Update: Titan media Vs. Veoh

Source: http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=22503

Quote:

---

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge this week allowed Titan Media parent Io Group to get an inside look at how Veoh.com supervises content on its peercasting website.

---

Quote:

---

With the latest order, Veoh must turn over to Titan crucial information on the company’s policies and procedures, including data relating to its Internet traffic and its ability to monetize that traffic.

---

Quote:

---

Veoh also must supply documents on policies over online adult material and ways the company deals with 2257 federal record-keeping regulations, as well as papers identifying its networking architecture and how it tracks porn and other content.

---

Congrats to Titan!

Fuck I'd love to get a glimpse of that info :bunny:

Great work Titan!

though the information is proprietary, it would be fun to look at. :humble:

Thanks! ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolKnights

though the information is proprietary, it would be fun to look at. :humble:

---

Sorry to sound thick lol, what does proprietary information mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcjacob

Sorry to sound thick lol, what does proprietary information mean?

---

Under copyright or trademark to the corporation.

This is great! I just hope that it doesn't mean the end of YouTube, because YouTube ROCKS!!!! :)

Unless Veoh conspired to allow copyrighted adult videos onto their system or didn't honor removal requests, I actually hope Veoh wins this. We don't want to see a trend of Web 2.0 style sites that rely on user submitted content being held liable for the actions of their users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

We don't want to see a trend of Web 2.0 style sites that rely on user submitted content being held liable for the actions of their users.

---

Maybe you don't! But if I were an artist who created a piece of material from which I derive my income, I'd be pissed if buyers on YouTube or Veoh were getting it for free. Why should Veoh and YouTube make money and not share with the people who created the content?

marcjacob, you'd certainly be pisssed if I bought an AVS membership, shared it with 100 of my friends, and told them all to visit your galleries for some great content.

And finally, if I owned a building in some downtown city and I let anyone stop by to do lines of coke, fuck underage people, sell drugs, and sell stolen goods, then of course, I ought to be held accountable for those illegal activities. Just like owners of online properties need to be held accountable for the actions of their members. Just because there are too many people or it's too hard to supervise isn't reason enough, neither are TOS that say "we aren't responsible" ... you are responsible. And if you don't think you are, then pay the consequences.

Go get it, Titan! Make them pay!!!

Michael

Well said Michael

A lot of people don't give a shit about producers and steal content to make a quick buck or get "respect" from other thieves or leaches. A lot of companies don't give a shit about producers and traffic stolen content to make a quick buck. Things HAVE to change for the entertainment industry to survive. Go Titan :thumbsup:

Where I see the main issue is that these "web 2.0" sites have given access to what could become a phenomenon of NEW and CREATIVE levels of entertainment that would never be seen. But failed to mentor their users to the power behind the system.

Veoh, in my openion, is by far the better of all your Client driven video sites.

Sure, It's not loaded with cock dance videos or "Instant internet trendy" and they no longer host a Mature channel where one could upload/download FULL videos of DVD quality.

But the core of their tools and options lets the user have DVD quality movies ready for upload AND download.

Something I posted 2 days ago, Trending into tomorrow. Well here is a small peek into the deck of cards...

If you were to take their service and a simple webcam, Stop jacking off on yahoo for 45 minutes and do a Video blog - you now have a video Host, Fresh content, the option, through their uploader to post the video on YouTube, MySpace, and Google Video in one shot as well as embed the video on your own site. Full video reporting and a PPV option for your videos. You can also Transcode your videos for Ipod.

This opens up a HUGE amount of options for bloggers, review sites and the like. As I'm finding out, and may of you know - People like Video more than photos.

However, I agree and support Titan in this issue - Content theft is content theft and a website shouldn't fall under the same rules as Sony in the "Betamax case"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

Maybe you don't! But if I were an artist who created a piece of material from which I derive my income, I'd be pissed if buyers on YouTube or Veoh were getting it for free.

---

Oh I definitely see what you are saying and I agree with you there. However if you want to stand behind copyright holders 100%, you'll have to eliminate every user controlled avenue of file sharing from video sites all the way down to public FTP servers. It's just the nature of the internet that it's very difficult to control this stuff, and anyone who puts their material online takes that risk. It's the same type of risk that Hollywood takes by airing movies on TV, knowing that some people are recording them.

We've all had stuff stolen from us before. Maybe it's content, designs, text or whatever. It sucks, but the blame lies soley in the hands of those who did it.... not the closest person with a fat wallet to sue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

Why should Veoh and YouTube make money and not share with the people who created the content?

---

I'm on the fence with this one. The RIAA probably deserved every penny Napster ever made. But if you want to look at services such as YouTube and Veoh that deal primarily in legit material, it's very difficult to determine what kind of traffic the infringing content brought to the site that otherwise wouldn't have been there anyway.

