Redlasso To TV Networks: We've Got Bloggers On Our Side
"We reached out to our blogger partners using the site and urged them to give their take on this," McGowan says. "Some of them are pretty supportive; we hope they continue to use the site."
So who's coming to Al's aid? Well, there's Michael David Smith at AOL's Fancast. "It's an ingenious product," Mr. Smith tells his readers, that has "transformed the blogosphere," and "it would be a shame for Redlasso to disappear." We have yet to hear from the folks at TechCrunch, who last we heard were a bit sour about not hearing about the C&D note themselves.
But enough about the groundswell of blog support. What's Redlasso's case? Well, says Al, they're totally useful to the networks: They increase networks' online distribution by allowing bloggers to easily re-post video. They're open to business models that would allow the networks to insert advertising, giving both the distributor (bloggers) and the tech platform (Redlasso) a cut.
Further, if the networks don't license Redlasso, those bloggers will go ahead and keep using YouTube, and then no one gets paid, right?
Here's the problem: Redlasso hasn't convinced anyone at the networks they need to be in business with them, and Al says they've been trying for two years. Further, none of these arguments help Redlasso in court.
Charles Sims, a partner at Proskauer Rose who represented the Hollywood studios and the MPAA, told us he thinks the network's case, should they choose to bring it, is iron-clad:
What Redlasso is doing is clearly infringing. Copyright law makes it unlawful to copy big sections of other people's work. It is particularly improper to do it and try to make money off of it which is what Redlasso is doing. If the various programs on network TV have financial value, it is the producers who have the right to exploit those and mine the economic value not interlopers like Redlasso.
If the networks thought Redlasso was helping they would not be going after them. The only interesting question is why anybody thought they could get away with this. I think [Redlasso] will go the way of Napster and be evicted out of that business model.
It's too bad, because we do agree with our bloggy brethren on this one: It's a cool service!
Redlasso hasn't responded formally to the letter, but plans to do so before the May 29 deadline. In the meantime, McGowan says, "we respect their position. We have our position. Obviously, we disagree with their conclusions and we will continue to have conversations."
They should stop and either request and gain permission, pay required fees, or use only enough of other people's work to be "fair usage" and use larger pieces only where necessary to comment/criticize on the reporting itself, not to get and retransmit that (expensive) content for free.
I'm talking to you, my favourite blogs, including Allahpundit, Ed Morrissey, and Michelle Malkin at Hot Air.
Answer me this then Christoph...
Why is it okay for people to record and upload content to YouTube.
Then allow YouTube to advertise and make money around that content (do a search and look at the ads).
Then hide behind the DMCA and force content owners to monitor YouTube 24/7 to tell them to take down their content.
It astounds me why people look the other way with copyrighted content that is posted on YouTube, simply because they are the standard approach that everyone is used to.
Redlasso's approach appears to be a clear and elegant solution to the problem. Yet even CEO's like Jeff Zucker still acquiesce to YouTube, due to their market size I assume. He even comments "I have no problem with what they're doing" in his Charlie Rose interview from last night. See it here on Redlasso.
If the network exec's embraced Redlasso they'd have the solution they are looking for and could finally put an end to the DMCA charade that YouTube is playing with them.
Redlasso approach is the future. Let people clip and syndicate whatever they want, but give the control and monetization to the content owners... and share a bit with the enablers, namely Redlasso and the bloggers who are promoting the content. This isn't rocket science!
In the end, Redlasso's approach is just too simple, isn't it? It can't possibly be so simple as to place the syndication control into the hands of the viewers/bloggers while giving the majority of the advertising revenue to the content owners?
Nah... let's invent more technology at YouTube to scan uploaded content to determine who owns it... yeah, that's the way to do it....
What is the problem?
Further, this was tested at about the same time in a dispute between SnappedShot.com and Associated Press. AP won, big time, as the Snapped Shot proprietor among others will tell you.
Joseph:"Why is it okay for people to record and upload content to YouTube."
If they don't own the rights to the content, it isn't, obviously.
"Then hide behind the DMCA and force content owners to monitor YouTube 24/7 to tell them to take down their content."
There have been legal disputes and also talks between content providers and YouTube. This is a point of contention, at least.
However, YouTube could at least rightly argue content violators are violating YouTube's terms of use when they post content online and YouTube actively complies with DCMA when they receive a proper request to do so.
Redlasso, on the other hand is one entity, not millions of individuals each responsible for their own actions (some following the law and some not). Redlasso was actively and intentionally taking oodles of original content without permission.
