Peter
On 4/8/06, Anne Walk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
to me, Veoh is different from YouTube in this way:
YouTube allows users to upload video. Users upload video that may or may not conform to copyright. YouTube either chooses not to monitor for copyright infringement or cannot do so.
Veoh is the same in this regard. The difference lies in the spidering. As well as a community site where users can upload content, Veoh also spiders other video hosting sites as well as individual vlog sites and inputs their content into their "community". Veoh is directly involved in the copyright infringement. That is the difference and that difference is huge.On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Yea, so I was just simply making the point that Veoh just did what
YouTube did. So what single out Veoh for this reason?
On the other reasons for singeing them out, I know I have asked them
to remove our feed before but its there again.
So I just asked them to remove all Rocketboom videos, lets see how
long it takes or if they do.
On Apr 8, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
>> So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips?
>
> Because SNL's content is owned by a corporate entity who is in the
> business of licensing that content to other people in exchange for
> money. Whenever you see SNL on TV anywhere, you can be sure that
> someone is getting paid for that broadcast.
>
> This would be like CBS recording the broadcast of SNL on NBC one
> night, and then showing it the next day on a 24 hour loop on their own
> network and telling NBC they are doing them a favor by bringing more
> attention to their content -- for free!
>
> And to be clear, the SNL example was a reference to YouTube and the
> major traffic spike they got from the SNL "Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of
> Narnia)" clip.
>
> -Josh
>
>
> On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
>>>> about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
>>>> because of them?
>>>
>>> Um, yes, I think that argument can be made, especially for sites
>>> hosting content that is normally syndicated, such as SNL clips.
>>>
>>
>> So how did SNL lose out when Veoh hosted their clips? Because people
>> could not get back to the SNL website? Yea, its lame and this is why
>> Veoh doesn't have a chance in the long run - it ultimately takes
>> shitty people to make a shitty business. Yet, this supported the fair
>> use potential and supported change, especially because Veoh was
>> likely just a drop in the bucket for where people otherwise illegally
>> got that video.
>>
>>
>>> But furthermore, I think its about a user agreeing to the terms of
>>> service and opting in to participate. Veoh does not allow you to opt
>>> in by choice. They take your content to seed their community and in
>>> fact give you no real recourse to opt out. Any web service or
>>> community like that should require you first to opt in to be a
>>> participant. A user should always have the right to not
>>> participate if
>>> they do not wish to do so, and Veoh takes that choice away from
>>> content creators.
>>>
>>
>> Yea, that really is pretty shitty.
>>
>>
>>> -Josh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/8/06, andrew michael baron < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> This is a strange argument and my feelings on copyrights are still
>>>> developing but have changed alot over the last year while watching
>>>> everything that is going on.
>>>>
>>>> Remember when iFilm was the biggest video website on the net? Not
>>>> only did they hold as much copyrighted material as they could, they
>>>> were the ones that populated it. iFilm even designed their activity
>>>> to anticipate content and would create searchable landing pages for
>>>> the copyrighted material before it was even released.
>>>>
>>>> iFilm was bought by MTV last year and to my astonishment, I just
>>>> found out the other day that iFilm was never once sued. No, they
>>>> were
>>>> rewarded for being pirates by stealing and hosting all of the
>>>> content
>>>> where they had the most invasive and likely profitable
>>>> advertisements
>>>> blasted everywhere on the site, on the way to the videos, in
>>>> front of
>>>> the videos, at the end, it was amazing - people would tolerate it
>>>> because they had no choice.
>>>>
>>>> Now look at YouTube. Even if they dont populate the videos
>>>> themselves, they gladly host them and now that they have
>>>> disregarded
>>>> copyright laws, they have been rewarded with an 8 million dollar VC
>>>> round in anticipation of flipping the company in a sell-out for
>>>> whats
>>>> likely worth over 100million.
>>>>
>>>> The fury of this thread has to do with smaller sites who perhaps
>>>> aspire to become the YouTube and iFilm of the net and its not
>>>> unreasonable to think they would do the same kind of activity.
>>>> After
>>>> all, look at the rewards, it seems to be working and it seems to be
>>>> what people want.
>>>>
>>>> Now take Ourmedia, who does not condone copyrighted material on the
>>>> site. I was just speaking with J.D. the other day about this. The
>>>> kind of intent and the emphasis on community should be catching
>>>> more
>>>> fire in the midst of all these mega-video sites.
>>>>
>>>> So, everything I have mentioned so far is standard procedure and
>>>> normal, and not that unexpected. But what I find really twisted is
>>>> that a lot of us are calling for a change in copyright law - we are
>>>> supporting a mash-up culture, we question the need to pay music
>>>> royalties on coincidental background music, we are inspired by and
>>>> want to see change in the way content has been so controlled and
>>>> delivered. So its like everyone is trying to put out the fire
>>>> that is
>>>> the spark most likely to bring change.
>>>>
>>>> So why all the kicking and screaming? If iFilm has never been sued,
>>>> YouTube gets millions for hosting any video anyone puts there and
>>>> even Google allows it and supports it, most of the content creators
>>>> are looking the other way because its promotion for them and no
>>>> bandwidth cost, lets take the opportunity perhaps to rejoice and be
>>>> more free.
>>>>
>>>> Before the lobby money rolls into Washington behind the traditional
>>>> content gatekeepers, it's going to be common law by then. If I ever
>>>> get stopped for J-walking on 42nd street when there is no
>>>> traffic, I
>>>> feel quite sure I can show that I was singled out unfairly.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the Beatles for example. They have taken it upon themselves
>>>> to enforce their own music use. We all know that we can't use
>>>> Beatles
>>>> music, they dont want us to, they will definitely find us and come
>>>> try and get us to stop, they will try to sue us, and its pretty
>>>> much
>>>> been working. Its a cultural taboo now to use their music
>>>> because we
>>>> all know they don't want us to.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, what's the problem? Is anyone that has been complaining
>>>> about Veoh (including me once before) lost any money or viewers
>>>> because of them?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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/--
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 .
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.
