FAO Garrick (about youtube)

[Colin Anderson]

Hi,

I was just watching some strongman vids on youtube and I clicked on one of yours called "burning up the sun" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeWFITursB0

Apparently youtube have pulled it due to a complant from Viacom, what gives? :(

I hope they are not going to pull any more of your vids, they are first class!

[ColinStubbert]

darn tootin theyre first class!

another Colin on the boards! Rock on!

Yeah, Youtube likes to do that nowadays, getting pretty enraging, but in terms of watching strongman vids, I'd highly suggest buying all the merch (ie dvds, books, etc) to support the sport! I mean, if you're trying to support a band you love you but the CD's, sitting at home and watching Youtube going "wow...Strongman sure is great" isn't enough. You gots to show the LOVE!

[Garrick Daft]

Thanks Colin...means a lot coming from you.
I knew that the Pure Strength 1987 was yanked...but not the Burning up the Sun - Mohegan Sun vid. I got a PM from someone here telling me that Jesse To the Pain was yanked too. Who knows what will go next.
Viacom / MTV asked YouTube to remove 100,000 videos...apparently Viacom wants revenue sharing from YouTube and didn't get it. YouTube gets millions of visitors a day and these old companies are struggling to figure out how to make money off of it....just like Murdoch with MySpace.
Problem with these corporations though is that even if I tried to get permission to use music and clips from them to make a compilation...I wouldn't get past the "he's a nobody" trashbin..haha. Oh well... Hey what does FAO mean?
http://news.com.com/2100-1026_3-6155771.html

[Jonathan Macfarlane]

What reason did they have to yank the Pure strength clips? Those were beyond awesome.

[Colin Anderson]

It is really sad that companies feel the need to act in this way. It is not like you are making money from doing these videos. If it is the use of the music that they have a problem with then realistically I think that could wipe out 80% of youtubes content. I know all my videos have music over the top. (mostly to replace the swearing and potentially incriminating conversations that were taking place during filming! haha!) So if they are going to pull your videos then I think all mine could be up for the chop as well....

This really sucks!

You do still have the videos on your computer, right? So all is not lost?

Oh - and FAO means For Attention Of.

[Garrick Daft]

It is really sad that companies feel the need to act in this way. It is not like you are making money from doing these videos. If it is the use of the music that they have a problem with then realistically I think that could wipe out 80% of youtubes content. I know all my videos have music over the top. (mostly to replace the swearing and potentially incriminating conversations that were taking place during filming! haha!) So if they are going to pull your videos then I think all mine could be up for the chop as well....

This really sucks!

You do still have the videos on your computer, right? So all is not lost?

Oh - and FAO means For Attention Of.
I didn't do it for the money Colin.... :LOL:

[Colin Anderson]

I don't know what you do for a living Garrick, but I recon the videos you have made would form a decent portfolio of work to show prospective employers or colleges or whatever if you did decide to make a career of it?


Lets all go to Viacom's offices and flip the cars in the car park! :EP: :LOL:

[Jonathan Macfarlane]

I didn't do it for the money Colin.... :LOL:


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AWESOME...........

[Matt Brouse]

Garrick, that one with the pic, might be your best post ever...

[Nikhil Rao]

so much for Google 'doing no evil'

Why is it that everything they touch gets ruined?

[Ian Duggan]

It could quite easily be argued that mass breach of copyright is evil. YouTube was awesome because we could upload and view whatever we liked on there. Doesn't make it legal, or even right for that matter.

Not specific to Garrick's videos of course, but copyrights exist for a reason other than just financial. It's there so that the person who creates something has complete (or as much as possible) control over where it appears, how it's presented and what it's associated with.

Some Artists don't mind there stuff popping up all over the internet (South Park creators for example) but then a lot of others do (A lot of comic writers object to fan-sites showing there stuff for example). And a lot of companies who've paid through the nose to get exclusive rights to show something get pretty peeved when it appears for free online.

I'm not saying I agree with everything YouTube does now under Google, but equally we've all become a bit spoiled by the way things were. We don't have some intrinsic right to view or play or monkey about with whatever material we want.

