Our Brave Defenders of Intellectual Property Rights

[ncoak]

well, er, that is

Music Labels’ Joint Venture, VEVO, Shows Pirated NFL Game At Sundance | TechCrunch

[ncoak]

"...A guest of our lounge asked for an NFL game to be aired. We said no. There was a laptop hooked up to VEVO.com that fed into the large TV screens around the bar. Unfortunately, the laptop was easily accessible to the public. That was our mistake for not making sure the laptop was more secure. While VEVO staff was in other areas of the venue, the game was put on – via a website transmitting ESPN’s broadcast of the NFL game – without our permission or knowledge.

As soon as we realized the game was airing to the room, we removed it and went back to playing VEVO videos. The game was not aired in its entirety. Rest assured, we rectified this mistake as soon as we became aware what was going on.

What happened was unfortunate and we can’t take back what happened.

Let’s just make this clear. VEVO is not in the business of streaming illegal video content. We work really hard to give our fans access to the best HD music videos and original programming – legally. VEVO takes intellectual property and copyright issues very seriously. We have always supported our artists and content owners and have the same respect for all content creators in every industry and of every art form. So we are very sensitive to what happened at Sundance and the issues it has raised.

Thanks for reading.

Rio D. Caraeff"

sounds just like every teenager who gets busted pirating

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by ncoak

sounds just like every teenager who gets busted pirating

Never heard a teenager say "as soon as I realised i was downloading an illegal mp3 I quit the download and turned off my computer".

Maybe if Vevo claimed the NFL had been ripping off players for years and the Superbowl should be free for anyone to watch.

[Don Hills]

Focusing on VEVO's role distracts from the real issue. You'd think Sundance attendees would be more aware than usual of the issues around downloading / streaming copyright material. Still, it only takes one...

[chrisso]

People do drink and take drugs.

[John Eppstein]

Come off it! The premise of this thread is utterly bogus - it's perfectly obvious what happened, anybody who has spent any amount of time at all in bars frequented by sports yobbos can figure it out immediately.

It's a bar that normally shows sports. A regular patron of the bar - nobody affiliated with either Vevo OR Sundance - wants to see the game. He is told no, he can't see the damn game. He waits and as soon as those $^#^$# people who won't let HIM see HIS game are busy elsewhere and not guarding the laptop he goes over and puts HIS game on in HIS bar and to hell with anybody else. Typical mentality of the majority of sports drunks who hang out in bars.

Can we get this thread closed now before it wastes any more of our time?

[ncoak]

you seem upset...

[fritzschreiner]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Can we get this thread closed now before it wastes any more of our time?

You can accuse somebody of being a terrorist for disagreeing with you again. that ought to do it.

[aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by ncoak

well, er, that is

Music Labels’ Joint Venture, VEVO, Shows Pirated NFL Game At Sundance | TechCrunch

I suppose I'll ask the obvious question: why in the world does VEVO allow the airing of copyrighted sports broadcasts? Why don't they have a filtering system in place, such as Youtube's ContentID?

Maybe UMG and Sony, the owners of VEVO, aren't too concerned when it's other people's copyrights being infringed?

I guess it's all about money; they're too cheap to license ContentID or to develop their own technology, or to actively cooperate with sports broadcasters in embedding detectable signals to identify copyrighted broadcasts.

Where's rack gear to present his argument which suggests that if Youtube can filter porn, then by extension there should be no reason that VEVO can't filter copyrighted content?

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by aroundtheworld

I suppose I'll ask the obvious question: why in the world does VEVO allow the airing of copyrighted sports broadcasts? Why don't they have a filtering system in place, such as Youtube's ContentID?

Maybe UMG and Sony, the owners of VEVO, aren't too concerned when it's other people's copyrights being infringed?

You don't read too good, do you?

VEVO did NOT allow the streaming of copyrighted sports broadcasts. The refused permission to the customer who wanted it.

The customer snuck up when the people running the event were busy elsewhere and put it on anyway.

As soon as they became aware of it they terminated the connection.

It wasn't over VEVO. It didn't have anything to do with VEVO. It was a simple matter of an a-hole customer hijacking one of their computers in a bar they were using for an event.

But people like you twist it around to try and make it something it is not.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

You can accuse somebody of being a terrorist for disagreeing with you again. that ought to do it.

