Veoh’s Bright Beginning

Veoh began life in 2005 before entering beta in 2006. Founded by Dmityr Shapiro, the company made the headlines when Michael Eisner, former Disney chairman, joined the board. And he was one of the big-name investors alongside Time Warner and Goldman Sachs.

Veoh was talked about in the same vein as YouTube, offering a mix of user-generated content and premium content. Veoh’s goal was simple: to aid the viewing of video content and the uploading of video from ordinary people.

But things soon turned sour.

UMG DMCA Lawsuit

In September 2004, Universal Music Group filed a lawsuit against Veoh alleging that copyright infringing videos were present on the site. However, Veoh was playing by the rules, removing videos found to be infringing copyright.

UMG’s reasoning for why Veoh wasn’t protected under the DMCA Safe Harbor provision was that in converting the files into the Flash format they were republishing the content and therefore wholly responsible for it.

The judge disagreed with UMG’s arguments at every turn, last year issuing a summary judgment in Veoh’s favor.

Veoh’s Dismal Ending

Unfortunately the case took a lot out of Veoh, costing it a lot of money, hitting the confidence of management and staff alike, and dissuading investors from working with the company.

Veoh limped on, changing strategy and laying off staff in an attempt to right the ship. But traffic slumped and Veoh let go of its remaining workforce on Wednesday. It is now preparing to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Shapiro confirmed the already-rumored news in a heartfelt but ultimately positive blog post yesterday.

Conclusions

It’s a real shame to see Veoh go out this way, but the writing has been on the wall for a while now. What the company has left the industry with is an important legal precedent derived from its victory over Universal.

DMCA Safe Harbor Provision

All online video sharing sites, and sites which accept other forms of media, which allow users to upload content, run the risk of copyrighted material making its way onto their servers. Whether that in effect means the site itself is infringing on copyright law is open to interpretation.

The safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, otherwise known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is designed to end this debate by exempting Web sites and hosts as long as they follow certain rules.

Legal Battles Ensue

However, this hasn’t stopped content owners from suing video sites, especially if they consider them not to have followed the rules set out in the DMCA safe harbor provision. The biggest case of this kind is the lawsuit brought by Viacom against YouTube, which is still ongoing.

While that case rumbles on, other similar cases are being resolved, with the online video sharing sites usually coming out on top. In late 2008, Veoh won a copyright infringement case brought against it by Io Group, an adult entertainment company. And now, Veoh has emerged victorious again.

Veoh Vs. UMG

Universal Music Group brought a lawsuit against Veoh back in 2007 alleging copyright infringing videos were present on the site. UMG accused Veoh of “engaging of high-tech theft in the name of ’sharing.’” The argument against Veoh being protected by the DMCA safe harbor provision was owing to the way Veoh transcoded the videos.

But now the judge in the case has issued a summary judgment stating that Veoh does qualify for protection. Judge A. Howard Matz made it clear that Veoh “expeditiously” removed videos it found to be infringing copyright and introduced measures to prevent similar lapses in the future.

Veoh CEO Dmitry Shapiro issued a statement saying:

“From an industry perspective, this decision is a big deal as well, as we now have a second clear victory showing that companies who work diligently to respect property owners and the DMCA will be able to run their businesses and be successful without the fear of those select content owners who may be uncomfortable with emerging technology.”

Viacom Vs. YouTube Fallout

The question now is what effect this could have on the Viacom vs. YouTube case. Although the Io Group lawsuit was sufficiently different, UMG’s is very similar and the result must surely have a bearing on the outcome of that lawsuit.

That case is being heard in a different district but legal experts predict this case will at least have an influence on the outcome.

And the judge’s insistence that making financial gains from user-generated content, even if it infringes on copyright, doesn’t remove the DMCA safe harbor provision is doubly good news for YouTube as it potentially opens up over 90 percent of YouTube uploads to advertising.

[Via Ars Technica]

Related Ad

Buy ‘Copyright’s Paradox’ from Amazon

The U.S. District Court has dismissed a copyright infringement case in which Io Group alleged Veoh had broken the law by the use of its transcoding method.

DMCA Takedowns Not Sufficient?

Io Group, an adult entertainment company, launched the lawsuit back in 2006 after some of its pornographic material ended up on Veoh due to being uploaded by a user.

