An argument yes. A persuasive argument, I don’t think so. If Sony’s habit is to submit all content to ContentID as a matter of course, then it’s hard to argue specific intent. If the amount of Sintel footage is small and used in accordance with any licensing agreement, then it comes down to the kookiness of ContentID and it’s broad brush functionality- none of which is Sony’s fault.
none of which is Sony’s fault.
Unless their lawyers insisted that youtube develop such a system.
1 Like
That’s not how fraud works! Unless they had evil plans for Sintel in particular waaaaay back when ContentID was instituted. Otherwise you’re talking some grander fraud that merits a class-action and frankly sounds like a typical hole-y conspiracy theory. Why is it so hard to accept that this might not be actionable? I might be wrong, there may be some legal theory supported by the facts that could be a basis for relief- but no one here has mentioned anything that sounds remotely credible.
1 Like
How much of the audience do you get by virtue of being on youtube vs doing
your own promotion? Youtube features like 10 videos on the front page out
of millions. Seems unless you are already huge youtube isn’t helping. I
look at stuff on youtube because its linked on boingboing or twitter or
some other site I read. I’d be just as likely to watch the video on Vimeo.
1 Like
I’m simply suggesting that some lawyers from Viacom, Disney, Warner, and Sony may have advised Google on what policies and technologies would halt legal action against youtube
2 Likes
Yes. Sony thinking it’s their content is rather a Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy kind of copyright move.
A friend of mine once developed some technology and patented it, a big company sued him for patent infringement, turns out his work predates theirs, he got a house out of the deal. If I’m remembering correctly, that was also Sony : - )
2 Likes
No, you argued that this constituted fraud. Or was the context of the discussion magically wiped from the face of the Internet?
Videos don’t get discovered on Youtube simply by being featured on the front page. They also get discovered via the 20 “suggested videos” along the side of every single video you play. And the… 9, I think? “more videos like this” that get suggested at the END of every video that gets played. Or by people simply searching for some search term that relates to your video.
Don’t get me wrong - for some content, Vimeo seems to be a decent hosting site. But as others in this thread have mentioned, they don’t even ALLOW certain types of content which are HUGELY popular on YouTube (videogame/let’s play style videos, for example).
2 Likes
Can a computerprogram ever exhibit mens rea?
1 Like
Okay, looked into Vimeo again! Not only would they charge me $200 for anything I put up, they’d still disallow me and my channel from being returned in search results on their site, because I would have content that is “related to video games”.
That’s kind of a deal-breaker in two ways! If you have a third option out there, one that is NOT Vimeo or Youtube, please, please share.
1 Like
Bambuser, if you are are recording “live”…
The 'more like this ’ and the ‘suggested’ videos are actually the same list, but yes.
So you’re content isn’t worth paying to distribute?
It’s funny isn’t it? If Vimeo didn’t have videos to host, it couldn’t make money in the first place. The product Vimeo makes money on is the data harvested from visitors in order to sell adspace, and those visitors wouldn’t exist without the content Vimeo hosts.
If anything, sites like Youtube and Vimeo are the ones who should be paying content producers from the start. TV shows don’t pay the networks in order to be played, the networks fund the production of the TV shows, and pay royalties every time they broadcast them.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
