stolen and used without my
permission. Those are the reasons why it's not OK, in terms of MY
license, for them to do what they did.

--Stephanie
-- Stephanie Bryant[EMAIL PROTECTED]Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:http://www.mortaine.com/blogs

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

Hello,This is my take on it.  (And sorry, I should probably just let Andreas respond) But isn't one of the things that the CC licenses is about is "re-distribution".  Specifically, that "re-distribution" is good.  And that "re-hosting" is just one way of accomplishing "re-distribution".
Now, there are Creative Commons licenses that prevent modifications.  But I'm pretty sure transcoding will (legally) fall under fair use regardless of what a Creative Commons license says.Other than not giving attribution (and possibly by having ads on their site), Veoh didn't do anything (else) wrong in terms of the videos licensed under a Creative Commons license.
See yaOn 4/10/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to modify cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing media from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it is allowed, then maybe that would streamline things?  
sullOn 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The point I am trying to make is: I want action, and removing all videos (not just feeds, videos) they gathered without opt-in would be a start.Peter

--http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.Acceptable response?  I am annoyed by Veoh's response already.  A better question would be 'what is an acceptable action'.  All I've heard is reposnse and not seen action.

I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want talk, I want action.

His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen him take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that tell us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now?  Doesn't sound like 'friendly actions'

Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
should be opt-in.

That would mean that:
1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".I agree 

For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of their actions.
I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they have a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact that out of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey wait, we can't do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members of this community that 'get it'...they know.
Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just compounding and really frustrating me.I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members here aside from Peter.

Comments?

Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Little green tickets of money are one way to be selfish. Being the
> > center of attention is another way to be selfish. There are incentives
> > for Slashdot and Digg, just as for any "commercial" entity.
> >
> > You're still not respecting the rights of creators. If someone rips off
> > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it matter if
> > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
>
> Legally, yes.[...]
-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.casupercanadian @ 
gmail.comdeveloper weblog: 
http://ChangeLog.ca/___
 Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh transcoding feeds?

2006-04-10 Thread Michael Sullivan

I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to modify cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing media from that host?  If a license can state whether or not it is allowed, then maybe that would streamline things?  
sullOn 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The point I am trying to make is: I want action, and removing all videos (not just feeds, videos) they gathered without opt-in would be a start.Peter
--http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
comments here.Acceptable response?  I am annoyed by Veoh's response already.  A better question would be 'what is an acceptable action'.  All I've heard is reposnse and not seen action.

I've requested 3 times that they remove my feed.  Once to Jarrod (a developer there) and twice to Dmitry after he emailed me personallyasking to talk on the phone sometime.  I don't want talk, I want action.

His words mean nothing without action.  The only action I've seen him take is to disable the big feeds, like blip, ourmedia, etc.  Does that tell us that us little people don't matter enough for him to act now?  Doesn't sound like 'friendly actions'

Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
should be opt-in.

That would mean that:
1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".I agree 

For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."I judge companies by acitons as well.  See above what I think of their actions.
I agree with a lot of people saying that Veoh is a good site, they have a lot to offer...but, I really have a hard time swallowing the fact that out of everyone on the Veoh team, no one stood up and said...'hey wait, we can't do this, this is licence infringement'  Some of them are members of this community that 'get it'...they know.
Claiming ignorance now and not removing the offending feeds is just compounding and really frustrating me.I am surprised we haven't heard more from the founding members here aside from Peter.

Comments?

Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com

On 4/8/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:12:39 +0200, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Little green tickets of money are one way to be selfish. Being the
> > center of attention is another way to be selfish. There are incentives
> > for Slashdot and Digg, just as for any "commercial" entity.
> >
> > You're still not respecting the rights of creators. If someone rips off
> > your website, blog, search history, financial data, does it matter if
> > they get something other than little green tickets in return?
>
> Legally, yes.
>
> --
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging
" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

.

-- ~Devlon

http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com

http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

.

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh--how to resolve

2006-04-09 Thread Michael Sullivan

yes. so, everyone chill cut back on the multitude of threads about veoh, please.sullOn 4/9/06, Jay dedman <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for> comments here.> Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
> should be opt-in.>> That would mean that:> 1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.> 2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
> and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".>> For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge> companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."> Comments?I agree with Peter and everyone's comments on Veoh.Dmitry should remove all videos they have spidered, downloaded,
trancoded, and posted to their site. No one should have to ask forthis to happen because then the burden is on us to figure out whatneeds to be taken down.Since this hit on a fridayand Dmitry knows of the issuelets
see what they do as the work week begins. lets give them some time.As for Veoh sponsoring Vloggercon, we had been discussing this earlierin the week with them.obviously, we want to make sure they are supportive of the wishes of
the community before we allow them to put their name on the event.We do not want to be exclusionaryand hope that we can get allvideo companies to attend so we can talk to them directly. I wouldlove it if we had google video, youtube, etc at Vloggercon. as we've
been discussing off list, we need to make sure this doesnt happenagain. No one should be able to plead ignorance.Jay--Adventures in VideobloggingCell: 917 371 6790Yahoo! 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/
-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh--how to resolve