Io Group first sent DMCA takedown notices, which were duly and very quickly honoured with the removal of the videos. But that wasn’t enough and it sued Veoh anyway.

Wrong Type Of Transcoding?

The lawsuit alleged that the method of transcoding used by Veoh, with uploaded videos being in the Flash format, meant that Veoh itself was the infringer and in direct control of the material on the site.

According to TechCrunch, Judge Howard Lloyd disagreed.

Judge Howard Lloyd

“Here, Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users.”

“Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the third party software… But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed.”

“Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh’s users.”

Wider Repercussions

It’s a good thing that the judge saw it this way as every other Flash-based video sharing site operate in exactly the same way. A different judgement could have had wider implications.

But could this judgement have an impact on the other high-profile court case involving video sharing and copyright infringement: Viacom versus YouTube?

PaidContent report that both sides issued statements concerning the result of this court case.

Google Responds

Google obviously came out in support of the judge’s decision:

“It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights…YouTube has gone above and beyond the law to protect content owners while empowering people to communicate and share their experiences online.”

Viacom Responds

Viacom, which recently demanded and won access to private YouTube user details, obviously has an altogether different view on the whole thing:

“Even if the Veoh decision were to be considered by other courts, that case does nothing to change the fact that YouTube is a business built on infringement that has failed to take reasonable measures to respect the rights of creators and content owners.”

Google and YouTube have engaged in massive copyright infringement – conduct that is not protected by any law, including the DMCA.”

Common Sense Victory

Unfortunately it seems as though Viacom is right on this score. This case is different enough from the Viacom Vs YouTube to prevent this victory for common sense being used as an industry-wide precedent.

While the dismissal of this case won’t help YouTube in its defence against Viacom, it does at least show that some judges live in the real world.

Related Ad

Buy ‘Copyright’s Paradox’ from Amazon

The deal, as revealed by the New York Times, sees ABC shows such as Lost, Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty being made available on Veoh, as well as game highlights and clips from ESPN.

Veoh Expanding Output

Veoh started out in the same way as YouTube, offering short user-submitted clips, but has of late been attempting to integrate more material from large media companies such as CBS and MTV.

This latest deal with ABC sees shows being streamed for free with an advertising revenue model on the website, although interestingly, ABC is still not open to the idea of embeds, so videos will have to be viewed in a separate window instead.

ABC Paying For Traffic

More interesting than that is the fact that ABC will be paying Veoh for any of the traffic driven to the programmes and adverts on the site, meaning Veoh are sure to give ABC a prominent position on their homepage.

ABC certainly needed to do something, as other networks are pulling ahead of it in terms of embracing the Web and making programmes available for Internet users.

Hulu Leading The Way

This includes the hugely successful joint venture between the NBC and Fox networks that is Hulu. CBS also offers its shows on Web destinations varying from Joost to Bebo, and Veoh itself.

As we discussed yesterday, the television industry has the chance to embrace the Web as a means of content distribution in a way that the music industry has so far failed to do, and hopefully this is the latest indication that is happening.

Conclusions

However, the embed issue is annoying, as ABC seem determined to force media partners to use their own media player rather than just allowing a simple embed code to make the process a whole lot simpler.

The future does look bright for Veoh though, which has just raised another $30 million in funding. This adds to the funding already obtained, and also increases the amount of big-name investors supporting the site.

In something of an ironic twist, an online video site is suing a major music label – Veoh has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group in a pre-emptive strike to prevent UMG from bringing a case of copyright infringement against Veoh.

In July, UMG indicated to Veoh that it was investigating legal action over massive copyright infringements. But Veoh has cut in with its own lawsuit, filed Thursday, which requests that the video sharing site not be held liable to Universal if users upload content featuring Universal artists without permission.

The lawsuit claims that Veoh has not been provided with any specific details from UMG of the alleged copyright infringements, making it difficult for them to investigate and comply. Like many online video sites, Veoh preach a policy of removing infringing material promptly when notified by the copyright holder that it’s in infringement.

It’s turned in to something of a school yard slinging match – Mitgang, CEO of Veoh, claims that UMG are stifling innovation and shutting down new markets, whereas UMG claims that Veoh is simply building a business off the back of their artists without compensating them.

