Warren sinks to new lows

STP · Post by **STP** » 04 Sep 2007, 06:15

He made YouTube take down Benn-Eubank I. Even though he had nothing to do with it!

'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Sports Network Ltd.'

Sports Network didn't promote this fight.

How sick can you get?

Crew2 · Post by **Crew2** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:02

This cant be true.? I knew Warren had grudges but this is taking the biscuit abit WHat a smuck!

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:06

Petty.

Even if they own the copyright to the fight, real fans will seek out a proper copy of the fight; Youtube gives access to potential fans who mightn't have been around in the early 90's. They would get to see a classic, mesmerising all British duel if the fight was kept on there.

Small mindness and short sightedness like this harms boxing's future appeal.

Is this fight available to buy through SN?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:14

STP wrote:He made YouTube take down Benn-Eubank I. Even though he had nothing to do with it!

'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Sports Network Ltd.'

Sports Network didn't promote this fight.

How sick can you get?

It's irrelevant if they promoted the fight or not. They probably have acquired the rights to it.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:22

It won't be Frank himself but a teaboy, perhaps our very own BC

Crew2 · Post by **Crew2** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:37

I just looked, rounds 1 to 7 are there, but rounds 8 and 9-which had 44k views-has been taken off due to 'copyright' by SN!!

Interesting to note that rounds 1-7 only had around 10k views, this to me makes it clear that SN took this down out of spite for Benn and Eubank, if he acquired the rights to it he'd be selling it and he'd have had rounds 1-7 taken off as well

As far as Im concerned Warren is absolute Schmuck, now. this is crystal clear proof

Crew2 · Post by **Crew2** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:38

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:It won't be Frank himself but a teaboy, perhaps our very own BC

Directed by allegedly no doubt,

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:41

yet SN use Youtube for many of the video clips on their website.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:41

Crew2 wrote:I just looked, rounds 1 to 7 are there, but rounds 8 and 9-which had 44k views-has been taken off due to 'copyright' by SN!!

Interesting to note that rounds 1-7 only had around 10k views, this to me makes it clear that SN took this down out of spite for Benn and Eubank, if he acquired the rights to it he'd be selling it and he'd have had rounds 1-7 taken off as well

As far as Im concerned Warren is absolute Schmuck, now. this is crystal clear proof

It may be that it is only those rounds that they noticed.

If Warren didn't have copyright, then they would not have to take it down, I presume youtube owners are smart enough to check their facts?

Crew2 · Post by **Crew2** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:44

Its says on Warrens site that they PROMOTED Eubank Benn 1

101boxing · Post by **101boxing** » 04 Sep 2007, 08:08

Crew2 wrote:Its says on Warrens site that they PROMOTED Eubank Benn 1

where?

sportssn9 · Post by **sportssn9** » 10 Sep 2007, 05:52

This is an apology from Sports Network in regards to the copyright claim made on Youtube yesterday.

While we try to keep a vigilant check on all of our content on this site, a mistake was made today when a video was selected by mistake.

The video in question, Benn-Eubank rounds 8 + 9, is not our material, and we have therefore sent Youtube a message informing them of the mistake.

It was a genuine error, and the individual concerned has informed us he thought it was the second clash between the boxers mentioned.

The video, therefore, will be up and running again in the very near future.

Sports Network and fwtv apologise for the error.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 10 Sep 2007, 07:22

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:It won't be Frank himself but a teaboy, perhaps our very own BC

Nah, not guilty.

Surely though, whilst an apology is evident, YOUTUBE still infringe rights-holders rights by putting any copyrighted material up without permission.

I feel sure the Promoter of the event, Barry Hearn would still require it down so, despite the mistake YOUTUBE are still the ones in the wrong.

Film rights are a comodity of a business so if they they are used without permission someone has to pay up.

Frankly speaking, no pun intended, YOUTUBE take the piss.

sportssn9 · Post by **sportssn9** » 10 Sep 2007, 07:32

livingstone cole wrote:Well while you're here apologising on behalf of Warren....

I am not apologising on behalf of FW. I am apologising for a genuine mistake made by an employee of FWTV. Get off your high horse.

