__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Tuesday 03 April 2007 14:52 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Monday 02 April 2007 13:55 \__
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mysterious company" censors unflattering Steve Jobs video
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | While Robert X. Cringely says that the posting of five minutes of
>>>> | the show was probably in breach of copyright, he hadn't complained
>>>> | and neither had the programme maker Oregon Public Broadcasting.
>>>> |
>>>> | The take down notice came from an outfit called NBD Television,
>>>> | which neither Cringely or Oregon Public Broadcasting had heard of.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38644
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if these copy protect people have folk watching every video on
>>> youtube to make sure nothing copy protected is played. They can't do it
>>> only by a word search because many a post is named differently to the
>>> contents.
>>
>>
>> They have even removed an OLPC video, quite blindly. Viacom requested the
>> takedown of 100,000 videos and I think that Google promptly did this
>> unselectively, over the weekend. Go to YouTube, search for "Viacom" and
>> see the effect of 'false positives', in the form of video rants.
>>
>>
>>> There are apparently 210000 videos on youtube, some of those are the same
>>> video renamed and reposted, some chopped up (the dull bits taken out
>>> etc).
>>
>>
>> I thought they had many more. Putting the figure above to add perspective,
>> Viacom may have really emptied YouTube. What I hate the most is the fact
>> that many of my references to YouTube (including embedment in Web page)
>> must have broken. I don't even know which one...
>>
>>
>>> It can't be an easy job trying to pick out the protected ones.
>>>
>>>
>><snip />
>>
>
> This has nothing at all to do with so-called "protected content",
> rather, it is all about Viacom losing audience to youtube. Just like
> Microsoft have been trying to fight free software, so the broadcasters
> are trying to fight user-selected content. They will use any technique
> that they can, and unfortunately, unlike free software, a lot of youtube
> content is a mix of new material and selections of copyrighted material.
> I'm not convinced that showing a short clip of copyrighted material is
> necessarily a violation of any copyright law, however, it could be.
>
> What the youtube generation lack, so far, is a Richard Stallman-like
> figure who's prepared to stand up for freedom. That said, there are a
> lot of bands who are creating free content, and several individuals who
> are surely doing the same. I suppose it won't be long before there's
> enough out there to fill youtube with legitimate material, indeed,
> enough to crush viacom's rather nasty effort to kill youtube.
I think the grand goal is to deprive people from entertainment, thereby
forcing them to go out and buy some. That's what shutting down Internet
radio (by elevating royalties through lobbying) is all about. In their view,
in order to survive, people mustn't entertain one another for free. How long
before everyone get charged to visit the mall? The land of nothing for free.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: the most popular, but not most widespread
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 22.9% user, 4.8% system, 0.8% nice, 71.6% idle
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