2006-04-09 Thread Anne Walk

that sounds like a very reasoned response, Jay.i look forward to seeing how this unfolds. if Veoh holds up to their statement that they will do what it takes to make things right and we agree that the right thing to do would be to remove all videos/feeds marked as "unclaimed feeds", then there is definite room for working with them - provided, of course, that the unclaimed stuff is removed post haste.
if, after that, anyone decides that they would like to sign up with Veoh and have their videos hosted there, they can re-enter their feeds/vids themselves. seems like the best way to make a clean start of it, in my opinion.
On 4/9/06, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for> comments here.> Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
> should be opt-in.>> That would mean that:> 1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.> 2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
> and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".>> For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge> companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."> Comments?I agree with Peter and everyone's comments on Veoh.Dmitry should remove all videos they have spidered, downloaded,
trancoded, and posted to their site. No one should have to ask forthis to happen because then the burden is on us to figure out whatneeds to be taken down.Since this hit on a fridayand Dmitry knows of the issuelets
see what they do as the work week begins. lets give them some time.As for Veoh sponsoring Vloggercon, we had been discussing this earlierin the week with them.obviously, we want to make sure they are supportive of the wishes of
the community before we allow them to put their name on the event.We do not want to be exclusionaryand hope that we can get allvideo companies to attend so we can talk to them directly. I wouldlove it if we had google video, youtube, etc at Vloggercon. as we've
been discussing off list, we need to make sure this doesnt happenagain. No one should be able to plead ignorance.Jay--Adventures in VideobloggingCell: 917 371 6790Yahoo! 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/
-- Anne Walkhttp://loadedpun.com

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[videoblogging] Veoh--how to resolve

2006-04-09 Thread Jay dedman

On 4/8/06, Peter Van Dijck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is an acceptable response from Veoh? I'm throwing this out for
> comments here.
> Here's one I personally could live with: this kind of "re-hosting"
> should be opt-in.
>
> That would mean that:
> 1) They remove ALL videos they've spidered and rehosted from their site.
> 2) They only keep the ones for feeds that the feed owners have claimed
> and where the feed owners have given permission for them to "re-host".
>
> For me, that makes sense. I don't think Veoh is "evil", I judge
> companies by their actions. And this action would tell me: "We
> understand why this was wrong, and we're fixing it for real."
> Comments?

I agree with Peter and everyone's comments on Veoh.
Dmitry should remove all videos they have spidered, downloaded,
trancoded, and posted to their site. No one should have to ask for
this to happen because then the burden is on us to figure out what
needs to be taken down.

Since this hit on a fridayand Dmitry knows of the issuelets
see what they do as the work week begins. lets give them some time.

As for Veoh sponsoring Vloggercon, we had been discussing this earlier
in the week with them.
obviously, we want to make sure they are supportive of the wishes of
the community before we allow them to put their name on the event.

We do not want to be exclusionaryand hope that we can get all
video companies to attend so we can talk to them directly. I would
love it if we had google video, youtube, etc at Vloggercon. as we've
been discussing off list, we need to make sure this doesnt happen
again. No one should be able to plead ignorance.

Jay

--
Adventures in Videoblogging

Cell: 917 371 6790

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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message




Hello David,The point you made about requests for the new (cached/re-hosted) object having nothing to do with requests for the original work is a very good point.  And one I don't think Veoh can argue away.  (I even made the same point somewhere in this huge collection of e-mail.)
But, I don't think that a mere fact that they are HOSTING the content will be able to hold them at fault.  A web cache (re)hosts content; and distributes that content.  The only difference (and this is the important point you made) is that a web cache distributes this content when users make a request directed towards our site.  So, with this one very important point, you could try to argue that Veoh is NOT acting as a web cache, and "case law" built up for web caches should NOT apply to them.
Also, what I was trying to say with the "no-cache" header is that by NOT using this you are telling others that it is OK to cache and (re)host your content.  I.e., by NOT using the "no-cache" header your are (legally) granting other permission to cache and re-distribute your content.  (There's legal precedence in Canada and the USA for this.)  And thus they are not violating your copyright in this case.
But again, the very good point of the distribution of the data for consumption by the users having nothing to do with requests on the origin of the content (or to distribute the cache) is another point that Veoh may not be able to get around.
See yaOn 4/9/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