[Kevin Cronin]

You guys want to hear outrageous, two of MY videos of ME that were filmed using MY camera were pulled for "copyright violations" I have no idea how (there was no music on them) and I am pissed. I've written to them twice in the last week requesting an explanation and gotten nothing so far. I assume that somebody just did it for no reason, out of maliciousness. If they wont tell me why it was pulled I am thinking of going through the process of having it reinstated which would basically involve me saying in good faith that it doesnt violate any copyright laws and tht i am willing to go to court over it. not that i have the money for legal fees, but i cant imagine that whoever took them down has a leg to stand on

[Nikhil Rao]

Actually Ian, according to US copyright law, namely the Fair Use Act, Garrick's stuff was perfectly legal so long as he wasn't making money off of it. Which since it's on youtube he wasn't.

That goes for putting parts of televised stuff into self-made clips anyway.

As far as stuff like Pure Strength and other full comps, IIRC the rule is if it's not sold on DVD, it's legal. That's how it was explained to me by a lawyer I know anyway.

[Ian Duggan]

Ah OK, that's different from UK law. You can't touch stuff here, whether it's for financial gain or not.

I imagine Google are erring on the safe side, seeing as YouTube is no longer just two guys with no real assets. Hard to sue them, not so hard to sue Google...

[MalachiMcMullen]

It's a bunch of grade A bologna! I've had friends whose videos were pulled for copyrighted clips also. Seriously, they were videos of Blue man group in concert they took during a school trip. How many people reallly care about a Blue man group concert video? Bah, its all politics for sure!

[Scott Markowitz]

I'd imagine whoever is selling copies of Blue Man Group concert videos (who has permission because he's paying a cut to the blue guys) cares. Fair use has pretty strict limitations: (from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” "

See 17 U.S.C. section 107-118.

Whether or not the copier makes money is only one consideration among several. I would think though, that some of the clips I've seen, especially those with music just playing in the background at a gym, would qualify as "incidental and fortuitous reproduction" and that youtube is arguably a "newsreel or broadcast" (these terms don't have definitions set in stone, especially with all the internet "new media").

[Ian Duggan]

..."incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
There's no way that's going to apply to anything on YouTube.

Equally, if that's the whole definition of "fair use" I can't see how that would apply to any of Garrick's vids (just purely for example you understand) or many other similar ones done and uploaded to YouTube.

Gary Larson wrote a really good letter to be given to websites who were reproducing Far Side cartoons, unaltered, but without his permission, I'll see if I can find it...

[Ian Duggan]

Here it is -

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I'm walking a fine line here.

On the one hand, I confess to finding it quite flattering that some of my fans have created web sites displaying and / or distributing my work on the Internet. And, on the other, I'm struggling to find the words that convincingly but sensitively persuade these Far Side enthusiasts to "cease and desist" before they have to read these words from some lawyer.

What impact this unauthorized use has had (and is having) in tangible terms is, naturally, of great concern to my publishers and therefore to me -- but it's not the focus of this letter. My effort here is to try and speak to the intangible impact, the emotional cost to me, personally, of seeing my work collected, digitized, and offered up in cyberspace beyond my control.

Years ago I was having lunch one day with the cartoonist Richard Guindon, and the subject came up how neither one of us ever solicited or accepted ideas from others. But, until Richard summed it up quite neatly, I never really understood my own aversions to doing this: ''It's like having someone else write in your diary," he said. And how true that statement rang with me . In effect, we drew cartoons that we hoped would be entertaining or, at the very least, not boring; but regardless, they would always come from an intensely personal, and therefore original perspective.

To attempt to be "funny" is a very scary, risk-laden proposition. (Ask any stand-up comic who has ever "bombed" on stage.) But if there was ever an axiom to follow in this business, it would be this: be honest to yourself and -- most important -- respect your audience.

