Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Hey David- Please don't take me out of context: I see Lucas' argument that its crazy for a vlogger to whine when his video is posted by another site. But i think its important that we try to help educate on linking or giving attributing. I understand the argument that I cannot stop people from grabbing my videos once they are online. To think I can... starts making us sound like the MPAA. Starts going towards DRM. Its a dumb loop. I do not agree with Lucas that all is hopeless. I simply think I got to be realistic. I want to get beyond the platitudes. When I post a video, Im going to assume i'm losing some control over it. This is why I simply put a Creative Commons Attribution License on my videos. I'm fine with people remixing, posting, etc.as long as they give me attribution the way I ask. (for me, its a linkback). So this is what I want to happen. But as pioneers here...I'm seeing that what I want to happen, and what will happen, is not always the same. These aggregator sites are sucking in videos and run by people with different kinds of motives. There will be people who just grab my video and say they made it, puts ads around it, take a dump on it. So the question for me iswhat am I going to do about it? here's my answers right now: --put the CC license at the end of my videos so it travels where the video goes. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_work Add your own custom trailers here. --Work with this group and Creative Commons to educate aggregator sites. Here's our working document now: http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/ When a site comes online, we should approach the owners and let them know the best way to play nice. They can be dicks about it.but then they get no community love. --Educate other videobloggers about using Creative Commons. We're having a worldwide event on April 1: https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com/ List your own partyso we can all come together and make video about best practices...that could be put on Youtube and other places. If we dont practice what we preach, then there's no good examples to follow. So this is where I'm at on the issue. Talk is goodbut action is better. jay On 2/1/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several days ago Lucas characterized those who want to maintain full copyright control over their works as people engaging in victimization. Now Jay you say they are whining. Gentlemen, why do you denigrate and deride the people on the opposite side of the debate from you? I may advocate for any number of ethical, legal, and political perspectives. Racism is bad. Universal healthcare is good. Arguing these things, like arguing my right to ownership of my created content here on this board, does not mean I'm suffering from victimization or that I'm whining. And in case you don't know it, there's no amount of insults you can throw at your opposition that will make them wrong. Your opponent in an argument may be a flatulent fugly booger eater and calling him so may appeal to the crowd, but it doesn't make him wrong and it doesn't make you right. What I don't get about this argument is how the asymmetry isn't enticing people to one side. We've got two groups, say A and B. Operate on the ground rules of group A and the desires and wishes of people in group B are permissible. Everybody's happy. Operate on the ground rules of group B and the choices of those in group A are no longer allowable. People are unhappy, specifically people in group A. If everyone respects copyright then people can limit the use of their material, that's Group A and other people can permit reuse, revlogging, derivative works, etc. by putting their work in the public domain or attaching the appropriate CC license to it, that's Group B. Respect copyright and everyone's choices are permissible and everyone is repsected. If the people in group B force others to operate in a free-for-all, no copyright mashup world then they have taken the right away from people in group A to choose how their work is used. By putting content on the internet, some argue, you abrogate your rights in your work since it's just a click away. That's not true. My rights are abrogated when someone else doesn't read my license terms and doesn't respect them. There is legal precedence for copyright on the internet. Remember when frames first came out? People and companies were using frames to subsume the content of other sites under their banner. Remember what happened? Lawsuits and rulings. You can't do it. It's wrong and it's also illegal. What's going on with videos is similar. No matter how easy it is to repost in a networked environment, taking someone else's material for which you don't have permission is wrong. And the argument, it's going to happen or that's the way it is also doesn't change the ethical and legal truth. Here's a joke that will explain it I hope: One day, a serf turns to another serf and says,
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Question for Blip: Somewhere in my blip profile I told it my itunes URL is http://www.davidmeade.com/itunes and this is the itunes URL that is shown on my 'show' page. Is there some reason my show page doesn't similarly use my feed URL (http://www.davidmeade.com/feed) that I've also specified? If THAT feed were scooped up and consumed from blip.tv the links sent along with my video would be pointing back to my website rather than blip - and I'd at least be getting my attribution. (I realize there are all sorts of other dynamic feeds on blip which this wouldn't account for ... but at least the show page could advertise a feed with producer controlled info in it?) I'm all about people consuming and sharing my feed where ever they please ... but I don't think I really like it when they consume and share other feeds that have my videos in it (because they often don't link back to me properly). -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
-Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay dedman Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:56 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences I don't think the issue is advertising. If it was there wouldn't be an issue since ads with video is now fairly commoditized technology. I think the bigger issue is credit and respect for the terms of the cc license itself, which can put restrictions on commercial use and require proper attribution. In terms of videoronk my concern is that credit is given to blip but not to the content creator. mike, tech question: in Blip's feed...does it show the permalink of the Blip page with my video? does it list that I am the creator and my website URL? Yes, all of that information is in the feed. It includes the permalink to the post on blip in the item:link element, and also includes special metadata that's presently unique to blip for credit. Here's an example from a random video I picked on blip: blip:userthatphoneguy/blip:user blip:show30 Seconds with Phone Guy/blip:show blip:showpagehttp://thatphoneguy.blip.tv//blip:showpage blip:picturehttp://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746.jp g/blip:picture So that tells the aggregator that the video is from the 30 Seconds with Phone Guy series, which can be found at http://thatphoneguy.blip.tv/. It even gives the aggregator a picture that can be used to represent the series, which can be found at http://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746.jpg. We'd love to use standard elements for these pieces of metadata, but they don't exist yet -- we're including them in our own namespace right now so that our formal partners can pick up and use the data for attribution purposes.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
-Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Cammack Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 23:08 On top of all that, in this case, when you told them about your issue, they told you I can't do nothin' for ya, man, and claimed to be insulated from dealing with you directly because they're aggregating a different site that already aggregated you. Short of Whack-A-Mole (or not using RSS at all), prevention is currently impossible. Recourse is where a traditional license might help you out... or not. Even a traditional license must be protected by playing Whack-A-Mole. I sent these guys some feedback through their web page, since I couldn't find an e-mail address for them, letting them know that blip.tv would appreciate their abiding by the Best Practices that are listed at http://tinyurl.com/276vjf. We will see what response we get, if any.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Den 31.01.2007 kl. 05:11 skrev Dean Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Or of course you could just work with people tring to standardise all meta data for video which would include a license portion. Please don't. There are already standards for attaching licensing information to web content (in both HTML and RSS). Don't create a video specific one. In fact don't create one at all, use the one that already exists. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Andreas, what should we be doing in our RSS? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:45 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences Den 31.01.2007 kl. 05:11 skrev Dean Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Or of course you could just work with people tring to standardise all meta data for video which would include a license portion. Please don't. There are already standards for attaching licensing information to web content (in both HTML and RSS). Don't create a video specific one. In fact don't create one at all, use the one that already exists. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Den 31.01.2007 kl. 23:48 skrev Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andreas, what should we be doing in our RSS? I was thinking about the Creatice Commons namespace. You guys are already using that so those who subscribe to RSS feeds from blip are already getting that information. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Yeah, we do point to the Creative Commons license using their CC namespace. Can we go further than that? Is there a standard for conveying the substance of the attribution requirement in RSS? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:00 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences Den 31.01.2007 kl. 23:48 skrev Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andreas, what should we be doing in our RSS? I was thinking about the Creatice Commons namespace. You guys are already using that so those who subscribe to RSS feeds from blip are already getting that information. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
There's a copyright element in RSS 2.0, but that's a human-readable string and not really useful for machines. If you want machines to read the license info the CC namespace seems to be the way to go. It doesn't help that copyright is a channel-level element so it's completely useless in many cases. - Andreas Den 01.02.2007 kl. 00:01 skrev Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yeah, we do point to the Creative Commons license using their CC namespace. Can we go further than that? Is there a standard for conveying the substance of the attribution requirement in RSS? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:00 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences Den 31.01.2007 kl. 23:48 skrev Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andreas, what should we be doing in our RSS? I was thinking about the Creatice Commons namespace. You guys are already using that so those who subscribe to RSS feeds from blip are already getting that information. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Yeah, that's not particularly helpful for us. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:33 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences There's a copyright element in RSS 2.0, but that's a human-readable string and not really useful for machines. If you want machines to read the license info the CC namespace seems to be the way to go. It doesn't help that copyright is a channel-level element so it's completely useless in many cases. - Andreas Den 01.02.2007 kl. 00:01 skrev Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yeah, we do point to the Creative Commons license using their CC namespace. Can we go further than that? Is there a standard for conveying the substance of the attribution requirement in RSS? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:00 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences Den 31.01.2007 kl. 23:48 skrev Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andreas, what should we be doing in our RSS? I was thinking about the Creatice Commons namespace. You guys are already using that so those who subscribe to RSS feeds from blip are already getting that information. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Yes, all of that information is in the feed. It includes the permalink to the post on blip in the item:link element, and also includes special metadata that's presently unique to blip for credit. Here's an example from a random video I picked on blip: blip:userthatphoneguy/blip:user blip:show30 Seconds with Phone Guy/blip:show blip:showpagehttp://thatphoneguy.blip.tv//blip:showpage blip:picturehttp://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746.jp g/blip:picture So that tells the aggregator that the video is from the 30 Seconds with Phone Guy series, which can be found at http://thatphoneguy.blip.tv/. It even gives the aggregator a picture that can be used to represent the series, which can be found at http://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746.jpg. We'd love to use standard elements for these pieces of metadata, but they don't exist yet -- we're including them in our own namespace right now so that our formal partners can pick up and use the data for attribution purposes. okayso the info is all there if an aggregator site wants to read it and provide titles and links. I see Lucas' argument that its crazy for a vlogger to whine when his video is posted by another site. But i think its important that we try to help educate on linking or giving attributing. and as I said recently, im going to start putting a CC license INSIDE my videos so I dont need to rely on someone's good will. or Ill use this: http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p132/marshal_rules/169957orjk5u57eg.jpg Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