But Charles they aren't caching.  Caching is keeping a copy of an object to make new requests for it faster. They are hosting derivative works.  The work was downloaded.  Transcoded to a new format.  And that completely new format is HOSTED (not cached) at a new location.
Requests for this new object have nothing to do with requests for the work the content producer has provided via his feed. There is not HTTP header for "don't break my copyright" ... that's implied as a requirement already.  The machine readable license information is included in the feed in most if not all cases, and it's simply being ignored.
On 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Hello Josh,The HTTP "no-cache" header does NOT just pertain to browser caching.  It's also used by transparent web caches, and other web caching systems.  Caching, on the web, takes place at all sorts of places and on all sorts of levels.  (You're ISP is very very likely doing alot of caching, and serving your cached data even though you don't know it.  And these web caches [are suppose to] pay attention to the HTTP "no-cache" header.)
Also, as I mentioning, I was NOT trying to address all the points you made.  Just one of them.  Just caching.  (I'm not trying to take anything away from any of you other points.  Just trying to contribute to the discussion.)
This issue of the HTTP "no-cache" header seems very relevant since this web caching (particularly with transparent caches) "downloads and redistributes" content.  And, over and over again, this has been held up as being legal in court.  And this applys to some of what people here (including you) are saying that Veoh did wrong.
(And I hope everyone reads this last paragraph, and doesn't just skip/ignore it and just respond to the othe stuff I wrote.)  I'm not trying to say what Veoh has done wasn't wrong.  I'm just thinking out loud.  If this goes to court, Veoh's lawyers are going to say all this.  So why wouldn't we bring up these points amoung ourselves too?!  And consider all this with as much information as we can?!
See yaOn 4/9/06, Joshua Kinberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:





Uh, dude, this is so far off the subject.I'm not talking about browser caching.I'm talking about downloading videos from one server to another and then redistributing them as your own. Different subject entirely and not one having to do with HTTP protocol.
-JoshOn 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:






Helo Josh,Just to address one very very specific thing that you said.  (And not trying to address everything you said.)The HTTP protocol has a way of tell things not to cache something.  HTTP has a "no-cache" header for this.
(Again I know people will probably very passionately NOT like what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyways just to present another point of view in all this) Many people will argue that the way you use the HTTP protocol constitutes a (legal) contract.  That if you do NOT use the "no-cache" HTTP header, that you have given others legal permission to cache it.
Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  Just trying to give everyone a perspetive on the technology side of things.  (One note though.  If you do specify the "no-cache" header, then your site will be ALOT slower.  Letting others cache things speeds things up alot more than you probably realize.  If anyone w

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

2006-04-09 Thread David Meade




But Charles they aren't caching.  Caching is keeping a copy of an object to make new requests for it faster. They are hosting derivative works.  The work was downloaded.  Transcoded to a new format.  And that completely new format is HOSTED (not cached) at a new location.
Requests for this new object have nothing to do with requests for the work the content producer has provided via his feed. There is not HTTP header for "don't break my copyright" ... that's implied as a requirement already.  The machine readable license information is included in the feed in most if not all cases, and it's simply being ignored.
On 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Hello Josh,The HTTP "no-cache" header does NOT just pertain to browser caching.  It's also used by transparent web caches, and other web caching systems.  Caching, on the web, takes place at all sorts of places and on all sorts of levels.  (You're ISP is very very likely doing alot of caching, and serving your cached data even though you don't know it.  And these web caches [are suppose to] pay attention to the HTTP "no-cache" header.)
Also, as I mentioning, I was NOT trying to address all the points you made.  Just one of them.  Just caching.  (I'm not trying to take anything away from any of you other points.  Just trying to contribute to the discussion.)
This issue of the HTTP "no-cache" header seems very relevant since this web caching (particularly with transparent caches) "downloads and redistributes" content.  And, over and over again, this has been held up as being legal in court.  And this applys to some of what people here (including you) are saying that Veoh did wrong.
(And I hope everyone reads this last paragraph, and doesn't just skip/ignore it and just respond to the othe stuff I wrote.)  I'm not trying to say what Veoh has done wasn't wrong.  I'm just thinking out loud.  If this goes to court, Veoh's lawyers are going to say all this.  So why wouldn't we bring up these points amoung ourselves too?!  And consider all this with as much information as we can?!
See yaOn 4/9/06, Joshua Kinberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Uh, dude, this is so far off the subject.I'm not talking about browser caching.I'm talking about downloading videos from one server to another and then redistributing them as your own. Different subject entirely and not one having to do with HTTP protocol.
-JoshOn 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:





