Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
On 1/2/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were > > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having > > documentation even before you were required to keep it. > > I'd like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place to > avoid retroactive legislation. As I refuse to believe the USA to have a > system silly enough to allow this kind of legislation I looked it up. And > indeed retroactive legislation is "Prohibited by Article I section 9 > (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the > U.S. Constitution." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation > Feel free, Andreas. Calling bullshit on it is exactly what the Free Speech Coalition's been doing since day 1. What you have to understand is that this was not a law that was passed by Congress. It's a change to the rules that an old law gave the DOJ the power to make. The rules change underwent only the barest amount of oversight, and now the system of checks and balances has to go to work to overturn it and show it to be unconstitutional. In the original rules, there could be a situation in which an underage actor appeared in a work and was later discovered to be underage (a la Traci Lords). Destroying copies of that work from the records-keeping files would be an offense worth 10 years in prison, but keeping a copy of that work would be a child pornography charge, also worth significant prison time. An exception was quickly articulated for such cases, but the original rules, as written, were terrible, draconian, and full of clauses to criminalize an otherwise legitimate industry. Oh, and the clause that will require independent webcam girls to publish their business addresses (usually also their private homes) on the Internet still stands, with the argument that nobody's been killed yet, so these women don't deserve the most basic privacy protection. This isn't FUD. It's what's happening. Nobody wants to cover it in the mainstream press, because the law in question has the word "underage" in it, so the most simplistic sound-byte impression is that if you oppose these rules, then you're in favor of child porn. That's the real FUD. --Stephanie -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
Wooof!! nicely siad andreas, By the way it was me who posted this originally Leave Enric alone, he's a nice guy. Paul On 2 Jan 2006, at 22:37, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having > documentation even before you were required to keep it. I'd like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place to avoid retroactive legislation. As I refuse to believe the USA to have a system silly enough to allow this kind of legislation I looked it up. And indeed retroactive legislation is "Prohibited by Article I section 9 (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the U.S. Constitution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation > - Andreas, watching FUD at work. -- http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS ▪ Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. ▪ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ▪ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com It's worth a laugh and work friendly.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having > documentation even before you were required to keep it. I'd like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place to avoid retroactive legislation. As I refuse to believe the USA to have a system silly enough to allow this kind of legislation I looked it up. And indeed retroactive legislation is "Prohibited by Article I section 9 (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the U.S. Constitution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation > - Andreas, watching FUD at work. -- http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
That was an EXCELLENT summary of 2257! Well said! -Halcyon On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As Halcyon said-- this is only relating to pornography, not copyright. > > Under the new rules, sites that redistribute adult content (including > websites) would have had to maintain a separate copy of the > documentation (drivers license, model release form, age verification > form) of each actor appearing in every item they publish. Previously, > this documentation was only kept by the studio producing the material. > On the back of every porn DVD and in the fine print on every primary > producing adult website, you can find an address where these records > could be inspected during business hours. Any adult studio maintains > these records as a matter of their business practices. To require it > of every website owner who scans and posts a DVD cover for purposes of > selling that DVD is a fast way to putting porn websites out of > business or offshore (the way the rules were changed, without any > congressional oversight, means that there cannot be a significant > financial impact of the rules change-- Gonzales basically lied > flat-out in changing these rules when he said they didn't have an > impact). > > Anyway, here's a fun entanglement with copyright, though: Under > current copyright laws, a copyright violation is a civil offense, > resulting in civil damages (fines). However, if the secondary producer > clause had remained, someone copying a DVD and re-publishing it would > not just be a copyright violation. The aggrieved party could then call > the FBI, tell the FBI "they don't have documentation" and have the > offender thrown in prison. The first offense is worth 5 years of hard > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having > documentation even before you were required to keep it. I think most > of us can agree that 10 years in prison for breaking a copyright on a > legal product is excessive (10 years in prison for breaking child porn > laws is not). > > These rules, by the way, don't actually catch child pornographers, who > work outside of the adult entertainment industry. The industry polices > its own and effectively shuts out anyone with ties to child porn. > > --Stephanie > > On 1/2/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stephanie, > > > > Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer > > clause" and what it means? > > > > I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com > > persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display > > content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content > > they do not have permission to distribute). > > > > Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to > > pornography? > > > > -Josh > > > > > > On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Eddie, > > > > > > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!). > > > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their > > > service. > > > > > > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's > > > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult > > > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or > > > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer > > > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation, > > > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI > > > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the > > > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in > > > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to > > > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to > > > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source > > > and fry them over an open grill.] > > > > > > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz > > > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free > > > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested. > > > > > > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal > > > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be > > > > considered a > > > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds? > > > > > > -- > > > Stephanie Bryant > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com > > > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Stephanie Bryant > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
Yeah-- my boneheaded mistake. I know better, too! --Steph On 1/2/06, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Enric wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > ... and the > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers ... > > LOL, Stephanie. I don't work at blip.tv or have a open server for > video content. > > > actually, i was wondering about this too - i think she is referring to your > original post where "enric" appears in the urls: > > Enric wrote: > > LeNxO, http://enric.blip.tv/posts/?user=LeNxO, has > reposted that porn > as "Nothing good", http://enric.blip.tv/file/8074. There's also at > least one other new porn entry, firstcast, http://blip.tv/file/8082. > > > > > > > > > -- > > My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us > > http://apperceptions.org > http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com > http://node101.org > http://spinflow.org > http://wearethemedia.com > http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com > > aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > skype: msandy > spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
As Halcyon said-- this is only relating to pornography, not copyright. Under the new rules, sites that redistribute adult content (including websites) would have had to maintain a separate copy of the documentation (drivers license, model release form, age verification form) of each actor appearing in every item they publish. Previously, this documentation was only kept by the studio producing the material. On the back of every porn DVD and in the fine print on every primary producing adult website, you can find an address where these records could be inspected during business hours. Any adult studio maintains these records as a matter of their business practices. To require it of every website owner who scans and posts a DVD cover for purposes of selling that DVD is a fast way to putting porn websites out of business or offshore (the way the rules were changed, without any congressional oversight, means that there cannot be a significant financial impact of the rules change-- Gonzales basically lied flat-out in changing these rules when he said they didn't have an impact). Anyway, here's a fun entanglement with copyright, though: Under current copyright laws, a copyright violation is a civil offense, resulting in civil damages (fines). However, if the secondary producer clause had remained, someone copying a DVD and re-publishing it would not just be a copyright violation. The aggrieved party could then call the FBI, tell the FBI "they don't have documentation" and have the offender thrown in prison. The first offense is worth 5 years of hard time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having documentation even before you were required to keep it. I think most of us can agree that 10 years in prison for breaking a copyright on a legal product is excessive (10 years in prison for breaking child porn laws is not). These rules, by the way, don't actually catch child pornographers, who work outside of the adult entertainment industry. The industry polices its own and effectively shuts out anyone with ties to child porn. --Stephanie On 1/2/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephanie, > > Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer > clause" and what it means? > > I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com > persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display > content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content > they do not have permission to distribute). > > Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to pornography? > > -Josh > > > On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eddie, > > > > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!). > > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their > > service. > > > > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's > > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult > > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or > > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer > > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation, > > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI > > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the > > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in > > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to > > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to > > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source > > and fry them over an open grill.] > > > > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz > > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free > > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested. > > > > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal > > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be > > > considered a > > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds? > > > > -- > > Stephanie Bryant > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com > > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
