Update: Titan media Vs. Veoh

[Matt 26z]

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.

[IdolKnights]

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

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

[Matt 26z]

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.

[Squirt]

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

[IdolKnights]

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.

[IdolKnights]

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

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

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.

[Dzinerbear]

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

[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.

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."

[Matt 26z]

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.

[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

[SPACE GLIDER]

I think YouTube should disable the comments section

[Squirt]

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:

[Squirt]

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:

[gaybucks_chip]

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..."