Video Stealing

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Bochek

Everyone,

<snip>

Are you serious? Your site is being counteractive to the "message and unity" you seem to be promoting. Wouldn't FIRST benefit more from having everything aggregated in one place with everythinf(match scores, awards, videos, basically TBA)?

I know 1676 pride themselves on the significant amount of match videos they post. Saying you "forgot to credit them" is just as bad as ignoring it completely. Its great that you webcast and archive all Canadian events, but is it necessary to host every other video?

Either way if you decide to start asking permission from other teams to host their videos, I can guarantee you're going to have a hard time getting approvals from some people...

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

Is there a particular reason why people who filmed/edited videos want to upload them? Do they get money from them? (I'm just trying to see what potential issues might arise from such a centralized solution, not attack anyone).

I for one love 1676s MARchives(can we please start calling them that?), as they're an angle and quality better than most webcasts in MAR, and easy to watch since I barely have time to watch a full MAR webcast/follow the MAR teams I wanna follow.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

I for one love 1676s MARchives(can we please start calling them that?), as they're an angle and quality better than most webcasts in MAR, and easy to watch since I barely have time to watch a full MAR webcast/follow the MAR teams I wanna follow.

Maybe I should have rephrased my question. I meant more:

In exchange for accreditation (or similar), would everyone be willing to upload it to a centralized location, instead of (only) their personal YouTube/Vimeo account? Or are there other factors involved?

[who716]

after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by who716

after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.

That is wrong, for one, the video is copyrighted and is not public domain

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

That is wrong, for one, the video is copyrighted and is not public domain

I'm not making commentary on WFN, but so this ^^ Just because something is public doesn't make it public domain. The first is a measure of availability, the second is a measure of copyright.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by who716

after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.

Then I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your english teacher is wrong.

Compare what WFN is doing to something he MIGHT understand: I've got a lot of posts on here, some of which almost provide some educational value. Now, copy the text of that and put it verbatim into a book. Is it bad to do this without citing me? You bet it is. You're taking my work as your own. Now, yes, that work is a derivative of other's work. But the fact is that I am the one who wrote it originally.

Now, if I record an event happening is it really any different? Nope. I hit the record button, I set the angles for the shot, I did any required editing. Now, if someone takes it and uses it for their own gain (which this is undeniably doing) it is infringement. This is a really simple case.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by who716

after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.

Perhaps you should review the Youtube Terms of Service, specifically Section 5, part B.

Originally Posted by 5. Your Use of Content

Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Now, if someone takes it and uses it for their own gain (which this is undeniably doing) it is infringement. This is a really simple case.

Can we assume this is true? I'm not sure. Rogers v. Koons showed that selling a sculpture based on a picture is infringement, but in this case, WFN is not selling anything (except an ad, which might be a point of contention). It's always the same ad, too, which seems to suggest that the money from that ad is not for commercial reasons, but merely to pay for web hosting.

[Hallry]

I've been keeping a close eye on this thread, but have been trying not to post too much on it.

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

In general, I agree that having one, centralized community-driven storage of videos would be useful. So that videos won't get lost, and are easier to access for people who want to design portals that showcase those videos (similar to TBA). For example, a rather simple implementation would be to have one YouTube channel called 'FIRST videos' that anyone can upload to.

One of the many reasons why TBA is amazing is the ability for uploaders to voluntarily submit their match videos for an event. They can do it both on the site and it's even easier to do so on this Google Doc, all they have to do is provide the link for the playlist and someone else will take care of sorting all of it. These videos are still hosted on the uploader's channel so if a user clicks on one of the embedded videos, it goes straight to the uploader's video page.

EDIT: Also found that there is a Facebook Group for coordinating TBA match footage as well.

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

IIs there a particular reason why people who filmed/edited videos want to upload them? Do they get money from them? (I'm just trying to see what potential issues might arise from such a centralized solution, not attack anyone).

One of the new awards last year was the FRC New Media Award, which "will recognize a team’s creative use of digital media and devices to create and distribute content that is used to promote the team’s profile, achievements, and outreach, along with the FIRST mission." 15% of the grading for this award is Engagement, with questions asked such as "How did you track the results?". If you look at the winning submission last year from Panteras, one of the main ways they did this was providing statistics of views on their YouTube Channel. However, if their footage is stolen from them and posted elsewhere, their recordable reach of their content will decrease. This could hurt a team that's in the running for this award.