According to your profit sharing logic, webhosts should give infringement victims a slice of the hosting plan profits. If it hadn't of been for the stolen content they wouldn't have sold the bandwidth. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

And finally, if I owned a building in some downtown city and I let anyone stop by to do lines of coke, fuck underage people, sell drugs, and sell stolen goods, then of course, I ought to be held accountable for those illegal activities.

---

The question is, do the video sites permit their users to upload stolen content and not do anything about it? There is a big difference between that and your example.

Back when CDR discs first came out... and this was before the popularity in broadband and Napster... people would have CD burning parties. I went to a couple of them. We would bring our entire music collection, blank CDRs and computers. By the end of the night everyone had all the albums they wanted. According to your logic, the landlord of the apartment should be sued by the RIAA.

Site owners that are trying to opperate a legit service can only know and do so much to combat piracy. It is the people using these services that are to blame!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

Just like owners of online properties need to be held accountable for the actions of their members. Just because there are too many people or it's too hard to supervise isn't reason enough,

---

AOL, Blogspot, YouTube, Flikr, etc... they'd all be sued out of business if you had your way. Then again you sound like the type who fought against the VCR 25 years ago.

Matt you've made some really good points.

It's important to remember that sites like dailymotion and rapidshare basically sell a "membership" for stolen content they host.

I've yet to see a rapidshare or dailymotion upload account deleted for repeated copyright violations of uploaded materia.

Hosts and ISP's are being lax. Here in Australia they've been discussing a 3 strikes you're out for surfers who download stolen content from file sharing sites. After the third strike your internet is disconnected. How do you feel about that?

I think these sites have content flying up to their servers so quickly that there's no possible way they could ever check copyrights on anything. They hide behind a TOS that on the one hand probably says you can't upload copyrighted material, but then, do nothing to check. Sure, they'll probably move it off if they're caught. But it's kind of like your kid eating a chocolate bar inside Walmart and then discarding the wrapper in the underwear aisle. "I didn't know Johnny did that. Oh Johnny, you're such a bad boy. Here I'll give you the dollar, I'm so sorry."

I'm afraid that service like YouTube and Veoh help foster and extend this "if I can right-click it's mine" mentality.

On the other hand, I love that YouTube and the like have given the common man a voice. I saw a piece about some kid who won an iPod in a paper towel contest. He never got it. After a year of chasing down the paper towel company, he made a video and posted it on YouTube. He got his iPod very shortly after that. I love that kind of wild-west justice. But of course, had the kid been lying, it obviously causes a lot of grief for the wronged.

Cheers,
Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

I think these sites have content flying up to their servers so quickly that there's no possible way they could ever check copyrights on anything. They hide behind a TOS that on the one hand probably says you can't upload copyrighted material, but then, do nothing to check.

---

Exactly the problem. Rapidshare and Dailymotion wont delete an account for uploading copywritten content, they just take the specific video off BECAUSE people who upload are their bread and butter. Start deleting heavy uploaders of copywritten content and start losing revenue real quick :thumbsup:

YouTube is very strict on this topic and users report content, and it's taken down, after 3 times the users account is deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Here in Australia they've been discussing a 3 strikes you're out for surfers who download stolen content from file sharing sites. After the third strike your internet is disconnected. How do you feel about that?

---

Something similar was briefly discussed here in 2003. Sen. Orrin Hatch wanted to develop software that would destroy people's computers on the third offense.

-----------
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in551969.shtml

"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions.
--------

I am not in favor of the government getting involved to this degree. I think citizens can handle this on our own. There are some major ISP's in the US who have a two strikes and you're out rule. On the second complaint from the RIAA or whoever your service is terminated.

But for the most part as it stands right now you can have P2P software running 24/7 and upload 1000 videos to YouTube and nothing is going to happen.

The copyright owners either don't care, are daunted by the task of stopping individual users or they feel like it's bad PR to go after anyone other than a large company.

A program cannot decipher weather you are downloading the video, audio or application media for reasons allowable under U.S. law.

Quote:

---

American fair use provisions allow people to use copyrighted material for parody, criticism, review and Training.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolKnights

A program cannot decipher weather you are downloading the video, audio or application media for reasons allowable under U.S. law.

---

It's actually not the downloading that people get into trouble over. It's the uploading. I don't think anyone has ever been sued for downloading. Making it available to everyone else is where the infringement is.

Besides, even if you want to use the material for "parody, criticism, review and Training" that doesn't mean you can walk into a store and shoplift the original copy. Downloading it is still technically theft regardless of how you are planning on using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Besides, even if you want to use the material for "parody, criticism, review and Training" that doesn't mean you can walk into a store and shoplift the original copy. Downloading it is still technically theft regardless of how you are planning on using it.

---

Great point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Besides, even if you want to use the material for "parody, criticism, review and Training" that doesn't mean you can walk into a store and shoplift the original copy. Downloading it is still technically theft regardless of how you are planning on using it.