Helo Josh,Just to address one very very specific thing that you said.  (And not trying to address everything you said.)The HTTP protocol has a way of tell things not to cache something.  HTTP has a "no-cache" header for this.
(Again I know people will probably very passionately NOT like what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyways just to present another point of view in all this) Many people will argue that the way you use the HTTP protocol constitutes a (legal) contract.  That if you do NOT use the "no-cache" HTTP header, that you have given others legal permission to cache it.
Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  Just trying to give everyone a perspetive on the technology side of things.  (One note though.  If you do specify the "no-cache" header, then your site will be ALOT slower.  Letting others cache things speeds things up alot more than you probably realize.  If anyone wants an explaination of how this works, let me know, and I'll provide it.)
Also, just to say it again, I am only trying to address one very specific point that you made Josh -- the point about caching.Another point I say this knowing that I'll probably get flamed for it, but I think it's important to not to ignore points and try to silence them just because we don't like hearing them  (After all, if this would go to court, anyone else with a bit of knowledge of Internet Technology and Law will probably tell you this)  Veoh could argue that part of what they are doing is acting like a web cache.  And since Web Caching has held up in court, as being legal over and over again, that their caching of video is also legal.  (Of course, this assumes that their software has been properly coded to act as a web cache.)
See yaOn 4/9/06, Joshua Kinberg <


[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think copyright is only one part of the problem here. The biggerproblem in my eyes is that by Veoh caching and rehosting videoswithout permission they are making it seem as though all thesevloggers are members of the Veoh community, agreeing to Veoh's terms
of service, when this is not the case. This is deceitful practice.Its not just about link backs or adhereing to CC licenses (though thatis part of the problem). Its also about my right as a user to decide

whether or not I'd like to participate in an web community or not.Veoh cannot make this decision for me and then tell me I have theopp

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

Hello Josh,The HTTP "no-cache" header does NOT just pertain to browser caching.  It's also used by transparent web caches, and other web caching systems.  Caching, on the web, takes place at all sorts of places and on all sorts of levels.  (You're ISP is very very likely doing alot of caching, and serving your cached data even though you don't know it.  And these web caches [are suppose to] pay attention to the HTTP "no-cache" header.)
Also, as I mentioning, I was NOT trying to address all the points you made.  Just one of them.  Just caching.  (I'm not trying to take anything away from any of you other points.  Just trying to contribute to the discussion.)
This issue of the HTTP "no-cache" header seems very relevant since this web caching (particularly with transparent caches) "downloads and redistributes" content.  And, over and over again, this has been held up as being legal in court.  And this applys to some of what people here (including you) are saying that Veoh did wrong.
(And I hope everyone reads this last paragraph, and doesn't just skip/ignore it and just respond to the othe stuff I wrote.)  I'm not trying to say what Veoh has done wasn't wrong.  I'm just thinking out loud.  If this goes to court, Veoh's lawyers are going to say all this.  So why wouldn't we bring up these points amoung ourselves too?!  And consider all this with as much information as we can?!
See yaOn 4/9/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Uh, dude, this is so far off the subject.I'm not talking about browser caching.I'm talking about downloading videos from one server to another and then redistributing them as your own. Different subject entirely and not one having to do with HTTP protocol.
-JoshOn 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Helo Josh,Just to address one very very specific thing that you said.  (And not trying to address everything you said.)The HTTP protocol has a way of tell things not to cache something.  HTTP has a "no-cache" header for this.
(Again I know people will probably very passionately NOT like what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyways just to present another point of view in all this) Many people will argue that the way you use the HTTP protocol constitutes a (legal) contract.  That if you do NOT use the "no-cache" HTTP header, that you have given others legal permission to cache it.
Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  Just trying to give everyone a perspetive on the technology side of things.  (One note though.  If you do specify the "no-cache" header, then your site will be ALOT slower.  Letting others cache things speeds things up alot more than you probably realize.  If anyone wants an explaination of how this works, let me know, and I'll provide it.)
Also, just to say it again, I am only trying to address one very specific point that you made Josh -- the point about caching.Another point I say this knowing that I'll probably get flamed for it, but I think it's important to not to ignore points and try to silence them just because we don't like hearing them  (After all, if this would go to court, anyone else with a bit of knowledge of Internet Technology and Law will probably tell you this)  Veoh could argue that part of what they are doing is acting like a web cache.  And since Web Caching has held up in court, as being legal over and over again, that their caching of video is also legal.  (Of course, this assumes that their software has been properly coded to act as a web cache.)
See yaOn 4/9/06, Joshua Kinberg <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think copyright is only one part of the problem here. The biggerproblem in my eyes is that by Veoh caching and rehosting videoswithout permission they are making it seem as though all thesevloggers are members of the Veoh community, agreeing to Veoh's terms
of service, when this is not the case. This is deceitful practice.Its not just about link backs or adhereing to CC licenses (though thatis part of the problem). Its also about my right as a user to decide