To be honest, the rules and regs on YOUTUBE cleary state that if you beleive that material is of a copyright infringement in any way shape or form, you can request for the said material to be taken down.

Im sure if Mr. Hearn was aware of this then he would probably ask us to withdraw our request to have the video reinstated.

The bottom line is a mistake was made. SN co-promoted the 2nd bout between Benn/Eubank, and the individual at FWTV assumed that the video was coverage of this fight.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 Sep 2007, 07:42

boxingchat wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:It won't be Frank himself but a teaboy, perhaps our very own BC

Nah, not guilty.

Surely though, whilst an apology is evident, YOUTUBE still infringe rights-holders rights by putting any copyrighted material up without permission.

I feel sure the Promoter of the event, Barry Hearn would still require it down so, despite the mistake YOUTUBE are still the ones in the wrong.

Film rights are a comodity of a business so if they they are used without permission someone has to pay up.

Frankly speaking, no pun intended, YOUTUBE take the piss.

Yes, this is true. However, in many cases, the films in question are not commercially available. Given the piss-poor quality of youtube, I doubt really that it's a major impact on any potential revenue stream for the promoters.

In fact, promoters if they were savvy enough could use youtube to promote sales of videos relating to the low-resolution content on youtube.

101boxing · Post by **101boxing** » 10 Sep 2007, 07:52

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
boxingchat wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:It won't be Frank himself but a teaboy, perhaps our very own BC

Nah, not guilty.

Surely though, whilst an apology is evident, YOUTUBE still infringe rights-holders rights by putting any copyrighted material up without permission.

I feel sure the Promoter of the event, Barry Hearn would still require it down so, despite the mistake YOUTUBE are still the ones in the wrong.

Film rights are a comodity of a business so if they they are used without permission someone has to pay up.

Frankly speaking, no pun intended, YOUTUBE take the piss.
Yes, this is true. However, in many cases, the films in question are not commercially available. Given the piss-poor quality of youtube, I doubt really that it's a major impact on any potential revenue stream for the promoters.

In fact, promoters if they were savvy enough could use youtube to promote sales of videos relating to the low-resolution content on youtube.

SAVVY??!! When is that audition for the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie?!!!!!!!

The figures on YOUTUBE are astonishing, and through this they are able to make fortunes on selling ad space that otherwise could be utilised by the content owners. Instead, they are making fortunes.

However, this wont be the case for much longer, as they are being issued with so many writs in the States that many predict they will be off-line soon enough, or be hit with severely stringent new regulations. Lets hope so, otherwise the amount of TV companies willing to pay for events will rapidly decrease. Why would they pay for something that they are going to loose to YOUTUBE for F all the very next day........and watch YT make fortunes off of stolen material in the process.

Hope they totally disappear to be honest.

101boxing · Post by **101boxing** » 10 Sep 2007, 07:53

Terry D wrote:So the SN employee saw Eubank stopping Benn in round nine and knew so little about the fights they thought it was fight II? Good to see they know their onions.

Alternatively they did not watch the rounds and it was a knee-jerk step.

Either way the apology is a nice touch.

The uselessness, or lack of boxing knowledge, of the person in question is disconcerting.

or perhaps it was just a genuine mistake??? or is that totally inconceivable?

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 10 Sep 2007, 08:08

I have upped fights onto youtube to help boxers out if they wanted some footage and needed to decide on the day whether to take the fight or not. I see both sides of the argument but i have had enough legal letters thank you

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 Sep 2007, 08:15

101boxing wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
boxingchat wrote:
Nah, not guilty.

Surely though, whilst an apology is evident, YOUTUBE still infringe rights-holders rights by putting any copyrighted material up without permission.

I feel sure the Promoter of the event, Barry Hearn would still require it down so, despite the mistake YOUTUBE are still the ones in the wrong.

Film rights are a comodity of a business so if they they are used without permission someone has to pay up.

Frankly speaking, no pun intended, YOUTUBE take the piss.
Yes, this is true. However, in many cases, the films in question are not commercially available. Given the piss-poor quality of youtube, I doubt really that it's a major impact on any potential revenue stream for the promoters.

In fact, promoters if they were savvy enough could use youtube to promote sales of videos relating to the low-resolution content on youtube.
SAVVY??!! When is that audition for the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie?!!!!!!!