So, in a nutshell (probably an unfortunate choice of words for me), I only ask that this respect be returned, and the way for anyone to do that is to please, please refrain from putting The Far Side out on the Internet. These cartoons are my "children," of sorts, and like a parent, I'm concerned about where they go at night without telling me. And, seeing them at someone's web site is like getting the call at 2:00 a.m. that goes, "Uh, Dad, you're not going to like this much, but guess where I am."

I hope my explanation helps you to understand the importance this has for me, personally, and why I'm making this request.

Please send my "kids" home. I'll be eternally grateful.

Most respectfully,

Gary Larson

[Scott Markowitz]

I think the music playing in the background at the gym would fall under the "incidental and fortuitous" exception. Music dubbed in later would not. Of course, what is a "newsreel or broadcast" is a bit fuzzy. Obviously at the time of passage it applied to television news. With the rise of electronic media, this is no longer as easy to determine. I (and others) argue for an expansive reading of the statute, which would include sites like youtube.
Of course, all of this is dependent on the copyright owner complaining. I'd suggest in the future using music from newer bands who are more concerned with getting their stuff "out there" than a cpoyright. Then again, it's generally the record label who holds the copyright anyway, so that might not even be enough.

[Ian Duggan]

Isn't the third clause in that statement quite importnat though - "of a work located in the scene of an event being reported"?

Or does that just mean a video being recorded anywhere?

[Scott Markowitz]

I (and any attorney worth his salt) would argue that the event being reported is the lift going on, and the ambient music is just a part of the environment. So long as the music was legitimately being played there, I don't see a problem. And unless the artists/record companies want to try to argue that you can't play a radio or CD in public, they'd have a pretty weak complaint. Obviously there is the possibility that someone could stage an "event" just to disseminate someone's music for free, but this isn't the case in lifting videos.
I suppose it boils down to the purpose of the video. If the main purpose is the lifting, it should be ok under fair use. If the main purpose is the music (e.g., the innumerable "numa videos" out there) then it's not.

[Ian Duggan]

Gotcha Scott. Thanks for taking the time to explain that one.

So given that thinking, it would be hard to see compilation videos as fair use then?

[Scott Markowitz]

It all depends on how strict the copyright owner wants to be. Some are ok with using their stuff so long as you aren't cashing in, some want to make sure anytime anybody hears their stuff they're getting paid. Just remember that the official beginning of every lawsuit is the filing of a complaint. No complaint = no problem.

[Kevin Cronin]

It all depends on how strict the copyright owner wants to be. Some are ok with using their stuff so long as you aren't cashing in, some want to make sure anytime anybody hears their stuff they're getting paid. Just remember that the official beginning of every lawsuit is the filing of a complaint. No complaint = no problem.

so scott, do you have any insight into the situation i described? im really annoyed that my videos got pulled, and while i imagine it'll be a pain in the ass to go through, i am considering writing youtube, signing the letter they want bme to sign and getting my videos back up. if reporting them as copyright wasnt a prank i cant imagine anyone who would be stupid enough to think that my videos violated anyone elses copyright in any way shape or form

[Ian Duggan]

It all depends on how strict the copyright owner wants to be. Some are ok with using their stuff so long as you aren't cashing in, some want to make sure anytime anybody hears their stuff they're getting paid. Just remember that the official beginning of every lawsuit is the filing of a complaint. No complaint = no problem.
Cool. Thanks dude.

[Scott Markowitz]

so scott, do you have any insight into the situation i described? im really annoyed that my videos got pulled, and while i imagine it'll be a pain in the ass to go through, i am considering writing youtube, signing the letter they want bme to sign and getting my videos back up. if reporting them as copyright wasnt a prank i cant imagine anyone who would be stupid enough to think that my videos violated anyone elses copyright in any way shape or form

Without having seen the videos (or at least not remembering them) I'd say it depends on how the music was done. I think having background music is ok. Youtube is probably just using the CYA tactic. There have been lots of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits sent their way recently over copyright stuff. They pull stuff down, then someone just posts the same vid again with a different name and different account. It's likely nobody even looks at the stuff they pull anymore. If you sign their form, that gives them *some* cover, even if it actually *is* a copyright violation (which I seriously doubt it is). Assuming that it's not, it ought to at least make them take a look before they pull it, which should convince them of the safety of its posting.