whether or not I'd like to participate in an web community or not.Veoh cannot make this decision for me and then tell me I have theopportunity to "opt out" when in fact I never chose to "opt in."
-JoshOn 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>  Hello,
>> I've been following the various threads on this.  And my take on it is
> this>> The big issue here revolves around Copyright, Copyright Infringement, the> Creative Commons, Fair Use and reform of Copyright law.>>> The arguing has come close to turning into a "flame war".  (I know some will
> say that it has already gotten there.)>> Many people are (quite passionately) asserting that Veoh is committing> Copyright Infringement.  And want Veoh punished.  Although some just want

> Veoh to just remove their video.
>> Some people (that are lic

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

Hello Stephanie,Like I said in my original post, that you replied to, I was ONLY talking caching. Just caching and nothing else.I was NOT trying to address any of that other stuff that you said. And I was NOT trying to say that the only thing they did was caching.
Sorry for the confusion.See yaOn 4/9/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Another
point I say this knowing that I'll probably get flamed for it, but
I think it's important to not to ignore points and try to silence them
just because we don't like hearing them (After all, if this
would go to court, anyone else with a bit of knowledge of Internet
Technology and Law will probably tell you this) Veoh could
argue that part of what they are doing is acting like a web
cache. And since Web Caching has held up in court, as being legal
over and over again, that their caching of video is also legal.
(Of course, this assumes that their software has been properly coded to
act as a web cache.)

That's not what they're doing, though.

They take videos in common file formats and convert them to another
file format (proprietary? Flash?), reposting an excerpt of the video in
flash, even if the original was not in Flash.

The quality of the video changes as a result of this re-encoding. That
makes this not the original work being cached, but the original work
being changed in two ways:
* Encoded to a different file format, with possible size change and/or quality change
* Excerpted for viewing on Veoh before downloading Veoh's
proprietary viewer and joining their community (the community which,
presumably, has helped them get funding).

The excerpting might be considered "fair use," if not for the fact that
it's being used as a tool to "sell" the complete, derived/changed work
without permission (I'm not really sure if the fact that these sales
are for the Internet currency of ad views matters in a court of law,
but I'm guessing that it does). It's fair use to excerpt a work, and
it's fair use to excerpt for purposes of sale, but only if you have
permission to sell that work.

Changes like this are not "caching." They are "changing." Huge
difference. Also, web caches keep the complete original web page and
information: Veoh does not appear to be keeping important things like
the creator's NAME and WEBSITE information on these works.

While I think it's important that we all get upset about this-- after
all, if we're angry about this, then we should understand better why
other creators and license holders get angry over unwarranted use of
their works. However, please remember that, if you posted a clip from
CBS on your site, you would expect to FIRST receive a "Cease and
Desist" letter from CBS. Veoh seems willing to comply with such
requests from us. Once you have sent them such a letter, for them to
continue to display your site would be problematic.

The timing of Veoh's round of funding, coinciding with these 1600 or so
feeds appearing in their directory, is disturbing, because it does
imply some kind of monetary gain from the infringement, and it's not
terribly believable (to me, anyway) that 1600 RSS feeds were manually
entered by anyone, which gives the impression that Veoh has something more automated to do this. Auto-add, manual-remove?

But what's even more disturbing, which was touched on earlier but
hasn't really been discussed, is that this is not the first time that
Veoh has had to massively apologize for poor business practices here.
In August, "someone" scraped all the email addresses from the
Videoblogging list and used them to send out Veoh spam. Dmitry was
shocked and uninformed that the database had been used this way. This
makes me wonder if Dmitry is really this clueless about what his people
are doing, or if he's maintaining "plausible deniability" when it comes
to his marketing team. Whatever the case, there is definitely someone
in his company that does not understand ethics. That person, no matter
how effective they are, needs to be reigned in.

At that time, Veoh rectified the situation by wiping their database and
starting over. Since they were able to do it then, I think that's why
people are calling for them to do so now.

By the way, the mirroring of this Yahoo! group onto google groups has
basically compromised every email address of everyone participating
here, which is why I kind of wish the decision to mirror had actually
been discussed prior to implementation. I originally subscribed here
with an email address that i knew was spam-free. Since the mirroring
began, I've started receiving hundreds of spams a day, and a google
search shows that google groups is the only place where this email
address appears unmangled on the Internet.