If they feel their actions are good for the content providers, they have to convince the content providers of the fact and gain their permission. It isn't enough for them to state their opinion and go.
Even if it is in the content providers best interest (a dubious proposition), that doesn't matter. It's the content provider's right to sell, trade, or give away, it isn't Redlasso's.
Redlasso can only use other people's content within the fair use exemption and they are going way beyond that, intentionally. It doesn't have a leg to stand on in court.
Further, this was tested at about the same time in a dispute between SnappedShot.com and Associated Press. AP won, big time, as the Snapped Shot proprietor among others will tell you.
Joseph:"Why is it okay for people to record and upload content to YouTube."
If they don't own the rights to the content, it isn't, obviously.
"Then hide behind the DMCA and force content owners to monitor YouTube 24/7 to tell them to take down their content."
There have been legal disputes and also talks between content providers and YouTube. This is a point of contention, at least.
However, YouTube could at least rightly argue content violators are violating YouTube's terms of use when they post content online and YouTube actively complies with DCMA when they receive a proper request to do so.
Redlasso, on the other hand is one entity, not millions of individuals each responsible for their own actions (some following the law and some not). Redlasso was actively and intentionally taking oodles of original content without permission.
If they feel their actions are good for the content providers, they have to convince the content providers of the fact and gain their permission. It isn't enough for them to state their opinion and go.
Even if it is in the content providers best interest (a dubious proposition), that doesn't matter. It's the content provider's right to sell, trade, or give away, it isn't Redlasso's.
Redlasso can only use other people's content within the fair use exemption and they are going way beyond that, intentionally. It doesn't have a leg to stand on in court.
http://minx.cc/?post=257042
I've been getting entire American Idol performances -- essentially 85% of the show -- sent to me at 6:30 pm Pacific Time, 90 minutes before the show is broadcast on the West Coast.
I have no need to watch the show.
I also get sent David Letterman clips at around 10:30 pm PT, so I don't have to stay up and watch the interviews.
If I were I network I would be pissed because
The problem is that RedLasso is not simply posting "clips," but virtually the entire interesting part of the show.
What if I, for instance, posted all of Silicon Alley Insider's content on my site.
Then that would be totally wrong, just like stealing nearly an TV show.
I have an open letter to David Stern, NBA commish on gambling and Indian Casino Sponsorship at my blog.
http://originalpechanga.blogspot.com
Based on RedLasso's comments they have been acting in good faith with the content owners all along and have never derived any revenue from content they currently distribute. Perhaps 'showing the way' to the content owners wasn't the best decision, but it clearly demonstrated how a small audience of users could generate a huge number of views.
Redlasso's player issues have definitely hampered them, but I've seen most people resolve the issue by simply upgrading to the latest version of Flash 9. Seems that the folks at Redlasso are using full streaming and techniques that stop people from illegally downloading the content in their player; yet another good faith feature implemented in their approach.
I don't sense any attempt on Redlasso's part to be pulling anything underhanded with the content, but rather to work as closely as possible with the networks to give everyone what they want.
Redlasso's platform clearly demonstrates this and I hope for everyone involved that they can come to an amicable resolution. YouTube is clearly not the answer and is arguably holding the content owners hostage by hiding behind DMCA when they can clearly filter content.
But Redlasso seems to be following the YouTube playbook: Launch w/out paying attention to copyright, scale up, and then start talking to the copyright holders. YouTube always claimed to be interested in working with copyright holders and in fact was sending its bizdev team out to talk to studios, labels, etc almost from the get-go. But in the meantime it kept growing. Clearly that's what Redlasso was trying to do.
What's disturbing is the implication that Redlasso is the bad player when in fact they appear to have been working in good faith with all content owners. Their system was specifically designed with all of the safeguards and monitoring in place that content owners want while giving the consumers an easy to use site where they can create clips.
Lastly, it still amazes me to hear people give YouTube the benefit of the doubt regarding publishing copyrighted material. They have demonstrated that they are able to filter porn and copyrighted content only after the content owners sign up with them. To me, that's akin to extortion. All while hiding behind false claims that they couldn't filter content, when in fact they were actively filtering content.
Completely understand why they'd want to do that, btw. Getting the copyright holders on board before you launch is laborious and perhaps impossible (see: Sling Media's "clip and sling" service, or QTrax). So the bet is you'll have more leverage if you negotiate when you're already up and running. But it's a bet.
