[videoblogging] Re: AdBrite (here we go again)
Personally Id say that many of the best practices we've discussed are not directly relevent to them. The main issue would be how they ensure that people are using their service to attach ads to videos that they are the actual creator of, not someone elses? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By way of follow-up... I see you're suggesting that someone e-mail them the list of best practices. May I ask why you think this is important? I'm having a phone call with AdBrite either later today or Monday. What would you like me to tell them, and why? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hudack Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:54 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [videoblogging] AdBrite (here we go again) We're OK with it if the content creator does it. We're actually in discussions with AdBrite, and we're both working very hard to incorporate AdBrite advertising directly into blip's advertising options. I fear I can't say much more than that, but we've been talking to the AdBrite guys for a very, very long time. I'm also happy to say that blip is one of the only -- maybe even the only -- video hosting services out there that is fully compatible with the AdBrite player. This is to say that you can host your video on blip and use the AdBrite player, whereas otherwise you have to host the video yourself. Yours, Mike -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of taulpaulmpls Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:45 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] AdBrite (here we go again) TechCrunch wrote up on AdBrite: http://www.adbrite.com/mb/about_video.php AdBrite doesn't allow for video uploading as of yet, but allows users to pull video from the likes of YouTube and watermark the content, with the nifty feature of allowing them to do post or pre-roll ads. Coming off of the myHeavy debate, are we going to continue to see more of these companies popping up? How are the people over at Blip feel about these new services that allow for the leeching of their bandwidth? Maybe someone should email them the list of best practices that the group developed. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: AdBrite (here we go again)
Thanks for the response Mike, If anything, working with you guys should be a great thing for them. As it has been stated here numerous times, displaying of the CC badge would be the best start. Until better systems are in place, to thwart deep linking of flv files, we really have to put a lot of trust in the video host to protect the user's content. Obviously, we can't judge intent, as AdBrite isn't wholly responsible for misuse of it's toolset. Thanks again for your involvement in the community. Best, TaulPaul --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By way of follow-up... I see you're suggesting that someone e-mail them the list of best practices. May I ask why you think this is important? I'm having a phone call with AdBrite either later today or Monday. What would you like me to tell them, and why? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hudack Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:54 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [videoblogging] AdBrite (here we go again) We're OK with it if the content creator does it. We're actually in discussions with AdBrite, and we're both working very hard to incorporate AdBrite advertising directly into blip's advertising options. I fear I can't say much more than that, but we've been talking to the AdBrite guys for a very, very long time. I'm also happy to say that blip is one of the only -- maybe even the only -- video hosting services out there that is fully compatible with the AdBrite player. This is to say that you can host your video on blip and use the AdBrite player, whereas otherwise you have to host the video yourself. Yours, Mike -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of taulpaulmpls Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:45 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] AdBrite (here we go again) TechCrunch wrote up on AdBrite: http://www.adbrite.com/mb/about_video.php AdBrite doesn't allow for video uploading as of yet, but allows users to pull video from the likes of YouTube and watermark the content, with the nifty feature of allowing them to do post or pre-roll ads. Coming off of the myHeavy debate, are we going to continue to see more of these companies popping up? How are the people over at Blip feel about these new services that allow for the leeching of their bandwidth? Maybe someone should email them the list of best practices that the group developed. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: AdBrite (here we go again)
Yeah thats a good point. I was just reading some case where some woman has won a court judgement that youtube arent allowed to show a certain video thats been put on their site, that compromises her privacy or something in a way the court dont like. Theyve ordered youtube not to allow that video to be on their site again, but the problem is that its out there in the wild and users keep re-uploading it to youtube (its someone famous or something so there is 'mass interest' in seeing it apparently). Its not trivial for for youtube to find a way to comply with the court over this, as they put it 'people keep changing the filename'. They could get into a catmouse game of checking for other attributes such as filesize, movie length, even analysis of the audio or video of the file, but that stuff is substantialy more hassle technically than most of the feature youtube have in their service. I wonder if they'll try to find ways to comply, try to dedicate more manual human resources to watching out for it, or take a fine on the chin. I dont think it was a US court, but unfortunately I cant remember where I read it or who it involved so Ive got no link. But anyways it illustrates the point that hardly any of the video hosting services would have manged to exist as we know them if the burden of ownership rights management was set to be too heavy. What Im interested in is what reasonable steps a service can take. So my question about AdBrite is really about whether they have mechanisms to prevent wholesale ' rip someones entire feed that isnt mine and slap adverts on it' type stuff built into their service, as opposed to the impractical requirement that they could somehow identify people manually uploading stuff that wasnt theirs. Hmm Im talking rather a lot in these threads, someone let me know if I have become an irritant! (but dont bother saying anything if I havent) Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, we can't judge intent, as AdBrite isn't wholly responsible for misuse of it's toolset.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: AdBrite (here we go again)