Speaking of CYA...

**DISCLAIMER**
I'm not offering legal advice. Not only is this is not my area of expertise (I was a district attorney, not an IP lawyer), but to offer such advice outside of Oklahoma where I'm licensed would be a violation of the professional rules, possibly subjecting me to discipline from the state bar both in Oklahoma and elsewhere. I'm just giving off-the-top-of-my-head impressions of the statute, which may or may not be the same as a federal judge would read it.

[Nikhil Rao]

Thanks for the different opinion Scott. This is just what I"d heard from my admittedly rabidly libertarian lawyer friends.

[Scott Markowitz]

I think we need more rabidly libertarian lawyers. More precisely, we need more rabidly libertarian judges. However, there is a split in opinion amongst libertarians on intellectual property. I can see both sides - I like free access to information, but I'd be ticked off if somebody was giving my work product away for free.

Who are these lawyer friends? I just left OKC in August; there's a chance I might know them.

[Ian Duggan]

I can see both sides - I like free access to information, but I'd be ticked off if somebody was giving my work product away for free.

Yeah, absolutely. Whilst I like aspects of the media revolution that the internet has created, a major downside is that some musician friends that I know are now struggling to make ends meet. Guys that previously were selling 1000s of copies of albums (not much, but enough) are now finding it hard to sell 100s.

A few former fans have basically said to them "there's too much free music out there to pay for stuff any more." People almost seem to expect free music these days, either from artists websites, or through P2P sharing or whatever, and that's not good for a lot of smaller bands that can't afford to do that.

On the other hand places like MySpace and YouTube are perfect launching pads for unsigned bands. Arctic Monkeys had the fastest selling debut album ever in the UK last year, almost entirely thanks to hype generated by their MySpace page.

[jay lyttle]

i dont like to download someone's stuff unless it's cool with them.
i am willing to pay for vids such as the pure strength one's, but where can you find them.
i do not believe they are available, if viacom owns them put them on a dvd and let us buy them.

[Scott Markowitz]

That's part of the big argument on sharing these things. Some say it's a vehicle for exposure (which is why so many new bands are eager to get their stuff out there) which will lead to people buying the stuff. Others use the free milk and a cow analogy (why pay for it when you get it for free). Part of it is from years of people buying a cd full of crap for one song they wanted to hear. Some proponents of "sharing" point to the same arguments having been made that people would record songs from the radio rather than buying the albums, but with digital technology advancing to where it has (and where it likely will in upcoming years) I don't think the situations are really comparable.
But yeah, I feel your pain on the stuff that's not available anywhere. Maybe it's like Disney putting stuff "in their vault" - it's done to create a demand for it whenever it is released. (Though I wouldn't hold my breath on the Pure Strength stuff.)

[Nikhil Rao]

I think we need more rabidly libertarian lawyers. More precisely, we need more rabidly libertarian judges. However, there is a split in opinion amongst libertarians on intellectual property. I can see both sides - I like free access to information, but I'd be ticked off if somebody was giving my work product away for free.

Who are these lawyer friends? I just left OKC in August; there's a chance I might know them.

none in OKC. I dont' ahve any friends here outside of med school lol.

Agreed on the judges, or at least people who would be more honest in admitting that although wording of the constitution might be somewhat ambiguous, the intentions of the founders weren't.

[Scott Markowitz]

...or even just willing to say that they don't have access to a crystal ball. Where the Constitution is silent, the judges ought to say so, rather than just making it up and saying it's in the emanations of the penumbras. I've read the document many times, and I've never come across the "emanations" or the "penumbras" sections. :confused:

[Scott Markowitz]

A guy I knew from law school's wife is (or at least was) in med school there too. I don't recall her first name, but her married name is Folger (pronounced Foal - GRRR, not like Folger's coffee). We used the study rooms there to study for property my first year of law school since our library was full.

