On 4/12/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These people should probably only be distributing their videos over P2P technologies. Like BitTorrent or Gnutella or something else that off loads the downloading of the actual video, while still giving the vlogger's server a "small" hit just to let them know thast the video is being downloaded.
That should be done in a machine-readable way so that this process can be automated and so it can scale.
I think that's already the case with things some of the Creative Commons liceses. Well, the "Share Alike" -- Copyleft -- ones anyways. (Maybe othe ones too.)
See ya
If bandwidth is a financial concern to a vodcaster, then they prob should not be vodcasting.
They prob should not be doing any promoting of their videoblog and stay out of directories and aggregator services.
Courtesy... well, it can be argued that someone who re-hosts your video out of courtesy for bandwidth is also removing that video from your radar.... no tracking data if its something you care about.... and that seems to often be discouraged, both by people and by licenses.
I would suggest that those who want to prevent bandwidth shock
These people should probably only be distributing their videos over P2P technologies. Like BitTorrent or Gnutella or something else that off loads the downloading of the actual video, while still giving the vlogger's server a "small" hit just to let them know thast the video is being downloaded.
at least make it clear in every post and in every video and through the site that they encourage re-hosting
That should be done in a machine-readable way so that this process can be automated and so it can scale.
that media with an attribution link to the source site/permalink. You also would be responsible for having proper license to allow others to re-host the media or make it public domain.
You cannot encourage people to violate a license.
I think that's already the case with things some of the Creative Commons liceses. Well, the "Share Alike" -- Copyleft -- ones anyways. (Maybe othe ones too.)
Else, it is the publishers responsibility to add an access control layer to the media.
If that is not done... if that effort to send a message to anyone who may be thinking about linking to your video... then it's fair game. You published media on the Open Internet and that means you are giving public access.
period.
sull
See ya
On 4/12/06, Pete Prodoehl < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Nerissa (TheVideoQueen) wrote:
> If you link to videos that I host and pay for bandwidth then you are stealing bandwidth.
One of the problems is see is that some folks have the above opinion,
that others are stealing their bandwidth. If this is so, is the correct
solution that people should copy your video to their server and provide
the bandwidth for it? That would upset the other half of the folks, the
ones who get upset when someone copies their video to their own server
and would prefer they just link to their video, so they can track it and
see the stats...
So what's the solution that will satisfy both groups?
[...]
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
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.