--Stephanie--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.charles @
reptile.casupercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message




Hello Andreas,On 4/9/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:40:49 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> The HTTP "no-cache" header has gained a legal context also.  I remember
> reading about multiple court cases where this was perpetuated; both in> Canadian and USA court.  (I don't have any links, but I'm pretty sure I> read> this, via various court cases, from the EFF website.  So if I or someone
> else did enough digging, the exact court cases could be found.)Sounds like it's not something that will apply in this case. People arenot running their own webservers and a hosting provider like 
Blip.tvcannot enter a legal agreement through HTTP headers with Veoh. Only theowner of the content can enter a legal agreement.That's a good point.But (assuming that Veoh coded their systems to act as a web cache) Veoh could argue that they acted in good faith when obeying the "no-cache" header.  And even though 
Blip.tv was not in a position to give that kind of permission, Veoh very likely will not be held liable for this one point (of the many point that Josh originally listed) because of that.
Again, let me say that I'm not trying to take sides here.  I'm just
thinking out loud because, if this goes to court, that this is all going to be said by anyone with knowledge of Internet Technology and Law.And again, there's still other points that they might be able to be held liable for.  But even though IANAL, IMO I don't think caching will hold up.
Although I'm thinking that the transcoding might not hold up either.  Text transcoding is a widespread practice already.  (Although I do NOT remember reading about any court cases on it.  So I'm not sure of the legal stance in Canada or the USA on this.)  The touchy part is that they are NOT keeping the original URL though.  AFAIK, Text transcoders keep the original URL but "morph" the HTTP response by transcoding the "body" of the HTTP response and changing or adding HTTP headers for the HTTP response.
See ya-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, 
B.Sc.charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___ Make Television
http://maketelevision.com/



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

2006-04-09 Thread Joshua Kinberg

Uh, dude, this is so far off the subject.I'm not talking about browser caching.I'm talking about downloading videos from one server to another and then redistributing them as your own. Different subject entirely and not one having to do with HTTP protocol.
-JoshOn 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Helo Josh,Just to address one very very specific thing that you said.  (And not trying to address everything you said.)The HTTP protocol has a way of tell things not to cache something.  HTTP has a "no-cache" header for this.
(Again I know people will probably very passionately NOT like what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyways just to present another point of view in all this) Many people will argue that the way you use the HTTP protocol constitutes a (legal) contract.  That if you do NOT use the "no-cache" HTTP header, that you have given others legal permission to cache it.
Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  Just trying to give everyone a perspetive on the technology side of things.  (One note though.  If you do specify the "no-cache" header, then your site will be ALOT slower.  Letting others cache things speeds things up alot more than you probably realize.  If anyone wants an explaination of how this works, let me know, and I'll provide it.)
Also, just to say it again, I am only trying to address one very specific point that you made Josh -- the point about caching.Another point I say this knowing that I'll probably get flamed for it, but I think it's important to not to ignore points and try to silence them just because we don't like hearing them  (After all, if this would go to court, anyone else with a bit of knowledge of Internet Technology and Law will probably tell you this)  Veoh could argue that part of what they are doing is acting like a web cache.  And since Web Caching has held up in court, as being legal over and over again, that their caching of video is also legal.  (Of course, this assumes that their software has been properly coded to act as a web cache.)
See yaOn 4/9/06, Joshua Kinberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think copyright is only one part of the problem here. The biggerproblem in my eyes is that by Veoh caching and rehosting videoswithout permission they are making it seem as though all thesevloggers are members of the Veoh community, agreeing to Veoh's terms
of service, when this is not the case. This is deceitful practice.Its not just about link backs or adhereing to CC licenses (though thatis part of the problem). Its also about my right as a user to decide

whether or not I'd like to participate in an web community or not.Veoh cannot make this decision for me and then tell me I have theopportunity to "opt out" when in fact I never chose to "opt in."
-JoshOn 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>  Hello,
>> I've been following the various threads on this.  And my take on it is
> this>> The big issue here revolves around Copyright, Copyright Infringement, the> Creative Commons, Fair Use and reform of Copyright law.>>> The arguing has come close to turning into a "flame war".  (I know some will
> say that it has already gotten there.)>> Many people are (quite passionately) asserting that Veoh is committing> Copyright Infringement.  And want Veoh punished.  Although some just want
> Veoh to just remove their video.
>> Some people (that are licensing their work under a Creative Commons license)> are asserting that Veoh is violating Creative Commons licenses, and that> they need to do certain thing to adhere to these licenses.
>>  And some are saying that, given that we want changes and reform in> Copyright law, that we should NOT be so harsh with Veoh.  That changes in> Copyright law will require Social Change.  And that often, to effect Social
> Change good people must choose to disobey the law.>> (I know I've probably missed some stuff.  But this is my take on it, from> what I've absorbed from trying to keep up with the flurry of messages.  If
> anyone wants to chime in to add anything, feel free.)>>>  See ya On 4/8/06, Monique Danielle <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> >> >> > Please forgive me, but I haven't followed this thread, and I'm too lazy to> reread everything.> >> > Is anyone willing to summarize why the emails and emotions are flying
> here? If veoh charging folks to view others videos? I'm just curious about> the core problem here.
-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ 
gmail.com
developer weblog: 
http://ChangeLog.ca/___

 Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individua

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

2006-04-09 Thread Stephanie Bryant

On 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

That's not what they're doing, though.

