commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Commons-research mailing list
List archive
- From: Kevin Driscoll <driscoll AT mit.edu>
- To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Commons-research] relative importance of UGC
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:45:51 -0400
Some user videos have been identified as copyright infringement due to
audio fingerprinting but remain live on the site with added
advertising. Into which category do you think such "claimed" videos
fall?
I suspect it might be "partner" content which means that the % of
daily UGC views would be even greater.
Kevin
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Mike Linksvayer<ml AT creativecommons.org>
wrote:
> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090812/youtubes-most-popular-clips-still-mostly-ad-free/
>
> Apart from speculation about filesharing behavior, this is the first
> (inadvertent?) attempt I've seen to quantify the relative importance
> of UGC against "professional" content, admittedly in a single context
> -- top 100 YouTube videos. 23% are "UGC", 36% each pirated and
> professional/partner, 5% ads.
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>
-
[Commons-research] relative importance of UGC,
Mike Linksvayer, 08/17/2009
- Re: [Commons-research] relative importance of UGC, Kevin Driscoll, 08/17/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.