Here's what I love about Blip (I think Richard would agree) - THEY ADD VALUE.
Does Network2 add value? -Michael On 12/18/06, Richard (Show) Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with almost everything Andrew says below, in spirit, (I say, in > spirit, because I don't know Jeff Pulver or Chris Brogan), especially with > respect to the importance of net-neutrality being central in 2007 ... > > However, one point I would disagree on - Andrew said ... "As more and more > online video content emerges, no one has yet surfaced as the entry point > for online serial content besides iTunes which is not apt for democratic > inclusively. I'm going to give the 'most likely to succeed' award in 2007 > to > Jeff Pulver and Chris Brogan with Network2 ... having the best of intents > and heart" > > Personally, I would substitute blip.tv for the "Jeff Pulver and Chris > Brogan > with Network2" part > > IMHO ... Blip has the ideal philosophy with serialized content, based on > the > idea that blip is there to aid and facilitate the creator in disseminating > in the widest and most open possible way, with no effort, on blip's part > to > own or brand the content as their own ... plus I have come to know a lot > of > the blip people well and I can't imagine than anyone else could beat the > team at blip.tv in terms of "having the best of intents and heart" > > ... Richard (the blip fan) > > > On 12/18/06, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<andrew%40rocketboom.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > - I want it to be opt-in > > > - I want prominent link to my site > > > - I want a link to the post's permalink > > > - I want a link to my feed (not the directory's feed of my stuff) > > > - I want my work's license displayed > > > > I find this list of points to be spot on as the primary concerns. > > > > I think FireAnt, Network2 and vlogdir/vlogmap serve three different > > types of purposes and each can be treated differently with regards to > > these questions. > > > > I was just emailing with Jeff Pulver and it sounds like he previously > > had the foresight for exactly all of this and may have already > > changed some of it. > > > > As more and more online video content emerges, no one has yet > > surfaced as the entry point for online serial content besides iTunes > > which is not apt for democratic inclusively. > > > > I'm going to give the 'most likely to succeed' award in 2007 to Jeff > > Pulver and Chris Brogan with Network2, Video on the Net and Pod-camp, > > for having emerged basically just this year with these projects, > > shooting up overnight, and having the best of intents and heart (for > > I have gotten to know both this year and this last point is the very > > strongest quality behind everything). > > > > Before I hop off my support-wagon here, most importantly for all of > > us, I expect 2007 is going to require a major battle with Net > > Neutrality. > > > > This battle has already happened before when audio transmission over > > the internet had become democratized. > > > > "On February 12, 2004, Mr. Pulver's petition for clarification > > declaring Free World Dial-up as an unregulated information service > > was granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). . . Now > > referred to as "the Pulver Order", the ruling provides important > > clarification that computer-to-computer VoIP service is not a > > telecommunications service. By doing this, the FCC delivered a strong > > signal to consumers and capital markets that the FCC is not > > interested in subjecting end-to-end IP Communications services to > > traditional voice telecommunications regulation under the > > Communications Act. > > > > In otherwords, having co-founded Vonage, Jeff fought to make sure > > stuff like Skype could be free. Even Apple voice chat and podcasting > > would have been at risk. > > > > With regards to tomorrow's internet, Pulver has been hot on the case > > and may be one of the best positioned people to help keep internet > > video transmission free as well. > > > > > > On Dec 18, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: > > > > > Here are my thoughts... > > > > > > The reality is there is money to be made in aggregating and presenting > > > content. In other words it's a commercial use of people's content. > > > Maybe a site doesn't have ads or even charges money for content but if > > > they get lots of viewers because "they have" lots of content then, as > > > we've seen with YouTube, they can be valuable. That's value built on > > > the backs of others. > > > > > > Now I think if you opt-in to something that isn't displaying your > > > license or linking to your permalink or is putting ads around your > > > stuff than you've obviously agreed to that. No problem there. > > > > > > On the other hand, if like in the case of Network2, you have to > > > opt-out then that's not cool at all. Some of my content is up there > > > and I've never been asked about it. I have no agreement with them > > > though they are, in my opinion, commercially using my content. Even if > > > you could somehow argue that it wasn't a commercial use, they still > > > aren't displaying the terms of my license. > > > > > > I also noticed while looking around that Fireant.tv has added ads to > > > the page since I last checked. Not cool guys. There weren't any ads > > > when I opted in. > > > > > > So what do I want from a directory? > > > - I want it to be opt-in > > > - I want prominent link to my site > > > - I want a link to the post's permalink > > > - I want a link to my feed (not the directory's feed of my stuff) > > > - I want my work's license displayed > > > I think this is the minimum required. > > > > > > -Verdi > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > -- > http://richardhhall.org > http://richardshow.com > http://inspiredhealing.tv > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