Thanks TaulPaul. I'll be sure to discuss the potential for misuse of the player with them. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of taulpaulmpls Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:27 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: AdBrite (here we go again) Thanks for the response Mike, If anything, working with you guys should be a great thing for them. As it has been stated here numerous times, displaying of the CC badge would be the best start. Until better systems are in place, to thwart deep linking of flv files, we really have to put a lot of trust in the video host to protect the user's content. Obviously, we can't judge intent, as AdBrite isn't wholly responsible for misuse of it's toolset. Thanks again for your involvement in the community. Best, TaulPaul --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By way of follow-up... I see you're suggesting that someone e-mail them the list of best practices. May I ask why you think this is important? I'm having a phone call with AdBrite either later today or Monday. What would you like me to tell them, and why? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hudack Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:54 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [videoblogging] AdBrite (here we go again) We're OK with it if the content creator does it. We're actually in discussions with AdBrite, and we're both working very hard to incorporate AdBrite advertising directly into blip's advertising options. I fear I can't say much more than that, but we've been talking to the AdBrite guys for a very, very long time. I'm also happy to say that blip is one of the only -- maybe even the only -- video hosting services out there that is fully compatible with the AdBrite player. This is to say that you can host your video on blip and use the AdBrite player, whereas otherwise you have to host the video yourself. Yours, Mike -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of taulpaulmpls Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:45 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] AdBrite (here we go again) TechCrunch wrote up on AdBrite: http://www.adbrite.com/mb/about_video.php AdBrite doesn't allow for video uploading as of yet, but allows users to pull video from the likes of YouTube and watermark the content, with the nifty feature of allowing them to do post or pre-roll ads. Coming off of the myHeavy debate, are we going to continue to see more of these companies popping up? How are the people over at Blip feel about these new services that allow for the leeching of their bandwidth? Maybe someone should email them the list of best practices that the group developed. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: AdBrite (here we go again)
Good Questions Steve, I took a brief look at the object embed code for the adBrite video on TechCrunch. They're using a flashVars parameter to load the flv file pathway. For example, here's the url to the player file: http://vid.adbrite.com/video/abplayer.swf if you load that in the browser you'll get and id error. If you can see, there's also a flashVars=vid=65 which also translates into: http://vid.adbrite.com/video/abplayer.swf?vid=65 I'm not completely sure, but I believe the flv content is being loaded from the server: http://pk2.adbrite.com From what I can gather, it would be difficult to get the entire flv pathway from they way they set this up. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah thats a good point. I was just reading some case where some woman has won a court judgement that youtube arent allowed to show a certain video thats been put on their site, that compromises her privacy or something in a way the court dont like. Theyve ordered youtube not to allow that video to be on their site again, but the problem is that its out there in the wild and users keep re-uploading it to youtube (its someone famous or something so there is 'mass interest' in seeing it apparently). Its not trivial for for youtube to find a way to comply with the court over this, as they put it 'people keep changing the filename'. They could get into a catmouse game of checking for other attributes such as filesize, movie length, even analysis of the audio or video of the file, but that stuff is substantialy more hassle technically than most of the feature youtube have in their service. I wonder if they'll try to find ways to comply, try to dedicate more manual human resources to watching out for it, or take a fine on the chin. I dont think it was a US court, but unfortunately I cant remember where I read it or who it involved so Ive got no link. But anyways it illustrates the point that hardly any of the video hosting services would have manged to exist as we know them if the burden of ownership rights management was set to be too heavy. What Im interested in is what reasonable steps a service can take. So my question about AdBrite is really about whether they have mechanisms to prevent wholesale ' rip someones entire feed that isnt mine and slap adverts on it' type stuff built into their service, as opposed to the impractical requirement that they could somehow identify people manually uploading stuff that wasnt theirs. Hmm Im talking rather a lot in these threads, someone let me know if I have become an irritant! (but dont bother saying anything if I havent) Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls taulpaulmpls@ wrote: Obviously, we can't judge intent, as AdBrite isn't wholly responsible for misuse of it's toolset.
[videoblogging] Re: AdBrite (here we go again)
Well, I think there's a interesting point about AdBrite and MyHeavy flash players. When Jay Dedman pointed out that you can still get the MyHeavy player to play CC prohibited videos by putting in the url, I dismissed it as the function of typing in the URL. But actually you can put the check of CC licenses in the Flash player itself and it may make the most sense to put it there. The Flash player is the end point for the video and the final gate for resolving whether it's licensed to be played. Recommending that licensing be resolved in the player may be a good method. -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah thats a good point. I was just reading some case where some woman has won a court judgement that youtube arent allowed to show a certain video thats been put on their site, that compromises her privacy or something in a way the court dont like. Theyve ordered youtube not to allow that video to be on their site again, but the problem is that its out there in the wild and users keep re-uploading it to youtube (its someone famous or something so there is 'mass interest' in seeing it apparently). Its not trivial for for youtube to find a way to comply with the court over this, as they put it 'people keep changing the filename'. They could get into a catmouse game of checking for other attributes such as filesize, movie length, even analysis of the audio or video of the file, but that stuff is substantialy more hassle technically than most of the feature youtube have in their service. I wonder if they'll try to find ways to comply, try to dedicate more manual human resources to watching out for it, or take a fine on the chin. I dont think it was a US court, but unfortunately I cant remember where I read it or who it involved so Ive got no link. But anyways it illustrates the point that hardly any of the video hosting services would have manged to exist as we know them if the burden of ownership rights management was set to be too heavy. What Im interested in is what reasonable steps a service can take. So my question about AdBrite is really about whether they have mechanisms to prevent wholesale ' rip someones entire feed that isnt mine and slap adverts on it' type stuff built into their service, as opposed to the impractical requirement that they could somehow identify people manually uploading stuff that wasnt theirs. Hmm Im talking rather a lot in these threads, someone let me know if I have become an irritant! (but dont bother saying anything if I havent) Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls taulpaulmpls@ wrote: Obviously, we can't judge intent, as AdBrite isn't wholly responsible for misuse of it's toolset.