Agreed. It's a catch-22 with the content owners. Technical demonstrations of new start-ups don't get you any attention, but if you can build an audience the content owners take notice!
Also, I don't think your history of YouTube is quite right. In the beginning, and arguably up to today, YouTube's model has been about user-generated content. The side-effect of users uploading copyrighted content gave YouTube tremdous growth with the added benefit of being protected by DMCA provisions. YouTube actually had a disincentive to proactively take down copyrighted content since they were protected by DMCA rules which places the responsibility of notifications on the content owners. I personally don't think this was the original intent of the DMCA authors, but this loop-hole arguably gave YouTube the protection to grow into the powerhouse they are today.
Redlasso on the other hand started talking 2 years ago to content owners about what their technology was going to do. Some of their management actually came out of the same industry. It's clear that Redlasso is on the side of the content owner and simply wants to provide a service like no other. Their growth over the past 6 months clearly demonstrates their potential.
I personally hope someone big snaps them up quickly so the world can continue to benefit from what the folks at Redlasso have built.
---------------------------------
Dear Bloggers and friends of Redlasso,
We would like to thank you for using Redlasso. We have built this tool with you in mind. It is your support that has proven that Redlasso is a relevant distribution channel, and it is your continued support that will help us achieve our goals as the bridge between the blogging community and the publishers.
Redlasso believes in, and encourages the proper use of copyrighted material. We launched our site as a solution for publishers, bloggers, and advertisers to the very real problem of untraceable video on the internet.
As you probably already know, Redlasso received a cease and desist letter from several media companies yesterday.
Although we have great respect for the media companies involved, we strongly disagree with the letter’s conclusion. The media companies are asking us for a response by May 29th. We are currently reviewing the letter and plan to respond in due time.
We were disappointed with the letter, especially given our transparent and open approach with the major content providers. We have been upfront in all of our discussions over the past two years including providing site logins, updates on our traction in the marketplace, and our business model. We will continue with our open approach as we continue to look to enter partnering agreements with all publishers.
This will not affect the usability of the Redlasso site. We are open for business and will remain so as we continue the discussions.
Our goal from the outset has been to develop a platform that will be beneficial to content providers, the commentators in the blogosphere and ultimately to people who visit these sites.
The Beta you have been participating in was devised to demonstrate that there is a demand for this type of service. We have not earned any revenue from the site and it is our full intention to get agreements in place with content providers so they can share in the opportunities and revenues enabled by Redlasso’s tools. We also believe that you should share in this revenue.
We believe we offer a valuable service for several reasons:
1) Redlasso brings order to the use of content by providing content producers a reliable means for tracking video and audio usage on the internet. The “Redlasso player” is replacing “untraceable players” on many blogs, so partnering with Redlasso will finally enable a profitable blogging distribution model for content providers.
2) We have addressed the specific needs of the blogger distribution channel. You have told us you want a single site giving you the ability to search, and create limited duration clips of, broadcast media to meet your mission of covering and commenting on daily events in the news.
3) We are a media tool center for bloggers. We are at your service as you continue to create news about news.
4) You have made the Redlasso Beta a success demonstrated by the 24 million uniques and 10 million video plays in April.
Redlasso wants to keep the dialogue open between us at all times. We want to hear from you.
We in turn will keep you apprised of our progress with our talks with content owners.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Thank you again for your faithful patronage and support.
Sincerely,
Redlasso’s Management Team
We are a licensed and insured cleaning services provider.
Our friendly staff has been providing our Orange County customers with cleaning services for residential dwellings and commercial properties since 2003.
We specialize in providing affordable, reliable cleaning and maintenance services for:
+ Commercial: Office Buildings, Office Suites, Construction Job Site Clean-Up, Janitorial/Maintenance.
+ Residential: House, Condominium, Apartment, Rental Property, Vacation Property.
We offer flexible scheduling with competitive rates available for weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly service and maintenance, depending on your needs and budget.
Ask us about our 24-Hour cleaning services. We're available for around-the-clock service as needed!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have a question about our cleaning services? Please contact us by e-mail for more information. Or, call 949-573-1117 (office), or
www.nicolascleansoc.com
Chat
chat sohbet
travesti
travesti
travesti
travesti
islak mendil
kolonyali mendil
mirc
Sohbet kanalları
sohbet kanalları
chat odaları
paysafe kart
gjdjpqpqpqpfrtt
gjdjpqpqpqpfrtt