FireAnt doesn't so much play by the rules as it plays outside the
rules. While the FireANT directory may flag vlogs that predominantly
re-purposed commercial content, their app works outside this ball-
park. FireANT has no legal need to prohibit individual users from
adding feeds to their aggregator that feature "questionable" content,
and if they were to start doing so, it'd A, be a lot of fucking work,
and B, would just result in many users refusing to upgrade to this
new "improved" version of the program.
In terms of building a sustainable community of internet video within
the legal framework of the US Government, Josh is absolutely right.
By these companies continuing to highlight and look the other way in
regards to content that they know is high-trafficked and uncleared
material, then they are creating a situation akin to the Legal over-
reactions set-off by Napster. To that ends, it isn't so much that
Josh is battling against unfair competition, he is fighting against a
legally unsound approach which could, conceivably, sabotage the
future of internet video.
Josh
On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:50 PM, T.Whid wrote:
> It's more complicated than you're making it sound Josh.
>
> I've heard reports that folks at certain networks were uploading video
> to these services at the same time their own lawyers were drafting the
> cease and desists.
>
> Plus, Lazy Sunday as an example, it hit YouTube and then was *free*
> via iTunes, so obviousely NBC saw it as a promo opportunity -- which
> it was. It was the best thing to ever happen to SNL. And all those
> pirated Daily Show clips do nothing but help them.
>
> I just don't see it as a black and white issue and it's not the time
> to take a hard line on this stuff. There are folks busily creating
> services and technologies to get independently produced content in
> front of people, there's going to be bumps in the road and areas of
> fog.
>
> This may be too personal a question, please disregard if you think so.
> I truly mean no offense. Do you have such a hard line because you feel
> Fireant plays by the rules while these other services don't and
> therefor they're competing unfairly?
>
> On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Let's also not forget that it is a right of the content owner to
>> *not*
>> allow someone to use their content if desired. This is the same as
>> the
>> "opt in" argument I made before. SNL was never given the choice to
>> "opt in" on YouTube. They were forced into an "opt out" only
>> situation.
>>
>> Now... several content owners may now opt in to YouTube at their own
>> discretion. And this is fine. But YouTube had no right to broadcast
>> their content without permission from the beginning. Same goes for
>> Google Video, vSocial, and any other video clip sharing site out
>> there.
>>
>> -Josh
>>
>>
>> On 4/8/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________
"Don't hate the media, become the media."- Jello Biafra
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/