[DinoNick Osborne]

I am not sure if this has been said or not but...

If the video is on the net for free, it does impact the need to buy the vid, if possible.

We are concerned about this with Phil's Training Video, which, goes out for replication on Monday.

If that was posted, people would not need to buy the video.

Just a thought.

as stated earlier... Suport the people putting out the info, don't screw 'em.

Thanks guys.

[Brandon R.]

I am not sure if this has been said or not but...

If the video is on the net for free, it does impact the need to buy the vid, if possible.

We are concerned about this with Phil's Training Video, which, goes out for replication on Monday.

If that was posted, people would not need to buy the video.

Just a thought.

as stated earlier... Suport the people putting out the info, don't screw 'em.

Thanks guys.

One of the things I didn't like about the videos being taken down, is that you can't buy most of that sutff anywhere. There isn't anywhere where you can buy an "official" copy of Pure Strength 1987, atleast to my knowledge.

I think that Viacom should have kept a lot of the videos on there atleast until they start selling them on DVD.

With Phil's dvd, I think that since its not going to be appealing to the majority of people out there that you wouldn't have to worry too much about rampant usage of file sharing sites to get the dvd.

Most of the people here are good enough to go and buy something they want from the official source to help support an awsome strongman.:cool: I just hope that other people will be honest as well.

[Garrick Daft]

I am not sure if this has been said or not but...

If the video is on the net for free, it does impact the need to buy the vid, if possible.

We are concerned about this with Phil's Training Video, which, goes out for replication on Monday.

If that was posted, people would not need to buy the video.

Just a thought.

as stated earlier... Suport the people putting out the info, don't screw 'em.

Thanks guys.

I haven't put up anyones training DVDs and would not do so. All I've done is make compilations with various footage from IFSA, WSM, SS, Arnold contests and personal stuff. I did put up 3 entire contests that I though would be interesting for most people to see and to help people understand the sport a little better. The contests I put up were Pure Strength 1987, WSM 2004, and the Finland 2006 GP. The rest of the stuff is my nerdy way of giving back and helping out.. and with more then 500,000 hits to date in 7 months time I think I'm helping out more then anything else.
People need to learn how to embrace the web rather then fear it.

[Ian Duggan]

The things is Garrick you're right on one hand - that you probably more than anybody else on YouTube is helping spread the gospel of strongman, and your videos are certainly an excellent introduction to the sport.

But think about where that footage came from. The money that companies spent on film crews, equipment, transport, buying the rights to shoot it etc. etc. People put in time and effort to create the footage that you edit into compilations. And not only are they getting no say on what you do with their stuff (a lot of the things you use still has network logos and graphics on it, people could be mistaken for thinking it was official) but you're in effect giving away for free the only thing they have to make any money back from their original investment of time and money.

Then when you think how small the market is for Strongman stuff, somebody might see a DVD for sale, but think "nah, I've seen most of this footage on YouTube." In fact just the other day I was watching a competition on Eurosport and I kept recognizing little bits and bobs. I realised that I'd seen some of the events online already.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do what you do, I'm just playing devil's advocate. One thing I do know for sure - I've got a friend who's a part-time film maker. He's done a couple of bits and bobs that have been televised, and some stuff that's been released on DVD, notably a couple of documentaries on Aberdeen bands.

Both times some of his stuff has found its way online, in a different form to the original (once edited by the company that bought the film, once on an unofficial fan-site) and both times he hated the fact that somebody had mucked about with his work. It's not that he doesn't embrace the web, or that he fears it, he just doesn't want somebody else doing a 3 day edit job on something it took him 6 months to make.

Another friend of mine does soundtrack music (amongst other things) and more than once his music has been used without his permission. Every time he's sued (where possible), not for financial gain, but because he wants complete say over where and when he's creations appear, and because (quite rightly) he wants credit for the effort that went into making those songs.

And having said all that, I love watching your videos and I love it when competition footage pops up online about 1 week after the event has happened, long before it'll be on UK TV.