David, We will block these guys on our end if we have to. - Original Message - From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue Jan 30 10:59:46 2007 Subject: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences It appears that the problem is that basically anyone can create an aggregator and pull feeds from it. Unless there is something done that prevents this, this is going to happen more and more. In this case, for me, it's the Blip feed that is being ripped. To have them stop displaying my videos, I will have to remove them from Blip. So at this point, I am going to have to make a decision. Delete my videos from Blip? Delete my feed?. Password protect my feed? Admit the CC license really means nothing and not care who does what with my stuff? There doesnt appear to be that much concern here in preventing or resolving it. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Response from VideoRonk: Considered usuary. Videoronk is a finder that obtains the videos of youtube, google video, blip, metacafe, dailymotion, myspace, vimeo and revver. We did not lodge any video in our systems. They are these finders to which you would have to go so that they retired your video. We felt not to be able to help in this question. A greeting. Videoronk. So basically they are saying that they are a pass through system that they just happen to pick up feeds and slap ads above them. This is a similar approach taken by http://www.zabasearch.com. Zabasearch post public personal information taken from other sources. When you ask them to remove it they state they don't store the info on their servers they are just a pass through service. With ads. We have a problem here. Gena Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
We do not have an agreement with them. Purely a defensive move on their part. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of johnleeke Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:09 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences Mike writes: We will block these guys on our end if we have to. I noticed that they were prominently displaying the Blip logo, and wondered if you already had an agreement with them. Thanks for all your good works. John Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of education that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not sure that's the issue at play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from all over the place - they certainly aren't all covered by CC. And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness of this slope. I personally value CC licenses because they take into account the openness of the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have google ads on my blog and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC license? Are we going to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and using DRM to protect them? Blip can block these sites all day long and they're just going to keep popping up. I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver feed. Because they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are included and I'm making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :) Revver's business model was built upon the understanding that videos would be increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give creators a way to benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to improve our player so that attribution and linkbacks are automatically included. But at least in this scenario, Revver users are making money for their work. Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being on Videoronk. The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at least so far). I think this example is very different than what happened with MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own player and attached advertising to the video - not on the page around the video. That was clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure I think my CC license is being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it). What is missing from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's build those directly into the players. Let's attribute ourselves and provide urls directly in the videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal to get what we want instead of embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down everyone pulling RSS feeds. We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally on the web instead of trying to constantly battle it. On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. For me, I have to consider switching to a traditional license. I don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of the videos are being used by non-profits for their purposes. There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on the other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to some of my content. One of my posts is titled Love Prosper about Christian Hip Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what kind of ads are going to latch on to that post. Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to the practical. sigh I need chocolate. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video Can you expand on that? What kind of license are you going to get that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds? It's not Creative Commons that's being disrespected. They're ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video and they can subscribe to your feed. Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they aggregate to see if there's a licensing block at the end? Do you think, especially given the response you received in this case, that they would bother to remove each particular individual feed whose license they were disregarding? CC or Traditional? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by switching to a traditional license. -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV -- www.mickipedia.com www.worldchanging.com http://blog.revver.com NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse or protection from this unwarranted intrusion save to call for the impeachment of the current President. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