Enric wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... and the resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers ... LOL, Stephanie. I don't work at blip.tv or have a open server for video content. actually, i was wondering about this too - i think she is referring to your original post where "enric" appears in the urls: Enric wrote: LeNxO, http://enric.blip.tv/posts/?user=LeNxO, has reposted that porn as "Nothing good", http://enric.blip.tv/file/8074. There's also at least one other new porn entry, firstcast, http://blip.tv/file/8082. -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
My mistake-- sorry. I've been away from vlogging for too long and forgot everyone's "face." On 1/2/06, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > LOL, Stephanie. I don't work at blip.tv or have a open server for > video content. > >;), > >Enric -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
Secondary producer is a part of the 2257 wording which (in my understanding) is strictlly for porn, and used under the pretense of stopping child porn. (age of performers documentation, etc.) It is not related to using others' content. -Halcyon On 1/2/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephanie, > > Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer > clause" and what it means? > > I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com > persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display > content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content > they do not have permission to distribute). > > Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to pornography? > > -Josh > > > On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eddie, > > > > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!). > > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their > > service. > > > > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's > > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult > > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or > > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer > > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation, > > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI > > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the > > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in > > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to > > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to > > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source > > and fry them over an open grill.] > > > > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz > > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free > > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested. > > > > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal > > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be > > > considered a > > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds? > > > > -- > > Stephanie Bryant > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com > > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > -- www.SpreadingThePink.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
Stephanie, Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer clause" and what it means? I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content they do not have permission to distribute). Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to pornography? -Josh On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eddie, > > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!). > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their > service. > > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation, > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source > and fry them over an open grill.] > > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested. > > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be > > considered a > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds? > > -- > Stephanie Bryant > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
Eddie, As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!). Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their service. I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation, that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source and fry them over an open grill.] We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested. On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be > considered a > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds? -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
We (you know who) replace the pornographic feed's thumbnail with an advisory-style image so the content isn't censored, or filtered, but at least grandma, or little joey don't have bare asses, etc thrown in their faces. We have to do this manually right now, and if the content is really nasty then we'd pull itthe porn, pull the porn off the site that is. (Yeesh, hard to avoid the puns isn't it.) On 1/1/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's also a deluge of spam on open systems. Actions to hold itback are worthy. Spam, Dupes, Tests, and non-vlog video content are some of the reasons why I have chosen not to pull in all the 'feeds' that exist out there onto my site at vlogdir.com. Someone needs to take a few minutes of their time to add a videoblog entry to vlogdir. This person, so far 99.9% of the time, is typcially the vlog/channel author. They are interested to share and expose their content.My letting VLOGDIR be a user-driven and thus commuity-driven directory, it acts as a very passive filter. I dont have to worry about removing crap... once or twice I had to remove a commercial entry that was not a vlog, just some infomercial... but I deal with it as they come in. If I took in all the feeds from all the different sites out there, i'd have a headache that i dont need and more noise in the directory for the audience. Though vlogdir is an open system, at this point i see a benefit to not sucking in a spitting out every single rs feed that may exist across a group of video hosting sites. Less is More and all that. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just is what it is right now based on my opinion and specifically related to the core directory. I could in an hour or so build a new page that takes in all the newest video posted and generate and aggreagate an RSS feed for it. I might do that actually. But that would be just a vlogospheric feed and not the actual directory. So, their are ways to make availabel the actual video content that is being spewed out from all over... without potentially corrupting a directory with the everything and anything system. I have not had any porn vlogs added to vlogdir but if they come, i'll evaluate what to do (go ahead, insert joke here).On 1/1/06, Enric < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> We>> as a part-time professional pornographer, I feel like I should say> *something*...> > Sexual content is just a type of content. Like extreme sports. If it> is labeled properly, I don't see the problem.