Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-03 Thread Rupert
Amen to that! On 3 Feb 2007, at 10:51, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote Finally, as Verdi pointed out. You shouldn't be suing people. You should just bill them and move on with your life. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > [Non-text portions of this message have been r

Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-03 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
Den 03.02.2007 kl. 01:22 skrev Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > That's true - Copyright protection for all created media is > automatic as soon as there is a record in any form of the material > that has been created - but you can see how an infringer could make a > persuasive case to try and set pre

Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-02 Thread Jay dedman
> Someone recently posted a URL to a comparison chart of the various TOS > for some of the video sharing sites out there what was that link? Ill take this opportunity to link to our fancy new wiki for this group: http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/ That list is linked at the bottom of th

Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-02 Thread Joshua Kinberg
> If you want protection CC doesn't matter. Don't do anything and all your > rights are preserved. If you want to open up your work so that others can > re-use/distribute without having to ask you for permission then CC > licenses may be able to help you. The mantra to remember is: Creative > Commo

Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-02 Thread Rupert
That's true - Copyright protection for all created media is automatic as soon as there is a record in any form of the material that has been created - but you can see how an infringer could make a persuasive case to try and set precedent that material distributed freely on the web is fair

Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-02 Thread Rupert
IANAL, blah blah, but as far as stopping people making money from your CC protected stuff, it seems to me that court proved cases and precedence don't matter so much. From what I hear, it's very very rare for *any* traditional copyright disputes to go to court because of the expense - and t

Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-02 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
Den 02.02.2007 kl. 23:59 skrev Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Josh Wolf posted a certain video on his blog and before the Feds got a > hold > of it, the local TV stations ran it on the news. Josh sent them a copy of > his CC license and a bill and they paid up. You give away rights when e

Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-02 Thread Michael Verdi
Others can chime in here if I get this wrong... Josh Wolf posted a certain video on his blog and before the Feds got a hold of it, the local TV stations ran it on the news. Josh sent them a copy of his CC license and a bill and they paid up. -Verdi On 2/2/07, T. Whid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: [videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-02 Thread T . Whid
I'm very, very curious... +++ Ms. Vogel states: [...] CC licenses are legally enforceable contracts. While I believe it's almost *always* better to find community-based, practical, business or technical solutions before weilding the hammer of "The Law", it shouldn't be forgotten that those CC li

[videoblogging] is Creative Commons bulshit...Part 2

2007-02-02 Thread Jay dedman
Colette Vogel co-wrote the Podcasting Legal Guide: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide She sent this email to the group, but it wont go through because she's not a member. she makes some good points below. Jay __ This is a great discussion going on here, and I'm gratef