The Good NET Guide

Posts Tagged ‘videos’

We’re still poring over the hundreds of pages of documents that were just released in the YouTube/Viacom litigation. One document that offers extensive insight into YouTube’s early operations is Viacom’s Statement of Undisputed Facts, which contains quite a few emails from the site’s three founders: Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim (sometimes referred to as YouTube’s ‘forgotten’ founder). For what it’s worth, YouTube dispels the notion that these were really undisputed; a YouTube spokesperson said “This statement of undisputed facts is a statement of undisputed fiction.”

One of YouTube’s defenses in this case is that it has virtually no way to tell if a piece of content has been uploaded with the authorization of its owner. Which is true — Viacom has even admitted that it requested that YouTube remove many of the videos that its own personnel had uploaded. Because of the DMCA, YouTube was allowed to keep this potentially infringing content online provided it responded in a timely manner to takedown requests.

But these Emails, at least as presented by Viacom, don’t make it sound like YouTube’s founders and employees were necessarily worried about depriving content owners of videos they may have rightfully uploaded. Sometimes, it sounds like they’re pretty sure that they weren’t authorized, and were just relying on the fact that they didn’t have to do anything until they received a takedown notice. Instead, they were worried about prematurely cutting off the bulk of their traffic.

There’s some talk of creating the perception that YouTube was concerned with patrolling such content. In one memorandum, Jawed Karim told YouTube’s Board of Directors that the 10-minute length restriction the site was imposing would “reinforce the official line that YouTube is not in the business of hosting full-length television shows”, but that it “probably won’t cut down the actual amount of illegal content uploaded” because users could easily split shows in half or upload the “Juiciest bits of television shows”. Which begs the question, what was the point? Also, note that he refers to it as “the official line”.

Of course, YouTube says this is all “undisputed fiction”, and they’ll probably argue that the quotes were taken out of context (and they may well have been). If YouTube did follow the DMCA to the letter of the law (regardless of their underlying motivation), they may not have much bearing on the case.  And there’s also the fact that Viacom is being hypocritical with all of this, because it too offered user-generated video sites that relied on the DMCA, and it uploaded many videos to YouTube itself.

But it makes for some very interesting reading.

Here are from some of those early Emails and IM conversations (you can find the full document here:

On July 4,2005, YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley sent an email to YouTube co-founders
Steve Chen and Jawed Karim titled “budlight commercials,” stating “we need to reject these
too”; Steve Chen responded by asking to “leave these in a bit longer? another week or two can’t hurt;” Jawed Karim subsequently stated that he “added back all 28 bud videos. stupid. . .,” and Steve Chen replìed: “okay the video they upload, first, regardless of people are going to be telling people about the site, therefore making it viral. they’re going to drive traffic. second, it adds more content to the site. third, we’re going to be adding advertisements in the future so this gets them used to it. I’m asking for a couple more weeks.”

In a July 10, 2005 email to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen,YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim reported that he had found a “copyright video” and stated: “Ordinarily I’d say reject it, but I agree with Steve, let’s ease up on our strict policies for now. So let’s just leave copyrighted stuff there if it’ s news clips. I still think we should reject some other (C) things tho. . .”; Chad Hurley replied, “ok man, save your meal money for some lawsuits! no really, I guess we’ll just see what happens.”

In a July 19, 2005 email to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, YouTube co founder Steve Chen wrote: “jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We’re going to have a tough time defending the fact that we’re not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we the co-founders is didn’t put it up when one of blatantly stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it.”

In a July 23, 2005 email to YouTube co- founders Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, YouTube cofounder Chad Hurley responded to a YouTube link sent by Jawed Karim by saying: “if we reject this, we need to reject all the other copyrighted ones. . . . should we just develop a flagging system for a future push?”; Karim responded: “I say we reject this one, but not the other ones. This one is totally blatant.”

In an August 9, 2005 email to YouTube co-founders Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley stated: “we need to start being diligent about rejecting copyrighted/inappropriate content. we are getting serious traffic and attention now, I don’t want this to be killed by a potentially bad experience of a network exec or someone visiting us. like there is a cnn clip of the shuttle clip on the site today, if the boys from Turner would come to the site, they might be pissed? these guys are the ones that will buy us for big money, so lets make them happy. we can then roll a lot of this work into a flagging system soon.”

On August 10,2005, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim responded to YouTube co-
founder Chad Hurley (see SUF i1 (previous para)): “lets remove stuff like movies/tv shows. lets keep short news clips for now. we can become stricter over time, just not overnight. like the CNN space shuttle clip, I like. we can remove it once we’re bigger and better known, but for now that clip is fine.” Steve Chen replied, “sounds good.”