>> Of course, if a site says , "NO PORN" then they have to undertake the > tide-fighting battle tof trying to keep adult off of an open system.>There's also a deluge of spam on open systems. Actions to hold itback are worthy. -- Enric> I know that Veoh.com allows adult and gives you the ability to tag it> as such. That way, unles you change your default settings, you would > never see the risque content in searches or on the site. >> -Halcyon> www.SpreadingThePink.com> www.PinkBroadcasting.com On 1/1/06, Paul Knight < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > Dear all,> >> > On the subject of Pornography, something seems to have slipped through> > the net and landed writhing on the pages of blip.tv It is also> > happening in Dailymotion. Although a lot softer core. The video I am> > talking about is called XXX and was posted by LeNoX. I don't know> > about you but, although I have nothing against pornography, but for me > > these video sites both blip and dailymotion used to be a safehaven for> > me away from porn where I could concentrate, more on artisticvalue and> > creativity rather than having to suppress the urge to run to the > > bathroom every five minutes for tissue paper. I have found that the> > worst thing you need when you have vloggers block is to get suckedinto> > porn. Or maybe I take this whole thing a bit too seriously, I wish to > > make films, I wish to share my creativity, it's enough when corpo's> > come on ranting about companies, I think that sucks also, big time.> >> > Paul Knight> >> > > > Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog> >> > http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com > >> > It's worth a laugh and work friendly. > >> >> >> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links> >> >> >> >> >> >> --> www.SpreadingThePink.com>Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggre
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
There's also a deluge of spam on open systems. Actions to hold itback are worthy. Spam, Dupes, Tests, and non-vlog video content are some of the reasons why I have chosen not to pull in all the 'feeds' that exist out there onto my site at vlogdir.com. Someone needs to take a few minutes of their time to add a videoblog entry to vlogdir. This person, so far 99.9% of the time, is typcially the vlog/channel author. They are interested to share and expose their content.My letting VLOGDIR be a user-driven and thus commuity-driven directory, it acts as a very passive filter. I dont have to worry about removing crap... once or twice I had to remove a commercial entry that was not a vlog, just some infomercial... but I deal with it as they come in. If I took in all the feeds from all the different sites out there, i'd have a headache that i dont need and more noise in the directory for the audience. Though vlogdir is an open system, at this point i see a benefit to not sucking in a spitting out every single rs feed that may exist across a group of video hosting sites. Less is More and all that. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just is what it is right now based on my opinion and specifically related to the core directory. I could in an hour or so build a new page that takes in all the newest video posted and generate and aggreagate an RSS feed for it. I might do that actually. But that would be just a vlogospheric feed and not the actual directory. So, their are ways to make availabel the actual video content that is being spewed out from all over... without potentially corrupting a directory with the everything and anything system. I have not had any porn vlogs added to vlogdir but if they come, i'll evaluate what to do (go ahead, insert joke here).On 1/1/06, Enric < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> We>> as a part-time professional pornographer, I feel like I should say> *something*...> > Sexual content is just a type of content. Like extreme sports. If it> is labeled properly, I don't see the problem.>> Of course, if a site says , "NO PORN" then they have to undertake the > tide-fighting battle tof trying to keep adult off of an open system.>There's also a deluge of spam on open systems. Actions to hold itback are worthy. -- Enric> I know that Veoh.com allows adult and gives you the ability to tag it> as such. That way, unles you change your default settings, you would> never see the risque content in searches or on the site. >> -Halcyon> www.SpreadingThePink.com> www.PinkBroadcasting.com On 1/1/06, Paul Knight < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > Dear all,> >> > On the subject of Pornography, something seems to have slipped through> > the net and landed writhing on the pages of blip.tv It is also> > happening in Dailymotion. Although a lot softer core. The video I am> > talking about is called XXX and was posted by LeNoX. I don't know> > about you but, although I have nothing against pornography, but for me > > these video sites both blip and dailymotion used to be a safehaven for> > me away from porn where I could concentrate, more on artisticvalue and> > creativity rather than having to suppress the urge to run to the > > bathroom every five minutes for tissue paper. I have found that the> > worst thing you need when you have vloggers block is to get suckedinto> > porn. Or maybe I take this whole thing a bit too seriously, I wish to > > make films, I wish to share my creativity, it's enough when corpo's> > come on ranting about companies, I think that sucks also, big time.> >> > Paul Knight> >> > > > Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog> >> > http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com> >> > It's worth a laugh and work friendly. > >> >> >> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links> >> >> >> >> >> >> --> www.SpreadingThePink.com>Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe
Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 12:17:54AM -, Enric wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Halcyon Lujah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We > > > > as a part-time professional pornographer, I feel like I should say > > *something*... > > > > Sexual content is just a type of content. Like extreme sports. If it > > is labeled properly, I don't see the problem. > > > > Of course, if a site says , "NO PORN" then they have to undertake the > > tide-fighting battle tof trying to keep adult off of an open system. > > > > There's also a deluge of spam on open systems. Actions to hold it > back are worthy. Most people would agree that spam is not a content type that people WANT to watch. The same can't always be said for porn. Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be considered a "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds? -eddie Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
