Making Money Web

Cute kittens and toddlers may be YouTube’s bread and butter, but Google’s video portal needs more than that to encroach on the goliath that is cable TV. But instead of shelling out for the rights to premium content from cable networks, YouTube is hoping it can nudge its existing community toward making high quality videos.

Today the company has confirmed that it has acquired Next New Networks, a firm founded in 2007 that focuses on producing high quality original video content for the web. Alongside the news, YouTube is announcing ‘YouTube Next’, a team of experts (made up by many of the NNN team, no doubt) who are setting out to “supercharge creator development and accelerate partner growth and success”. In other words, YouTube is going to give certain partners access to a team of experts that can hopefully help them produce better content. YouTube’s pending acquisition of Next New Networks was first reported by the New York Times in December.

From the YouTube blog:

In fact, the number of partners making over $1,000 a month is up 300% since the beginning of 2010 and we now have hundreds of partners making six figures a year. But frankly, “hundreds” making a living on YouTube isn’t enough and in 2011 we know we can and should do more to help our partners grow.

The YouTube Next initiative sounds good on paper, but it’s not really clear how YouTube is going to be able to scale the program to make it useful to more than “hundreds” of partners.

Last year YouTube launched a Partner Grants Program that allows promising content creators to receive an advance on their future ad revenue so that they can invest in making videos with higher production values. And it gave a $1,000 credit to 500 partners late last year to buy new video equipment.

But both of those programs revolved around money, which scales. This YouTube Next team is about expertise — YouTube will be contacting partners that it believes could use some help, and will send in its team of experts who can offer tips on YouTube’s platform and the kind of content that tends to do well online. This training will be free, but, again, only select content partners will get access to it.

YouTube says that Next team will be global, but it isn’t saying how many people will be involved. Beyond this partner training, it sounds like YouTube will be launching further grant programs under its Next brand.

Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed.

Excellent. I found links to the cases so that everyone here can read them. Let's go through them:



Yes, let's go through them.



U.S. v. Schmidt, 15 F.Supp. 804 A case from 1936, that references a section of copyright law (17 USC 28) that no longer exists. As an aside, that section made "aiding and abetting" a misdemeanor; today it's a felony. However, the court does also reference 18 USC 2, the "aiding and abetting" clause.



Yes, it references a section of copyright law that no longer exists. The point was that aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement was the crime, no matter what statutory designation it was given. You don't seem to understand the purpose of citing case law at times.



U.S. v. Sachs, 801 F.2d 839 The charge was not "aiding and abetting" infringement, it was conspiracy to infringe. From the USAM Criminal Resource Manual, 2482, "Conspiracy to commit a crime and aiding and abetting in the commission are distinct offenses." The general conspiracy statute is in 18 USC 371, not 18 USC 2. Conspiracy requires an even greater degree of participation than aiding and abetting. In layman's terms, it's used against people who are partners in crime. Defendants in these cases are typically charged with both conspiracy and aiding and abetting, probably so that the prosecuters can get a conviction as a principal, even if juries are uncertain about their status as a partner. I doubt any jury would even consider a conspiracy charge in this case, since the defendant did not actively participate in the primary infringement.



Total reading comprehension failure. The first sentence of the case says: "Defendant-Appellant Lee William Sachs appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of aiding and abetting in the infringement of copyrights . . . we affirm the convictions." Conspiracy was a separate charge, and it's irrelevant to the point I was making.



U.S. v. Blanton, 531 F.2d 442 Conspiracy again.



Total reading comprehension failure, again. He was acquitted of the conspiracy charges, but he was convicted of the aiding and abetting charges. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Exactly as I indicated above.



U.S. v. Bodin, 375 F.Supp. 1265 Conspiracy again. Also relies on a part of copyright law that does not exist anymore (17 USC 104, previously dealing with aiding and abetting, is now about foreign copyrights). However, again, the court does also reference 18 USC 2.



Yes, conspiracy is mentioned, but I was pointing out that case for its discussion of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. The court states that it is "an offense not only to infringe a copyright wilfully and for profit but as well to knowingly and wilfully aid and abet such an infringement."



U.S. v. Dove, 2008 (PDF) This case is more relevant than the others, because it involves internet infringement. Here, the defendant was "a high-level member of an Internet piracy organization known as 'Elite Torrents [... who] had participated in the reproduction and distribution of pirated copyrighted movies, software programs, and video games." (Emphasis mine.) In other words, he was a direct infringer. Accordingly, this was also a conspiracy charge - for which he was convicted.