---

Right - The catch 22 - However, you are thinking about the issue, or more so, using examples of a Brick and Mortar world when referring to a digital environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I don't think anyone has ever been sued for downloading.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA#High_profile_lawsuits

Quote:

---

In 2005, Patricia Santangelo made the news by challenging the RIAA's lawsuit against her. While she succeeded in getting the lawsuit against her dismissed, her children were then sued, with a default judgment entered against her daughter Michelle for $30,750 for failing to respond to the lawsuit (a motion to vacate has yet to be filed). Another defendant, Tanya Andersen, a 41 year-old single mother living in Oregon, has filed a countersuit against the RIAA.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Hosts and ISP's are being lax. Here in Australia they've been discussing a 3 strikes you're out for surfers who download stolen content from file sharing sites. After the third strike your internet is disconnected. How do you feel about that?

---

And I imagine it'll only be minutes before someone develops a piece of software that allows me to use YOUR Internet access to download my files.

I can see this kind of policy has some serious flaws in it.

Michael

Does this sound like a company who has no control over the content on their website???? It appears that they were in fact looking at mainstream content, but turning their heads when it came to adult content.

VEOH.coms FAQ page from April 2006: See item #10 under "Publishing Videos" section.

http://web.archive.org/web/200605061...orate/faq.html

"What is the Veoh review process?
Before any video is made available for viewing, it will go through a number of quality steps. After completing the publishing process, the video will move to the Veoh review process. This process is managed by Veoh to ensure the video complies with the Terms of Use, as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the descriptive information.

Why does Veoh want to review my video?
Veoh will review every video submission for accuracy and appropriateness. This will provide a higher level of quality to the Veoh network than is currently available on existing file-sharing networks. The review process allows Veoh to be able to correctly categorize video content, so that users may be certain that videos have the content and technical quality that they expect. Users that ask for a cartoon should get a cartoon, not a news video. By enforcing quality during publishing, the Veoh network will be the trustworthy source for accurate, quality video content.

Also a interview by Dmitry Shapiro CEO of VEOH:
http://www.masternewmedia.org/video_...w_20050826.htm

"We do not have any form of anonymous publishing....When you publish a piece of content, that piece of content is not automatically listed in our directory. In fact what happens is the piece of content goes into an editorial queue. That editorial queue is managed by a set of people, our employees as well as a set of volunteers that report to us that make sure that that piece of content is appropriate for our network...The editors also look to make sure the content is properly described through metadata that is submitted....And so we verify that the form data you submit properly describes your video content. It's properly categorized; it's properly tested, etc. And so once it goes through that editorial process, which should be a very quick process, in fact our goal is a few hours, and no longer than 24 hours, and then the content gets approved."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

Does this sound like a company who has no control over the content on their website???? It appears that they were in fact looking at mainstream content, but turning their heads when it came to adult content.
...
"What is the Veoh review process?
Before any video is made available for viewing, it will go through a number of quality steps. After completing the publishing process, the video will move to the Veoh review process. This process is managed by Veoh to ensure the video complies with the Terms of Use, as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the descriptive information.

---

It's definitely possible to look at everything if you have the right staff. I recall Facebook.com stating at the hearings on protecting kids online that their staff checked every single photo uploaded for inappropriate content. I don't think there's enough hours in the day for video sites to do more than just glance at videos though.

But now we are getting into the question of what exactly should they be looking for? CP, snuff films and content of that nature is a given. Obvious theft too, but it's a lot easier to spot an episode of Prison Break than it is to determine if Prison Dicks is a legit upload. Just because a video appears to be professional doesn't mean it's stolen. Look at xTube and the number of producers putting their own material on there.

Youtube is so evil in the wrong hands. You've seen films of kids singing and so on. A lot of the singing WAS bad ... but ever read the COMMENTS left by people? The most cruel, vicious, hateful things I've ever read directed at some poor kid can't carry a tune

I think YouTube should disable the comments section

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

VEOH.coms FAQ page from April 2006: See item #10 under "Publishing Videos" section.

---

ha no wonder you guys are able to nail them to the wall so easily.. that FAQ coupled with them changing the format of videos submitted :innocent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPACE GLIDER

Youtube is so evil in the wrong hands. You've seen films of kids singing and so on. A lot of the singing WAS bad ... but ever read the COMMENTS left by people? The most cruel, vicious, hateful things I've ever read directed at some poor kid can't carry a tune

---

Yeah it's pathetic. I monitor my comments and delete vicious ones that are hardcore for no real reason. It gives you a new insight into what board owners have to deal with :balls:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

This process is managed by Veoh to ensure the video complies with the Terms of Use, as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the descriptive information.

(snip) Quote by Dmitry Shapiro CEO of VEOH:
In fact what happens is the piece of content goes into an editorial queue. That editorial queue is managed by a set of people, our employees as well as a set of volunteers that report to us that make sure that that piece of content is appropriate for our network"

---

This sounds almost as revelatory as the brilliant comment by Sean Parker (the less-famous Sean who cofounded Napster along with Shawn Fanning) who, during discovery, was found to have said in an email "After all, we are trafficking in stolen content..."