So basically, having thought about it, I can see why YouTube are pulling stuff like yours. I'm not saying I'm exactly in agreement with it, but I can see why they would do it and I don't think it's necessarily for purely fiscal reasons.

[Garrick Daft]

Oh so you are concerned about Eurosport, ESPN, VS, and the host of other media companies who "mass" produce this stuff yearly. Concerned my "compilations" or "trailers" will cause people not to watch "their" stuff.
I fail to see your logic...and I think you are just trying to pick a fight for some reason.

Viacom/ MTV had YouTube send out a robot who zapped my vids along with thousands of other vids...if I was a real problem they would send me a letter. My stuff is in good taste, free, and hard to do...so if they want it down let them take it down then...no big deal here.

I've never put up anything prior to it being shown on TV.... so the advertising revenue they can make is not lessened by my compilations.

I've never put up any athlete's entire training DVD on YouTube, never will, and the brief snippets I did use were not instructional at all. In fact Svend Karlsen personally came to this site to show his appreciation for the tribute video I made for him. Travis Ortmayer appreciates, Jesse Marunde appreciates....but oh yeah you are not concerned with the athlete...you are worried about Eurosport, ESPN, and VS, and etc....

Well maybe you can write those media companies and tell them to put more Strongman contests on TV....amateur and pro. Give us the media we want, and the exposure the athletes need.

I don't believe my stuff has hurt anyone and in fact has helped...or else I would not do it.

Any reasonable person can see this.... BTW how are your compilations coming along, the one of Jesse was a good start.

[Ian Duggan]

Oh so you are concerned about Eurosport, ESPN, VS, and the host of other media companies who "mass" produce this stuff yearly. Concerned my "compilations" or "trailers" will cause people not to watch "their" stuff.
I fail to see your logic...and I think you are just trying to pick a fight for some reason.
Trying to pick a fight? Well in the sense that I disagree with your stance, yeah I'm picking a fight, but I'm not doing it just to wind you up. Equally, the source of the material is irrelevant. Whether it's mass produced or done by small or large companies, the copyright and the artistic ownership remains.


Viacom/ MTV had YouTube send out a robot who zapped my vids along with thousands of other vids...if I was a real problem they would send me a letter. My stuff is in good taste, free, and hard to do...so if they want it down let them take it down then...no big deal here.

I did say before I wasn't specifically saying that you were the problem, or indeed that you're doing anything massively wrong. I was using you, as you're the only example I know of (although I'm sure there are many more).

I've never put up anything prior to it being shown on TV.... so the advertising revenue they can make is not lessened by my compilations.
Well, that's debateably. With so few contest I imagine re-runs and season long DVD would be one of the main incomes of the people who make these programs. I know that Eurosport play each contest at least 3 or 4 times.

...Svend Karlsen personally came to this site to show his appreciation for the tribute video I made for him. Travis Ortmayer appreciates, Jesse Marunde appreciates....but oh yeah you are not concerned with the athlete...you are worried about Eurosport, ESPN, and VS, and etc....
I'm not concerned for the large companies, I'm sure they'll do just fine without me watching out for them. I know all the athletes who you've done videos for appreciate the effort that you go to, that was never in question. But then the potential harm is not to them, but to the people who pay to cover contests. And equally, it's not actually footage shot, edited or branded by them that your using. If ESPN (for example) came back to you and said "hey, thanks for the highlights clip, that's really cool!" then you'd have more of a point.


Well maybe you can write those media companies and tell them to put more Strongman contests on TV....amateur and pro. Give us the media we want, and the exposure the athletes need.
I'd like to see more coverage of strongman obviously, but the levels of coverage aren't really relevant to this discussion. People put together highlight reels of NFL games that are then taken off YouTube. There's certainly no lack of coverage there...

I don't believe my stuff has hurt anyone...

Any reasonable person can see this....
I'm not sure that's quite as cut and dried as you say it is. Like I said previously, the only two people I know that do this kind of thing for a living get pissed when somebody uses there stuff without their permission. I'm not saying that's universal, nor am I saying that the staff behind the Strongman stuff we see on TV are looking at clips on YouTube and getting upset, but a lot of the stuff you do has network branding on it (Eurosport, ESPN whatever). They might not appreciate that.