They take videos in common file formats and convert them to another
file format (proprietary? Flash?), reposting an excerpt of the video in
flash, even if the original was not in Flash.

At that time, Veoh rectified the situation by wiping their database and
starting over. Since they were able to do it then, I think that's why
people are calling for them to do so now.

--Stephanie
-- Stephanie Bryant[EMAIL PROTECTED]Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at:
http://www.mortaine.com/blogs

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

2006-04-09 Thread Andreas Haugstrup

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:40:49 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The HTTP "no-cache" header has gained a legal context also.  I remember
> reading about multiple court cases where this was perpetuated; both in
> Canadian and USA court.  (I don't have any links, but I'm pretty sure I  
> read
> this, via various court cases, from the EFF website.  So if I or someone
> else did enough digging, the exact court cases could be found.)

Sounds like it's not something that will apply in this case. People are  
not running their own webservers and a hosting provider like Blip.tv  
cannot enter a legal agreement through HTTP headers with Veoh. Only the  
owner of the content can enter a legal agreement.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message




Hello,On 4/9/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:23:15 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP
> "no-cache"> header or not.  And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP> "no-cache"> header or not.  Just trying to give everyone a perspetive on the> technology
> side of things.  (One note though.  If you do specify the "no-cache"> header,> then your site will be ALOT slower.  Letting others cache things speeds> things up alot more than you probably realize.  If anyone wants an
> explaination of how this works, let me know, and I'll provide it.)HTTP cacheing is storing with the intent of optimizing subsequent requeststo the same resource. It doesn't apply in this case.
The HTTP "no-cache" header has gained a legal context also.  I remember reading about multiple court cases where this was perpetuated; both in Canadian and USA court.  (I don't have any links, but I'm pretty sure I read this, via various court cases, from the EFF website.  So if I or someone else did enough digging, the exact court cases could be found.)
See ya-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, 
B.Sc.charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___ Make Television
http://maketelevision.com/






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

2006-04-09 Thread Andreas Haugstrup

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:23:15 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP  
> "no-cache"
> header or not.  And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP  
> "no-cache"
> header or not.  Just trying to give everyone a perspetive on the  
> technology
> side of things.  (One note though.  If you do specify the "no-cache"  
> header,
> then your site will be ALOT slower.  Letting others cache things speeds
> things up alot more than you probably realize.  If anyone wants an
> explaination of how this works, let me know, and I'll provide it.)

HTTP cacheing is storing with the intent of optimizing subsequent requests  
to the same resource. It doesn't apply in this case.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

2006-04-09 Thread robert a/k/a r

I just noticed Om has posted on his blog, the last link is to another of his posts ("Its A Splog Planet") which is an interesting read on the situation.





On Apr 9, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:

Veoh could argue that part of what they are doing is acting like a web cache.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message