And I also just want to put this out there: What if I go download all of WFN's footage and then post it on my own personal account somewhere, and start advertising it like crazy on Chief Delphi as "Robotics Videos Online". That would be perfectly fine under WFN's beliefs, correct? (assuming everything else is disregarded)

That's my $0.02 for now. I'll see if I can dig up any more change in my pockets later.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lucario

Can we assume this is true? I'm not sure. Rogers v. Koons showed that selling a sculpture based on a picture is infringement, but in this case, WFN is not selling anything (except an ad, which might be a point of contention). It's always the same ad, too, which seems to suggest that the money from that ad is not for commercial reasons, but merely to pay for web hosting.

So, you're saying that if I take code from Microsoft and put it into an open source library that's ok because I'm not gaining anything and Microsoft won't come after me?

I worded that poorly, gain isn't important it just makes it more bothersome to me. Passing off someone else's content as your own is the core problem.



And on top of any legal issues... It's just a slimeball move. Adam, you're being a slimeball. Stop it.

[Zach O]

Originally Posted by Bochek

I have responded to 2 emails from him. I have asked for proof of ownership of the YouTube account. I have not heard back yet. I will send him a PM tonight.

You shouldn't need proof of ownership from anyone. Are they yours? Did someone else make them? Don't rip them and re-upload them.

Originally Posted by Bochek

From what I can read, there are 2 main problems at hand. One is the fact that we don't credit the source, which I will fix. Second is the people who would rather fight to call something theirs (which I'm not trying to take away from them) instead of help the cause and help spread the word of FIRST.

If people have specific issues. Lets come up with ideas to solve them instead of just complaining.

I guarantee you if you had taken the proper channels in order to receive explicit permission from the owners of the videos that you could rip them from their original source (this is apparently against some terms of service? I'm no lawyer) and re-host them, things would've been okay. But this isn't what you're doing. You're stealing from people. I can't go on to YouTube and steal my favorite One Direction music video and re-upload it somewhere else so I can serve ads on it. I didn't make it, I wasn't given explicit permission to use it, and I'm clearly profiting off of it.

Also, we did suggest a solution. Several times, in fact. Need another solution? Feel free to email me, I know how to drag and drop a few videos to a trash can. Is it on a server? Perfect. Here's my ssh public keys. I'll login and remove them for you.

It doesn't take a programmer to make this right.

Originally Posted by Lucario

It's always the same ad, too, which seems to suggest that the money from that ad is not for commercial reasons, but merely to pay for web hosting.

Ads for free web hosting is exchanging a service for ads, as opposed to directly getting money to pay for web hosting. It's still an ad, they're still profiting off of it.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

So, you're saying that if I take code from Microsoft and put it into an open source library that's ok because I'm not gaining anything and Microsoft won't come after me?

Grah, this is exactly like the Mythbusters post nuggetsyl made on the first page! No, this would not be okay because Microsoft is a commercial entity and by releasing their code you are damaging the revenue they get from selling their products. FIRST videos are different because there is negligible amounts of monetary income involved.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lucario

Grah, this is exactly like the Mythbusters post nuggetsyl made on the first page! No, this would not be okay because Microsoft is a commercial entity and by releasing their code you are damaging the revenue they get from selling their products. FIRST videos are different because there is negligible amounts of monetary income involved.

Incorrect. If I take code from a non commercial product and put it in an open source project it's the same situation. I'm taking someone else's work and claiming it as my own.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Hallry

One of the many reasons why TBA is amazing is the ability for uploaders to voluntarily submit their match videos for an event. They can do it both on the site and it's even easier to do so on this Google Doc, all they have to do is provide the link for the playlist and someone else will take care of sorting all of it. These videos are still hosted on the uploader's channel so if a user clicks on one of the embedded videos, it goes straight to the uploader's video page.

I think the way TBA works is great. The only issue is that there is no assurance that those videos won't disappear if individual user accounts are deleted/banned for some reason (I think there are already a few dead links on TBA).

If the community could store/manage the content, it would help safeguard against that possibility.

Originally Posted by Hallry

One of the new awards last year was the FRC New Media Award, which "will recognize a team’s creative use of digital media and devices to create and distribute content that is used to promote the team’s profile, achievements, and outreach, along with the FIRST mission." 15% of the grading for this award is Engagement, with questions asked such as "How did you track the results?". If you look at the winning submission last year from Panteras, one of the main ways they did this was providing statistics of views on their YouTube Channel. However, if their footage is stolen from them and posted elsewhere, their recordable reach of their content will decrease. This could hurt a team that's in the running for this award.

Access to the analytics for page/load views per video is definitely possible. YouTube already does it (sometimes). Would teams be fine with those statistics, versus the 'channel views' that the Panteras used?