Like I said before, I'm not saying you're doing a terrible thing, in fact I'm not certain there's any harm to it in the slightest. But equally, I can see why companies or individuals wouldn't want their copyrighted material on random sites the web.

BTW how are your compilations coming along, the one of Jesse was a good start.
Thanks. Haven't tried another because I moved out of my old flat and lost my Premier tutor in the process...

[Garrick Daft]

I have no stance,... if I had filmed material and someone wanted to play around with it, I would not care. Unless of course they're doing some sicked and demented stuff with it..haha. But I believe in an "Open Source" world where people can combine creative power for the better good...not the individual good. That is the power of the web, and that is what these corporations (and your firend) are trying and will need to adapt to.
I do this stuff for fun, if someone wants to take'em down let them go ahead.

You know contacting these media companies and asking them what they think is a good idea. I can't imagine they would mind me doing for free what they would normally pay someone thousands of dollars for. Maybe they would mind though and would rather pay me instead.

:mag:

[Ian Duggan]

But I believe in an "Open Source" world where people can combine creative power for the better good...not the individual good. That is the power of the web, and that is what these corporations (and your firend) are trying and will need to adapt to.
They need to adapt to an open source world? No, not really, not until copyright law changes massively. If my friend spends 6 months filming, editing, putting together, and packaging a DVD, and then after a week it's on the web, being shown for free thus costing him a large percentage of very small sales, and not even in its original form I think he's got a right to be pretty hacked off, whether the law is on his side or not.

Equally, combining creative power is all well and good but when the people who created the original material have no creative control over it, it can be detrimental. My friend is very good at what he does(like I say, he does it professionally, teaches it and has won awards for his work). A lot of people aren't at that level, so understandably he doesn't want his work fiddled about. Imagine if U2 (first band that jumped in my head) wrote a song, and then within a week there were people putting there own versions online, not only ripping of the song, but changing bits around and altering things here and there. That doesn't sound very fair does it?

SO in this particular case, it's not that he's desperately holding onto his copyright so he can make another million, it's so he can continue to make a little money, make sure that his material is only ever seen as he wants it to be seen, and so that he can use that cash and kudos to go on and make another film. An open source web would help small acts / bands / directors / whatever get exposure, but it could also kill them before they've gotten going.

[Garrick Daft]

Well I'm pretty sure there will be a convergence of the two as an end result...nothing ever stays the same. Adapt or die. Think outside the box.

Good debates and info though! Now I need to get back to my Sweet Sixteen on MTV!! :M:

[Scott Markowitz]

Apparently myspace is now filtering videos more stringently:

MySpace Launches Pilot to Filter Videos
Feb 12, 11:19 AM (ET)

By ANICK JESDANUN

NEW YORK (AP) - The popular online hangout MySpace said Monday it will experiment with a video-filtering system designed to block clips containing copyright materials.

MySpace is licensing technology from Audible Magic Corp., which late last year obtained rights to a system for scanning video clips and looking for signature vectors - such as a unique digital fingerprint - to compare with vectors stored in a database. Video can be blocked from appearing on MySpace when there is a match.

The video system supplements audio filtering MySpace already has in place to block unauthorized music uploads.

In the video-filtering pilot, MySpace said it would block unauthorized music videos and other clips containing Universal Music Group's music, while still allowing the Vivendi SA unit and its artists to circulate promotional audio and video they authorize. MySpace, a unit of News Corp. (NWS), said the tools would be available for free to other content owners as well.


"MySpace is dedicated to ensuring that content owners, whether large or small, can both promote and protect their content in our community," Chris DeWolfe, MySpace's co-founder and chief executive, said in a statement. "For MySpace, video filtering is about protecting artists and the work they create."

The ability to post video on the site is among the features MySpace offers to encourage visitors to expand their circle of friends and share hobbies and other interests.