I don't think the issue is advertising. If it was there wouldn't be an issue since ads with video is now fairly commoditized technology. I think the bigger issue is credit and respect for the terms of the cc license itself, which can put restrictions on commercial use and require proper attribution. In terms of videoronk my concern is that credit is given to blip but not to the content creator. - Original Message - From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue Jan 30 21:37:27 2007 Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of education that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not sure that's the issue at play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from all over the place - they certainly aren't all covered by CC. And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness of this slope. I personally value CC licenses because they take into account the openness of the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have google ads on my blog and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC license? Are we going to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and using DRM to protect them? Blip can block these sites all day long and they're just going to keep popping up. I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver feed. Because they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are included and I'm making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :) Revver's business model was built upon the understanding that videos would be increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give creators a way to benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to improve our player so that attribution and linkbacks are automatically included. But at least in this scenario, Revver users are making money for their work. Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being on Videoronk. The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at least so far). I think this example is very different than what happened with MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own player and attached advertising to the video - not on the page around the video. That was clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure I think my CC license is being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it). What is missing from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's build those directly into the players. Let's attribute ourselves and provide urls directly in the videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal to get what we want instead of embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down everyone pulling RSS feeds. We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally on the web instead of trying to constantly battle it. On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. For me, I have to consider switching to a traditional license. I don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of the videos are being used by non-profits for their purposes. There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on the other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to some of my content. One of my posts is titled Love Prosper about Christian Hip Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what kind of ads are going to latch on to that post. Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to the practical. sigh I need chocolate. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video Can you expand on that? What kind of license are you going to get that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds? It's not Creative Commons that's being disrespected. They're ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video and they can subscribe to your feed. Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they aggregate to see if there's a licensing block at the end? Do you think, especially given the response you received in this case, that they would bother to remove each particular individual feed whose license they were disregarding? CC or Traditional? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by switching to a traditional license. -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV -- www.mickipedia.com www.worldchanging.com http://blog.revver.com NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse or protection from this unwarranted intrusion save to call for the impeachment of the current President. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text
Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
And I'm saying I think we have the tools to correct that ourselves which in the long run will better serve us than hunting down every aggregator out there that doesn't take upon themselves to do so. There's just no way to keep up. Let's build players that include attribution and links directly. And as creators, we should be sure to add that information to the videos themselves. On 1/30/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the issue is advertising. If it was there wouldn't be an issue since ads with video is now fairly commoditized technology. I think the bigger issue is credit and respect for the terms of the cc license itself, which can put restrictions on commercial use and require proper attribution. In terms of videoronk my concern is that credit is given to blip but not to the content creator. - Original Message - From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue Jan 30 21:37:27 2007 Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of education that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not sure that's the issue at play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from all over the place - they certainly aren't all covered by CC. And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness of this slope. I personally value CC licenses because they take into account the openness of the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have google ads on my blog and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC license? Are we going to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and using DRM to protect them? Blip can block these sites all day long and they're just going to keep popping up. I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver feed. Because they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are included and I'm making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :) Revver's business model was built upon the understanding that videos would be increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give creators a way to benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to improve our player so that attribution and linkbacks are automatically included. But at least in this scenario, Revver users are making money for their work. Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being on Videoronk. The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at least so far). I think this example is very different than what happened with MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own player and attached advertising to the video - not on the page around the video. That was clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure I think my CC license is being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it). What is missing from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's build those directly into the players. Let's attribute ourselves and provide urls directly in the videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal to get what we want instead of embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down everyone pulling RSS feeds. We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally on the web instead of trying to constantly battle it. On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED]BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. For me, I have to consider switching to a traditional license. I don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of the videos are being used by non-profits for their purposes. There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on the other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to some of my content. One of my posts is titled Love Prosper about Christian Hip Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what kind of ads are going to latch on to that post. Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to the practical. sigh I need chocolate. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video Can you expand on that? What kind of license are you going to get that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds? It's not Creative Commons that's being disrespected. They're ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video and they can subscribe to your feed. Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they aggregate to see if there's a licensing block at the end? Do you think, especially given the response you received in this case, that they would bother
RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
Building players that include links and attribution directly is great, but for blip it's not a complete solution since we need to support every format under the sun (from divx to mp4) in order to ensure content creator flexibility and device / platform compatibility. So while we may build a Flash player that includes attribution and links in it we won't be able to do that with, say, mp4 files which don't have a container to build such tools in. I suppose that we could offer people an option to lock their content down and lose the direct references to video files in RSS and the like, but that is somewhat counter to our philosophy. We're all about sharing media openly all over the Interwebs, and personally I'm not interested in letting a few bad apples get in the way of that. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Micki Krimmel Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:49 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences And I'm saying I think we have the tools to correct that ourselves which in the long run will better serve us than hunting down every aggregator out there that doesn't take upon themselves to do so. There's just no way to keep up. Let's build players that include attribution and links directly. And as creators, we should be sure to add that information to the videos themselves. On 1/30/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the issue is advertising. If it was there wouldn't be an issue since ads with video is now fairly commoditized technology. I think the bigger issue is credit and respect for the terms of the cc license itself, which can put restrictions on commercial use and require proper attribution. In terms of videoronk my concern is that credit is given to blip but not to the content creator. - Original Message - From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue Jan 30 21:37:27 2007 Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of education that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not sure that's the issue at play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from all over the place - they certainly aren't all covered by CC. And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness of this slope. I personally value CC licenses because they take into account the openness of the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have google ads on my blog and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC license? Are we going to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and using DRM to protect them? Blip can block these sites all day long and they're just going to keep popping up. I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver feed. Because they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are included and I'm making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :) Revver's business model was built upon the understanding that videos would be increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give creators a way to benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to improve our player so that attribution and linkbacks are automatically included. But at least in this scenario, Revver users are making money for their work. Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being on Videoronk. The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at least so far). I think this example is very different than what happened with MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own player and attached advertising to the video - not on the page around the video. That was clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure I think my CC license is being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it). What is missing from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's build those directly into the players. Let's attribute ourselves and provide urls directly in the videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal to get what we want instead of embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down everyone pulling RSS feeds. We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally on the web instead of trying to constantly battle it. On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED]BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. For me, I have to consider switching
