Here is the issue. According to this press release on their site: "At my blinkx.tv, users can upload and store their video blogs free of charge; they can also enter a search and save it as a "channel", which will be automatically and perpetually updated with relevant footage. This personal "channel" can then be viewed as a single, uninterrupted media stream, either online, or when downloaded to their desktops or portable video player. In this way, blinkx is empowering Internet users to customize not only what video content they receive, but also how and when they view it.
Leveraging the tremendous growth of compelling user-generated content on the Web, my blinkx.tv is an interactive content hub for non- commercial videos, which introduces a unique approach to the way that content can be shared and consumed online. For example, someone can upload personal footage and commentary on Hurricane Katrina to my blinkx.tv. blinkx will then automatically normalize the content, convert it into Flash, create an audio transcript, and index the file. The user's video clip will then become part of a living library, so that another visitor to my blinkx.tv who searched for New Orleans and weather would find that segment on Hurricane Katrina, along with other related user generated content, featured in their own customized channel." http://www.blinkx.com/press/2005/20051003.php So this tells us that they kepp a copy perpetually, no? So you would wonder, what is their rights with regarud to keeping it. If it were something like the Archive I assume it woudl allow you to determine the rights yourself. If it were Google, it would make clear who owns what and how it will be used. Here is a FAQ on their site: "How does blinkx support itself as a business?" Here is the answer: Advertisers pay to be included in the blinkx shopping channel. Users may optionally switch off the shopping channel if they would prefer not to receive product-related links. That's one way to put it. I also found that the main feature of Blinkx is the local toolbar. If you do a search for a videoblog and start watching one of their low-grade flash versions, the toolbar will "suggest" certain other links to relevant information based on the text that it extracts from the audio of your video. These suggested links are likely shopping partners. But all of this aside, now the site exclaims that it spiders and pulls content on its own (See a Jay and Ryanne mug on the home page today). What are they doing exactly with that content once they get it. Thats what is unclear. As above, the site says: "The user's video clip will then become part of a living library". And then what? http://www.blinkx.tv/beta/PodcastSubmit/ On Oct 9, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > And it couldnt just be slightly sloppy journalism rather than anything > sinister? Who says blinkx mentioned mefeedia relationship to the > journalist? If they did mention it, maybe it was just as an example of > the sorts of video that the service can search, rather than stating > there was a business relationship. blinkx.com has plenty of news > releases that tout relationships with different people, mefeedia isnt > mentioned as far as I can tell. > > Why when we know how often factual errors appear in articles, do we > start assuming anything based on one sentence in one article? > > Can someone refresh my mind as to what exactly blinkx is supposed to > be doing that is so evil anyway? Arent they a search engine? Are we > back to the issue of people gtting angry when search engines start > embedding the full media file in the results? > > What is the commercial aspect that causes people to object more? I > dont think I get it. > > Steve of Elbows > > --- In [email protected], Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> I also think this is not an issue of privacy. >> Its an issue of fraudulent business. >> Its not about linking to content that you don't own as much as it is >> about Blinkx possibly misrepresenting business partnerhsips they may >> or may not have to the press. >> >> -Josh >> >> >> On 10/9/05, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Oct 9, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Markus Sandy wrote: >>> >>> >>>> not applicable to the thread? >>>> >>>> you brought it up. >>>> >>>> duh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Marcus, its not an issue of "Duh". Here is what you wrote: >>> >>> actually, that's excellent advice: >>> if you want something kept private then DO NOT put it on the web >>> or for that matter, on a computer >>> >>> >>> As I concurred, it was great advice, but the reason why it's not >>> applicable to the problem at hand is because the issue is about what >>> people do with it once they see it. >>> >>> Putting material up online is the starting point we all take for >>> granted. The next step is how people deal with it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- > ~--> > Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the > Sweet Life. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ~-> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