In response to YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley’s August 9, 2005 email (see SUF i146) YouTube co-founder Steve Chen stated: “but we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don’t see what wì1 happen. what? someone from cnn sees it? he happens to be someone with power? he happens to want to take it down right away. he get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease & desist letter. we take the video down”; Chad Hurley replied: I just don’t want to create a bad vibe… and perhaps give the users or the press something bad to write about.”

In a September 1, 2005 email to YouTube co-founder Steve Chen and all YouTube
employees, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim stated, “well, we SHOULD take down any: 1)movies 2) TV shows. we should KEEP: 1)news clips 2) comedy clips (Conan, Leno, etc) 3) music videos. In the future, I’d also reject these last three but not yet.”

On September 2,2005, in response to an email from YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley reporting that he had taken down clips of the TV show “Family Guy,” YouTube co-founder Steve Chen stated: “should we just assume that a user uploading content really owns the content and is agreeing to all the terms of use? so we don’t take down anything other than obscene stuff?”

In a September 3,2005 email responding to YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley’s concern
that “the site is starting to get out of control with copyrighted material” (see SUF i154),
YouTube co-founder Steve Chen stated to the other two YouTube co- founders that, “what’s
the difference between big-boys/stupidvideos vs youtube? . . . if you look at the top videos
on the site, it’s all from this type of content. in a way, if you remove the potential
copyright infringements, wouldn’t you still say these are ‘personal’ videos? if you define
‘personal’ to be videos on your personal harddrive that you want to upload and share with
people? anyway, if site traffic and viralìty will drop to maybe what it is. . . i’d hate to prematurely 20% of attack a problem and end up just losing growth due to it.”

In response (see SUF i155), YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim wrote: “well I’d just remove the obviously copyright infringing stuff. movies and tv shows, I’d get rid of. . . .leave music videos, news clips, and clips we’ll of comedy shows for now. I think thats a pretty good policy for now, no?”

In a September 3,2005 email to the two other YouTube co- founders, YouTube co-founder
Steve Chen responded to Jawed Karim’s suggestion that YouTube remove “obviously copyright infringing stuff’ (see SUF i156) by stating that “i know that if (we remove all that content. we go from 100,000 views a day down to about 20,000 views or maybe even lower. the copyright infringement stuff. i mean, we can presumably claim that we don’t know who owns the rights to that video and by uploading, the user is claiming they own that video. we’re protected by DMCA for that.we’ll take it down if we get a ‘cease and desist”‘; Jawed Karim replied: “my suggested polìcy is really lax though. . . . if we keep that polìcy I don’t think our views will decrease at alL. “

In a September 7, 2005 email, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen wrote to YouTube cofounders Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, and Roelof Botha of Sequoia Capital (and later a
YouTube board member) that YouTube had “implemented a flagging system so you can flag a video as being inappropriate or copyrighted. That way, the perception is that we are concerned about this type of material and we’re actively monitoring it. The actual removal of this content will be in varying degrees. We may want to keep some of the borderline content on the site but just remove it from the browse/search pages. that way, you can’t find the content easily. Again, similar to Flickr, . . . you can find truckloads of adult and copyrighted content. It’s just that you can’t stumble upon it, you have to be actively searching for it.”

In a January 25,2006 instant message exchange, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen
(IM user name tunawarrior) told his colleague YouTube product manager Maryrose Dunton
(IM user name maryrosedunton) that he wanted to “concentrate all of our efforts in
building up (YouTube’sJ numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil,” including “user metrics” and “views,” and “then 3 months, sell it with 20m views per day and like 2m users or something. . . I think we can sell for somewhere between $250m – $500m . . . in the next 3 months. . . and there *is* a potential to get to $1 b or something.”

In a February 17,2006 instant message conversation, YouTube systems administrator Bradley Heilbrun (IM user name nurblìeh) asked YouTube product manager Maryrose Dunton (IM user name maryrosedunton), “was it me, or was the lawyer thing today a cover- your-ass thing from the company?” Dunton responded, “oh totally. . . did you hear what they were saying? it was really hardcore . . . if we even see copyrighted material on the site, as employees we’re supopsed (sic to report it”; Heilbrun replied, “sure, whatever,” and Dunton said “I guess the fact that I started like 5 groups based on copyrighted material probably isn’t so great”; in response Heilbrun said “right exactly. . . but it’s a cover your ass . . . so the board can say we told maryrose not to do this.”

In the same instant message conversation,YouTube product manager Maryrose Dunton
(IM user name maryrosedunton) reported the results of a “lìttle exercise” she performed
wherein she “went through all the most viewed/most discussed/top favorites/top rated to try and figure out what percentage is or has copyrighted materiaL. it was over 70%.” She added, “what I meant to say is after I found that 70%, I went and flagged it all for review.” When deposed, YouTube product manager Maryrose Dunton confirmed in reference to the February 28,2006 instant message exchange with YouTube co-founder Steve Chen (see SUF i195) that she was being sarcastic and did not actually flag any of the copyrighted videos for review.