Just because the context is the internet doesn't make it "more relevant." Aiding and abetting is aiding and abetting. The fundamentals don't change depending on the context. The reason I pointed out that case, Karl, was because the jury was given instruction on--you guessed it--aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. The jury found him guilty.



Marx v. U.S., 96 F.2d 204 Again, referred to copyright law that no longer exists. Again, the "criminal infringement" was a midemeanor - the Marx Brothers did not serve any jail time (they were fined $1000, and also settled the civil suit). Furthermore, this involved a case where the Marx Brothers themselves were involved in negotiations with the defendants; they were direct participants.



But, they were convicted of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, just as I indicated.



Notice a trend here?



Yes, aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement has been around a long time. In fact, since 1909 as I indicated. The fact that conspiracy pops up in those cases is completely irrelevant.



Either the defendants are direct consiprators, or they were charged under "aiding and abetting" statutes that were taken out of Title 17 long ago.]



No, every single one of those cases I cited had someone charged and/or convicted of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. Yes, statutes change. That doesn't mean the crime of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement does not exist. It does. It's a combination of 17 U.S.C. 506 and 18 U.S.C. 2, just like Brian McCarthy is charged with.



It's certainly conceivable that McCarthy will be found guilty under 18 USC 2. But I doubt that a jury would return a felony conviction absent a conspiracy charge. It's certainly not a "no-brainer."



There is no conspiracy charge for the jury to look at, nor will anybody bring up the absence of such a charge because it's irrelevant. The no-brainer, Karl, is that aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement exists.



So I stand by my lay opinion that the charges will be dead in the water. But we'll see.



Dead in the water in that the jury won't convict, or dead in the water like the aiding and abetting charge isn't even a real thing? You're wrong either way.



Let's look at the jury instruction in the Dove case. Keep in mind that this was a judge's instructions to the jury in 2008:

A person may violate the law even though he or she does not personally do each and every act constituting the offense if that person �aided and abetted� the commission of the offense. Before a defendant may be held responsible for aiding and abetting others in the commission of a crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and deliberately associated himself in some way with the crime charged and participated in it with the intent to commit the crime.



In order to be found guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of the crime of criminal copyright infringement charged in Count Two, the government must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:



First, that the defendant Daniel Dove knew that the willful copyright infringement charged was to be committed or was being committed;



Second, that the defendant knowingly and willfully did some act for the purpose of aiding the commission of the copyright infringement; and



Third, that the defendant acted with the intention of causing the copyright infringement to be committed.

The government need not prove that the defendant Daniel Dove participated at every stage of an illegal venture, only that he participated at some stage accompanied by knowledge of the result and intent to bring about that result.



Before Defendant Daniel Dove may be found guilty as an aider or an abettor to the crime of criminal copyright infringement, the government must also prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that some person or persons committed each of the essential elements of copyright infringement as detailed for you in Instruction No. 20.



Merely being present at the scene of the crime or merely knowing that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed is not sufficient conduct for the jury to find that a defendant aided and abetted the commission of that crime.



The government must prove that the defendant knowingly and deliberately associated himself with the crime in some way as a participant-someone who wanted the crime to be committed-not as a mere spectator.

So as recently as 2008, a jury was instructed on aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement, and that jury came back with a resounding "guilty." 18 months for Mr. Dove. Sounds about right for Mr. McCarthy, IMO.
bench craft company reviews

Out This Week – 01/04/2011 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our news of Out This Week – 01/04/2011. ... Latest Videos. Shift 2 trailer gears up for launch [5] 25 March, 2011. Latest News. Shift 2: Unleashed delayed by a week [16]. Shift 2: Unleashed nets Pagani Huayra [19] ...

URGENT: Plutonium detected in soil at Fukushima nuke plant: TEPCO <b>...</b>

Plutonium has been detected in soil at five locations at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Monday. The operator of the nuclear complex said that the plutonium is believed to have been ...

The Funniest Fox <b>News</b> FAILS (PICTURES)

News bloopers are some of the best ones, especially when the flub involves a hilariously erroneous chyron or graphic. Fox News has had some of the funniest FAILS the Internet was able to capture, and we've corralled all the best ones ...