Helo Josh,Just to address one very very specific thing that you said.  (And not trying to address everything you said.)The HTTP protocol has a way of tell things not to cache something.  HTTP has a "no-cache" header for this.
(Again I know people will probably very passionately NOT like what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyways just to present another point of view in all this) Many people will argue that the way you use the HTTP protocol constitutes a (legal) contract.  That if you do NOT use the "no-cache" HTTP header, that you have given others legal permission to cache it.
Now please note that I do NOT know if any vlogger is using HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  And I do NOT how if Veoh is respecting the HTTP "no-cache" header or not.  Just trying to give everyone a perspetive on the technology side of things.  (One note though.  If you do specify the "no-cache" header, then your site will be ALOT slower.  Letting others cache things speeds things up alot more than you probably realize.  If anyone wants an explaination of how this works, let me know, and I'll provide it.)
Also, just to say it again, I am only trying to address one very specific point that you made Josh -- the point about caching.Another point I say this knowing that I'll probably get flamed for it, but I think it's important to not to ignore points and try to silence them just because we don't like hearing them  (After all, if this would go to court, anyone else with a bit of knowledge of Internet Technology and Law will probably tell you this)  Veoh could argue that part of what they are doing is acting like a web cache.  And since Web Caching has held up in court, as being legal over and over again, that their caching of video is also legal.  (Of course, this assumes that their software has been properly coded to act as a web cache.)
See yaOn 4/9/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think copyright is only one part of the problem here. The biggerproblem in my eyes is that by Veoh caching and rehosting videoswithout permission they are making it seem as though all thesevloggers are members of the Veoh community, agreeing to Veoh's terms
of service, when this is not the case. This is deceitful practice.Its not just about link backs or adhereing to CC licenses (though thatis part of the problem). Its also about my right as a user to decide
whether or not I'd like to participate in an web community or not.Veoh cannot make this decision for me and then tell me I have theopportunity to "opt out" when in fact I never chose to "opt in."
-JoshOn 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>  Hello,>> I've been following the various threads on this.  And my take on it is
> this>> The big issue here revolves around Copyright, Copyright Infringement, the> Creative Commons, Fair Use and reform of Copyright law.>>> The arguing has come close to turning into a "flame war".  (I know some will
> say that it has already gotten there.)>> Many people are (quite passionately) asserting that Veoh is committing> Copyright Infringement.  And want Veoh punished.  Although some just want> Veoh to just remove their video.
>> Some people (that are licensing their work under a Creative Commons license)> are asserting that Veoh is violating Creative Commons licenses, and that> they need to do certain thing to adhere to these licenses.
>>  And some are saying that, given that we want changes and reform in> Copyright law, that we should NOT be so harsh with Veoh.  That changes in> Copyright law will require Social Change.  And that often, to effect Social
> Change good people must choose to disobey the law.>> (I know I've probably missed some stuff.  But this is my take on it, from> what I've absorbed from trying to keep up with the flurry of messages.  If
> anyone wants to chime in to add anything, feel free.)>>>  See ya On 4/8/06, Monique Danielle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> >> >> > Please forgive me, but I haven't followed this thread, and I'm too lazy to> reread everything.> >> > Is anyone willing to summarize why the emails and emotions are flying
> here? If veoh charging folks to view others videos? I'm just curious about> the core problem here.-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.casupercanadian @ 
gmail.comdeveloper weblog: 
http://ChangeLog.ca/___
 Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message

2006-04-09 Thread Joshua Kinberg

I think copyright is only one part of the problem here. The bigger
problem in my eyes is that by Veoh caching and rehosting videos
without permission they are making it seem as though all these
vloggers are members of the Veoh community, agreeing to Veoh's terms
of service, when this is not the case. This is deceitful practice.

Its not just about link backs or adhereing to CC licenses (though that
is part of the problem). Its also about my right as a user to decide
whether or not I'd like to participate in an web community or not.
Veoh cannot make this decision for me and then tell me I have the
opportunity to "opt out" when in fact I never chose to "opt in."

-Josh


On 4/9/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Hello,
>
> I've been following the various threads on this.  And my take on it is
> this
>
> The big issue here revolves around Copyright, Copyright Infringement, the
> Creative Commons, Fair Use and reform of Copyright law.
>
>
> The arguing has come close to turning into a "flame war".  (I know some will
> say that it has already gotten there.)
>
> Many people are (quite passionately) asserting that Veoh is committing
> Copyright Infringement.  And want Veoh punished.  Although some just want
> Veoh to just remove their video.
>
> Some people (that are licensing their work under a Creative Commons license)
> are asserting that Veoh is violating Creative Commons licenses, and that
> they need to do certain thing to adhere to these licenses.
>
>  And some are saying that, given that we want changes and reform in
> Copyright law, that we should NOT be so harsh with Veoh.  That changes in
> Copyright law will require Social Change.  And that often, to effect Social
> Change good people must choose to disobey the law.
>
> (I know I've probably missed some stuff.  But this is my take on it, from
> what I've absorbed from trying to keep up with the flurry of messages.  If
> anyone wants to chime in to add anything, feel free.)
>
>
>  See ya
>
>
>
> On 4/8/06, Monique Danielle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Please forgive me, but I haven't followed this thread, and I'm too lazy to
> reread everything.
> >
> > Is anyone willing to summarize why the emails and emotions are flying
> here? If veoh charging folks to view others videos? I'm just curious about
> the core problem here.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Monique Danielle
> > http://www.vlogchallenge.com  - This Week's Challenge: Danger
> > http://www.vlogdiva.com  - This Weeks Video: Networking Tip
> >
>
>
>
> --
>  Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
>
>  charles @ reptile.ca
> supercanadian @ gmail.com
>
> developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
> ___
>   Make Television
> http://maketelevision.com/
>
>
>  
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>  
>


 
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/

Re: [videoblogging] Veoh ** Simple message