CrunchBase Information

YouTube

Viacom

Information provided by CrunchBase

Despite criticism, and an overall frustrating experience, Google is definitely not ready to give up on Buzz. The latest indication comes today by way of a new Android widget that makes it easier than ever to post updates to the service.

The new Google Buzz widget for Android allows you to post text or photos to the service without having to launch any app on the device. And, if you choose, you can easily tag your location to your buzz, as well as determine if it should be public or private. This widgets extends the already solid support the Android platform is offering the young service. For example, Buzz is built into Google Maps on Android, as well.

This new widget looks very slick — easily one of the best widgets for Android yet. And it furthers my opinion that Buzz should have been launched as a location-based service first. Of course, this simple functionality wouldn’t be possible on the iPhone, which doesn’t allow for widgets (and who knows if they’d even accept a Buzz native app at this point — or if Google would even create one for them).

Google talked about Buzz quite a bit this past week during a panel at SXSW. They apparently are thinking about letting users pre-test new features now.

This new widget works on Android 1.6 and later. To find it, search for “Google Buzz Widget” in the Android Market.

Miami, Florida-based Labotec has landed a round of funding from Kima Ventures, a European early-stage investment fund founded by entrepreneurs and angel investors Jeremie Berrebi (Zlio, Net2One) and Square backer Xavier Niel (Free, Iliad).

The VC firm thus joins Kipost and FS Ventures as investors of the crowd-sourced mobile app development venture. The size of the round remains undisclosed, but we hear the amount of financing totaled just south of a seven-figure sum, so we’ll peg it at in between $800,000 and $999,999.

Labotec offers a relatively unique way of mobile app publishing, based on crowd-sourcing ideas from third parties. Basically, people who have ideas for mobile applications on any of the major platforms but lack the time, development skills or resources to actually build them can submit their ideas through the Labotec website.

The ideas are subsequently evaluated by Labotec, and if one gets thumbs up from a committee of unnamed field experts associated with the company, Labotec funds the entire development, distribution and marketing of the app. The IP is co-owned by whoever submitted the idea – targeted are carriers and handset manufacturers – and Labotec.

The ‘Inspirer’ (the person or organization that brought forward the idea for the app) doesn’t pay a cent, but if the app ends up generating revenue, the first $25,000 that it makes goes to Labotec – no matter how long it took to get to that point. After that, the Inspirer gets 50% of any revenue that may follow. Labotec notes that they’re still testing this model and that it is subject to change in the future.

Labotec says that it has received hundreds of new project ideas from 27 countries since its inception in May 2009. A total of 3 applications out of those ideas have launched (iSOS for Android, iMove2Music and FakeSMS for iPhone) and 20 are slated for release by the end of this year – which basically means a lot of the submitted ideas are junk.

The company says it plans to use part of the just-raised capital to hire 10 more developers of mobile apps for platforms such as iPhone, Android, iPad and BlackBerry.

The only thing worse than company meetings is trying to schedule one. The more people who need to be at that meeting, the harder it is to find a time slot that works with everyone’s schedule. A new Google Calendar Labs feature called the Smart Rescheduler brings some search smarts to the problem. “Overnight, all the Google apps customers will get this,” says Google Calendar product manager Cyrus Mistry. “It is like we are giving every employee their own administrative assistant.”

The person scheduling the meeting enters the names of the participants, how long the meeting will be, and a date by when the meeting must take place. The Smart Rescheduler then goes out and looks at everyone’s calendar to see when everyone is free, taking into account different time zones and other commitments on their calendars (in order for this to work, all the meeting attendees must share their calendars with Google Calendar).

All too often at this point in the process, someone has a conflict. What the Rescheduler does is look at all the soft constraints and actually ranks the best meeting times. Different attendees can be prioritized so the meeting is set around their schedule. Soft constraints are taken into account like partial schedule overlaps, times blocked with no other attendees, meetings where someone’s been invited but hasn’t yet accepted, or meetings organized by that person. These factors often indicate a schedule that can be altered.

Google Calendar throws all of these factors together and comes up with a ranking for the best possible meeting time. “We did look at algorithms for search to see how they solved which doc should come to the top,” says Mistry. “We discover what meeting should come out on top.” The Rescheduler can even book new conference rooms based on which one is closest to the original one and the same size.

You can learn all sorts of interesting tidbits from legal documents. For instance, in one of the legal briefs unsealed today in the YouTube-Viacom dispute, such as the amount of money YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley made from the $1.65 billion sale of the company to Google in 2006. His take: $334 million (based on the November, 13, 2006 closing price of Google’s stock). In other words, the young CEO owned about 20 percent of YouTube at the time of the sale.