I didn't call anyone a terrorist. Show me where I said that.

And it doesn't have anything to do with "agreeing with me". It has to do with a propaganda "report" about a trivial incident written up in a way to make it appear something happened that didn't.

A drunk hijacked a computer feed in a bar that was being used for a corporate event, without permission or knowledge of the event sponsor. When the problem was discovered it was corrected. End of story.

But that doesn't make very good propaganda, does it?

Can we get this thread closed? Before any more of this asinine bickering occurs?

[aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

VEVO did NOT allow the streaming of copyrighted sports broadcasts. The refused permission to the customer who wanted it.

I'll admit it: I skimmed the article and gave too much faith the original post of this thread. As it turns out, the video feed was coming from a site called TuTele.tv. I was being hasty in my snark up above.

That said, my sarcasm in that post is still essentially making the correct point to the matter at hand: you can only do so much to feasibly prevent users of your service from infringing on third-party copyrights. The best response that is currently available is simply to remove the infringing content once notified; just as VEVO did; just as Youtube (ContentID aside) does. Mechanical solutions can do only so much.

[fritzschreiner]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

I didn't call anyone a terrorist. Show me where I said that.

And it doesn't have anything to do with "agreeing with me". It has to do with a propaganda "report" about a trivial incident written up in a way to make it appear something happened that didn't.

A drunk hijacked a computer feed in a bar that was being used for a corporate event, without permission or knowledge of the event sponsor. When the problem was discovered it was corrected. End of story.

But that doesn't make very good propaganda, does it?

Can we get this thread closed? Before any more of this asinine bickering occurs?

Yeah. You told me I was pushing terrorism, to which I replied that you must be in a hurry to get the thread closed down, which happened soon after your false accusation.

But then nobody can really accuse you of following along. You're too interested in what YOU have to say.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

Yeah. You told me I was pushing terrorism, to which I replied that you must be in a hurry to get the thread closed down, which happened soon after your false accusation.

But then nobody can really accuse you of following along. You're too interested in what YOU have to say.

In voicing support for Anonymous/Lulzsec you most definitely are supporting terrorism. The "hactivism" attacks of Anon are textbook examples of cyberterrorism and are being investigated and prosecuted as such.

That doesn't mean that you, personally, are a terrorist.

The thread was closed because you and "aroundtheworld" had turned it into a bickering contest with nothing actually being accomplished. It appears you're working at doing the same on a couple more.

I've asked for this one to be closed because it's about a propaganda hit piece concerning that didn't happen the way it was presented and there's nothing constructive to be gained by talking about it.

It was a drunken jerk in a bar messing with stuff he'd been told not to mess with. Happens every day. It's not newsworthy - except that there happened to be a propagandist present who saw an opportunity to use it as a hit piece. Which should be instructive as to how utterly untrustworthy the "journalists" writing against the industry really are.

[aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

The thread was closed because you and "aroundtheworld" had turned it into a bickering contest with nothing actually being accomplished. It appears you're working at doing the same on a couple more.

Not to involve myself in a pointless and petty argument, but since I was wrongly called out in the quoted passage above, I will reference the the list of replies by poster to the thread in question. It is likely illuminating as to which individuals were engaged in the greatest degree of petty bickering. Yikes! One single poster had 721 replies... and a certain someone who called me out had 50% more posts than I!...

[Ianb007]

Originally Posted by aroundtheworld

I suppose I'll ask the obvious question: why in the world does VEVO allow the airing of copyrighted sports broadcasts? Why don't they have a filtering system in place, such as Youtube's ContentID?

Maybe UMG and Sony, the owners of VEVO, aren't too concerned when it's other people's copyrights being infringed?

I guess it's all about money; they're too cheap to license ContentID or to develop their own technology, or to actively cooperate with sports broadcasters in embedding detectable signals to identify copyrighted broadcasts.

Where's rack gear to present his argument which suggests that if Youtube can filter porn, then by extension there should be no reason that VEVO can't filter copyrighted content?

Really?


The reach with this VEVO - superbowl adolescent argument is just pathetic.

[Dean Roddey]

These types of threads have always been common. Even the most trivial scenario such as this will be regularly thrown up as proof that the IP owners are corrupt and freely and hypocritically engage in what they deny to others. And of course millions of people will just read the title of the various articles and that's all they need to know. It's now a fact.