The figures on YOUTUBE are astonishing, and through this they are able to make fortunes on selling ad space that otherwise could be utilised by the content owners. Instead, they are making fortunes.

However, this wont be the case for much longer, as they are being issued with so many writs in the States that many predict they will be off-line soon enough, or be hit with severely stringent new regulations. Lets hope so, otherwise the amount of TV companies willing to pay for events will rapidly decrease. Why would they pay for something that they are going to loose to YOUTUBE for F all the very next day........and watch YT make fortunes off of stolen material in the process.

Hope they totally disappear to be honest.

Sorry? Last time I checked Savvy was in the English dictionary and

I don't think many people are going to watch fights on youtube INSTEAD of watching them on TV. As I said before the picture and sound quality is absolutely bollocks on YT.

Youtube is potentially an excellent marketing and promotional tool, which many new media companies are already using to good effect. It's not going to dissapear, it will just change it's business model.

Google own Youtube, and they are hardly newcomers to digital media, and they wouldn't have spent nearly a billion quid on youtube and then mismanage it to the point where it gets pulled. They will be preparing the way to change the business model. this will result in a tightening of the license issues.

I believe the impact of youtube on boxing is negligable, because boxing fans are going to prefer watching a fight live on TV with a beer, rather than in a shitty little window with blocky graphics the next day.

Where youtube does come in handy, is for people who have to be somewhere else on the night of the fight, and don't have the facilities or NOUS (perhaps that's another from pirates of the Carribean), to record from digital tv.

The thing is that Youtube has VAST (should that be avast!), bandwidth, which most boxing promoters websites don't have. So why not post their own clips on youtube, and then link them back to content on their own site, or sell videos off of the back of it, or use it to promote fights.

For instance, a nice montage video of Calzaghe v Kessler, which is then posted up on Youtube to whet people's appetites. That would surely be a use which could garner some extra buys on PPV, and would cost nothing extra to broadcast there.

don't call it a comeback · Post by **don't call it a comeback** » 10 Sep 2007, 09:14

sportssn9 wrote:
livingstone cole wrote:Well while you're here apologising on behalf of Warren....
I am not apologising on behalf of FW. I am apologising for a genuine mistake made by an employee of FWTV. Get off your high horse.

To be honest, the rules and regs on YOUTUBE cleary state that if you beleive that material is of a copyright infringement in any way shape or form, you can request for the said material to be taken down.

Im sure if Mr. Hearn was aware of this then he would probably ask us to withdraw our request to have the video reinstated.

The bottom line is a mistake was made. SN co-promoted the 2nd bout between Benn/Eubank, and the individual at FWTV assumed that the video was coverage of this fight.

I don't think that he's the one on his high horse there.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 10 Sep 2007, 16:54

If i was Warren i would be putting most of my library of fights on youtube, or certainly fight hightlights.

I dont imagine much revenue is created from old fight clips, certainly any that is would be from TV companies showing highlights and they would have to buy them, even if they were on youtube.

As James suggests, youtube is a fantastic way to get your company free advertising essentially.

Take Alexander V Takaloo knock out. Stick it on youtube with a Sportsnetwork logo before and after the clip and on the bottom of the screen when the clip is playing.

Everyone one will watch the KO and see sports network name.

If they use it to create their own KO highlight reel as many youtubers do, then the sports network name will still appear as i dont imagine they could be arsed trying to hide it.

I cannot see how sportsnetwork would lose out really.

I would understand if they were regularly putting out DVDs and they didnt want their market compromised but this doesn't happen.

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 10 Sep 2007, 17:03

I dont quite understand whats going on behind the scenes, but what i'm getting is that Nigel Benn is so fed up with Frank's mind games and bickering that he's basically just said 'fornicate off boxing' and put boxing behind him now, he doesn't need it.. Ricky Hatton got so fed up of Frank's games that he very almost quit the ring in 04, and was crying himself to sleep most nights..

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 10 Sep 2007, 17:04

You cant blame Frank if the guy has mental issues, I just hope he sorts himself out and gets himself well..

Warren sinks to new lows

Warren sinks to new lows

Re: Warren sinks to new lows