YouTube’s other co-founder Steve Chen’s stake was worth $301 million at the time of the sale, and the third co-founder Jawed Karim walked away with $66 million. Even YouTube interface designer Christina Brodbeck “received Google shares worth $9.09 million.”

The VCs did even better. Sequoia Capital, YouTube’s venture backer, turned a $9 million investment into $516 million (or about 31 percent of the total). And Artis Capital turned a $3 million investment into $85 million.

Another notable stat from the legal docs: in the past five years, more than 500 million videos have been uploaded to YouTube overall.

December 1, 2008. That was the last day I got a Qwitter notification. I don’t recall qwitting Qwitter, it simply stopped working for me. Until today. When it just puked in my email inbox.

For those unaware, Qwitter is a service that emails you every time someone unfollows you on Twitter. It tells you their name, and the last tweet you sent that may have caused the unfollow. Naturally, when I saw the huge influx of emails today, I decided to visit the site again — and guess what, it does appear that they’re back. As they note, “We’re Back! How could we possibly quit catching QWITTERS?!? Fear not… notification emails have returned, giving us all something to look forward to during the day!“

Not only that, the service promises that “premium services” are coming soon. Agora Technology, the group behind the app, promises faster email notifications without ads, and the ability to become a featured Qwitter user if you sign up (more details are coming soon).

There’s just a few problems with the new Qwitter. First, they’re sending all of these emails with a completely broken link. The “Visit Qwitter Therapy” link takes you to the following URL: http://root_url/therapy. Clearly, that’s the result of some bad coding. And I have about 60 emails today all with the same broken link. More importantly, I’m not sure the all-important unsubscribe button is working. I clicked on it to unsubscribe earlier, and I’m still getting the notifications. Others are noting that they qwit Qwitter a long time ago, and have started getting the notifications today.

These Qwitter emails are also now promoting TweepML, a Twitter grouping service, which we’ve covered in the past. And interestingly, it appears that Qwitter may be under new management. Previously it was a group called Contrast that ran the service (here’s an interview we did with them), now it’s listed as being run by this Agora Technology group — which is the same group behind TweepML (which just sold).

I’ve never been thrilled by the idea of Qwitter because it adds social pressure to Twitter. Without it, if you unfollow someone, they’re unlikely to notice (as Twitter won’t notify them). But with it, they’ll get an email and things may get, well, awkward. Likewise, getting an email letting you know that you’ve been unfollowed probably makes you feel a bit uneasy inside. Well, okay, unless it’s one of the thousands of spammy accounts on Twitter. Still, at one point they cared, and now they don’t.

[photo: Paramount Pictures]

Earlier today, several previously sealed legal documents in the longstanding copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube by Viacom were made public. In conjunction with the public release of those documents, YouTube’s chief counsel Zahavah Levine wrote a blog post which reads more like a summary of a legal brief.

In it, Levine outlines YouTube’s main defense against Viacom’s allegations, including the fact that Viacom “secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there.” Levine also notes that “Viacom tried repeatedly to buy YouTube,” suggesting that the current $1 billion lawsuit is its attempt to cash in on YouTube years after the fact.

Here is the key passage from the blog post:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

In other words, while Viacom’s lawyers were issuing takedown notices, its marketers were putting clips up on YouTube to promote Viacom movies and TV shows. You’ve got to wonder what the judge will make of that evidence.

Today, YouTube and Viacom unsealed many of the documents related to their longstanding copyright litigation, in which Viacom has sued Google for $1 billion. Viacom alleges that YouTube willingly facilitated the distribution of copyrighted material, and used it to boost its own traffic (while hurting Viacom’s bottom line in the process). We’re embedding the documents, which were released minutes ago, below (it may take a few minutes to get them all posted). We’ll be posting throughout the morning on what these documents reveal.

YouTube’s Brief

20100318_google_viacom_youtube_memorandum

Viacom Summary Judgement Motion

Viacom Summary Judgment Motion

Viacom Statement of Undisputed Facts

Viacom Statement of Undisputed Facts

Photo Credit/Flickr/ifindkarma

The whole time I was watching this Mega Man 10 fauxmercial, I was thinking “something about this is wrong.” And yes, it’s all wrong, of course, but specifically… it’s 16:9 . Man, there ain’t no NES commercials in 16:9! [via Reddit ]

See more here:
Retro Mega Man 10 commercial – complete with V-Hold issues

I haven’t been keeping up with the hardware. Last year I was all set because I’d recently built my PC, but all this dag-nabbed Macintosh-using has made me lazy. So when Kingston says their new HyperX 2400MHz DDR3 RAM is the fastest in the world and is timed at 9-11-9-27-2, all I can do is nod my head, open a new tab, and hit “New Post.” The result… is what you see.

Go here to see the original: 
Kingston’s new “fastest memory ever” probably is, but won’t be next month