MySpace and other video-sharing sites such as Google Inc. (GOOG)'s YouTube long have had policies to remove copyright materials, but generally do so only after receiving a complaint from the copyright holder. Users can easily repost the same clip to the sites under a different, free account. If Audible Magic's technology works as promised, MySpace would be able to block any such attempts to repost material already identified as unauthorized.

MySpace officials say the latest offering was unrelated to Universal Music's federal lawsuit in November, accusing MySpace of illegally encouraging its users to share music and music videos on the site without permission. That lawsuit remains pending and seeks unspecified damages, including up to $150,000 for each unauthorized music video or song posted on the site.

[Ian Duggan]

If that software works as well as the audio equivalent does... well, that'll be the end of copyrighted videos on the major web-sites (YouTube, MySpace, Dailymotion) pretty much.

Curse these computer wizards!

[Garrick Daft]

The real reason Viacom/ MTV is pissing with YouTube.
It's all a power struggle to see who can create the best "island" on the web to get enough members to sell them other stuff.

And BTW YouTube just sent out a mindless computer programmed web-bot to randomly zap videos from pages. Not much went into the processs...they just wanted Viacom/ MTV off their ass....they met their quota by hitting sites that had the most traffic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTV videos to be available to all Internet users
Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:42 PM ET

By Kenneth Li

NEW YORK (Reuters) - You won't find clips of comedian Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" and MTV's "Pimp My Ride" on YouTube any more, but Viacom Inc. is laying the groundwork for its videos to be available to hundreds of thousands of other sites.

In the next few months, Web users will be able to grab videos from nearly all MTV-owned sites and post them on their own blogs or Web sites, lessening the need to go to YouTube (http://www.youtube.com), the top online video service that Google Inc. acquired last year.

Viacom, owner of MTV Networks and the Paramount movie studio, had been planning for this move months before it demanded earlier this month that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized Viacom video clips from its site, after failing to reach a distribution deal.

"We need to open up our Web sites and content both for consumers and for other companies," Mika Salmi, MTV Networks president of global digital media, said in an interview last Friday.

The move is part of a strategy to bring Viacom's Web sites up to "Web 2.0" standards, Salmi said. "Part of that is allowing people to take our content and embed it and make your own things out of it, whatever they want," he said.

MTV, once the arbiter of cool for hip young viewers, is now playing catch-up to online social networks like News Corp.'s MySpace. MTV had tried to buy MySpace, but lost out to Rupert Murdoch, leading to the ouster of Viacom's chief executive.

STAYING RELEVANT

Viacom has not ruled out a deal with YouTube yet, while analysts say the dust-up is mere negotiating tactic. But Viacom also sees staying relevant to a new generation of media consumers as a top priority. To do so, they are borrowing ideas from the very companies they compete against.

Since December, Viacom's Comedy Central Web site has been allowing viewers to embed its videos on their own sites. Other Viacom brands, such as iFilm and AddictingGames, have offered this feature even longer.

The idea, borrowed from sites like YouTube and MySpace, helps Viacom rely less on sites like YouTube by reaching viewers wherever they migrate, even if it is a friend's blog page.

At the same time, the company can control its own programing and advertising.

"Viral consumer-promoted video is a powerful thing to (Viacom)," Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey said. "An embedding move means they get it -- they're not playing ostrich."

Connecting MTV Network's global network of more than 150 Web sites has been time consuming, but executives see linking the myriad technological platforms as a key to its future.

"The biggest concern is I want consumers to find our stuff," Salmi said.

Reaching viewers everywhere they go has been a key tenet of new business models on the Internet. Even as companies explore their own strategies, several big media companies, including Viacom and News Corp., have discussed forming a rival to YouTube, sources said earlier.

Viacom Chief Executive Philippe Dauman said in November that the company had a "good chance" to generate $500 million in sales from its digital properties in 2007.

The company plans to invest more heavily in new networks and digital properties. MTV Networks said it would cut about 250 U.S. jobs to reduce costs and invest in its "television and digital future," according to an internal memo at the division.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Daniel Leib]

Woah, woah, wait.

People still care about MTV?