<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>VentureBeat - Latest Comments in Controversial video hosting company Veoh raises $12.5M</title><link>http://venturebeat.disqus.com/</link><description>News about Tech, Business and Innovation</description><atom:link href="https://venturebeat.disqus.com/controversial_video_hosting_company_veoh_raises_125m/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:13:05 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Controversial video hosting company Veoh raises $12.5M</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2006/04/18/controversial-video-hosting-company-veoh-raises-125m/#comment-14665790</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"He said he has contacted the Yahoo VideoBlogging Group and they are satisfied with his response"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wow...how to lump all of us in the group into one response. Being one that had his videos stolen from him by Veoh, the Yahoo VideoBlogging Group certainly doesnt speak for me.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I dont trust Veoh or Dmitry.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">David Howell</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:13:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Controversial video hosting company Veoh raises $12.5M</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2006/04/18/controversial-video-hosting-company-veoh-raises-125m/#comment-14665789</link><description>&lt;p&gt;i wouldn't say this article is biased against dmitry or veoh at all. if anything, it takes dmitry at his word when he says that users uploaded the "unclaimed feeds" and not his employees (i still think he did it by spidering). he also says that it was a bug in the system that caused the feeds to be uploaded by non-owners. this is patently false. it was not a "bug". it was designed that way...and now it's REdesigned to include the "snippet of code" because of the backlash from the videoblogging community.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Anne Walk</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:39:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Controversial video hosting company Veoh raises $12.5M</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2006/04/18/controversial-video-hosting-company-veoh-raises-125m/#comment-14665788</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This article blog seems slanted against veoh from the start. There is nothing really Controversial about the company and Nash plays right into it...&lt;br&gt;reformed Bad Boy? give me a break. It's a videos sharing site just like any other doing the same things the others are with slightly better features and less limitations. Is Eisner on board a good thing? Well that depends...if you like seeing 13 year olds dancing a lip syncing on youtube then it is bad...if you want to see real TV shows on a better system I'm sure his media connections will bring that along shortly.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jake Donahue</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:18:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Controversial video hosting company Veoh raises $12.5M</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2006/04/18/controversial-video-hosting-company-veoh-raises-125m/#comment-14665787</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Why would I trust these guys?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If they built their company by stealing content from other sites why would I trust them enough to install their softweare?  This "reformed Bad Boy" tactic of video sharing comapnies wories me, because you don't know when they have actually "refromed".  For all we know their software is full of spyware.  Remember the Sony Root Kit?  Is having Micahel Eisner on the board a good thing?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nash</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:31:34 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>