[Via The Age]

Fans of American College Football will soon be able to watch highlights of games on their desktops – Veoh Networks and Collegiate Images have teamed up to bring a dedicated NCAA football channel to Veoh.

Kicking off in September, the channel will also include a customized engine allowing users to personalise their football watching experience – this feature is still in development, but Veoh has said it will include unique and interactive elements.

It appears that the partnership is one of many that Veoh is seeking out to fulfill its mission. Ceo, Steve Mitgang, said:

“Moving forward, Veoh will continue to seek strategic partnerships with content providers, advertisers and publishers that advance our mission of making Veoh the most innovative and comprehensive video platform on the Internet.”

Veoh says its experiencing strong growth – it had a user base of over 14 million in June compared to 4 million in February.

Perhaps this is a sign that an iSuppli Report, covered on this site last month, will be a telling prophecy – it said sports and entertainment will be the biggest internet video genres within the next few years.

[Via eMediaWire]

Watch NCAA Online

• Check out our guide to watching College NCAA games here.

Steve comes to Veoh from Yahoo!, where he was Senior Vice President of the global team leading the definition, creation, and marketing of Yahoo!’s advertising products, platforms, and services. He led the development of Project Panama, Yahoo’s next generation contextual advertising platform.

Wih Steve Mitgang’s arrival, I am curious to see if Veoh develops any interesting ideas to make money with online video. According to the LA Times, Mitgang said his job at Veoh would be to build a one-stop shop for advertisers seeking to connect with viewers of online video.]]> http://www.webtvwire.com/veoh-hires-mitgang-as-ceo/feed/ 1 http://www.webtvwire.com/veohtv-simplifies-internet-video-major-content-providers-not-convinced/ http://www.webtvwire.com/veohtv-simplifies-internet-video-major-content-providers-not-convinced/#comments Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:31:29 +0000 Clayton Moulynox http://www.webtvwire.com/veohtv-simplifies-internet-video-major-content-providers-not-convinced/

Veoh.com say it’s just making online video easier for users to access. But major content providers, such as NBC and Fox, aren’t convinced that VeohTV is a fair and equitable way for its TV shows to be screened to the masses.

It’s an interesting dilemma. VeohTV, by its own definition, is a “virtual television network”. Basically it collates third party video content and re-transmits the shows within its own branded web browser-like software application – all with the genuine intent of making web TV more accessible. (Check out this post for an excellent description).

The VeohTV software, which is still in a beta testing phase not available to the public, currently has 114 easy to navigate channels. The contentious issue is that most, if not all, of the content on these channels is showcased without the permission of the content provider.

The Argument For and Against

Dmitry Shapiro, Veoh Network’s CEO, is convincing with his spin that VeohTV is benefiting the content providers through exposing them to a new audience. The content is freely available already on the internet after all, he argues. He also raises the point that the content is shown exactly as it appears at the source – including any advertisements.

Large networks like NBC aren’t buying it though (or selling it, incidentally!). Even though users would be watching the same content, VeohTV would reduce the number of visitors to NBC.com, figures NBC.

This means advertising placed on NBC’s website, which would usually be seen by viewers, could miss out on exposure. Less advertising exposure equals less advertising revenue. Advertising revenue is what keeps many websites alive.

YouTube Not Happy

NBC are not the only one’s speaking out against VeohTV. According to Ricardo Reyes, a YouTube spokesman, VeohTV steers users away from YouTube ads while violating YouTube’s contract with its users. Mr. Reyes says the company is watching Veoh carefully.

The bottom line is online video and the right to screen it is a valuable commodity. Is it right that a third party can “replay” free content without the provider’s permission? Only time will tell – watch this space.

[via NYTimes.com]

Since the start of Veoh the company has released countless different types of software to help users browse and view videos in the Veoh video library. Hopefully Veoh has now settled on a Joost style internet TV application to be the way for the future.

The CEO of Veoh, Dmitry Shapiro demonstrated the new service’s capabilities, and they show a potential which means users are going to have access to virtually any video with unparalleled functionality, quality and control.

Its new online TV service is called “Interactive Audience Network” and is really giving the finger to YouTube.

Who needs YouTube

This is one of the biggest pushes to bring traditional TV content online we’ve seen to date.

CBS has agreed distribution deals for all this TV content with a number of online platforms, but guess what, no YouTube.