Update: Titan media Vs. Veoh

[IdolKnights]

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

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.

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.

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!

[Squirt]

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

Great work Titan!

[IdolKnights]

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

[Titanmen]

Thanks! ;-)

[marcjacob]

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

Sorry to sound thick , what does proprietary information mean?

[IdolKnights]

Sorry to sound thick , what does proprietary information mean?

Under copyright or trademark to the corporation.

[XXXWriterDude]

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

[Matt 26z]

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.

[Dzinerbear]

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

[Squirt]

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:

[IdolKnights]

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"

[Matt 26z]

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.

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?

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!

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.

[Squirt]

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?

[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. 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

[Squirt]

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.