We're not talking about a technical protocol for delivery of video content. We already have that. Jay is talking about a business protocal for companys/organizations to REPUBLISH that content.
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 09:01:00PM -0800, Lucas Gonze wrote: > On 1/3/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "There is, incidentally, a protocol for Web-based aggregation of video > > content." > > Here are two other protocols for web-based aggregation of video content: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt > > Here is an explanation of that protocol at a hight level: > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking.html > > Here is a quote from that explanation: > "This issue is important because attempts to limit deep linking are in > fact risky for two reasons: > > 1. > > The policy is at risk of failure. The Web is so large that any > policy enforcement requires considerable automated support from > software to be practical. Since a deep link looks like any other link > to Web software, such automated support is not practical. Which is why there are computer readable versions of Creative Commons licenses. Anyone who builds a complex application that can read, republish, watermark and slap ads around video content can also figure out a way to respect copyrights of that content. > 2. > > The Web is at the risk of damage. The hypertext architecture of > the Web has brought substantial benefits to the world at large. The > onset of legislation and litigation based on confusion between > identification and access has the potential to impair the future > development of the Web."A Look, I'm no fan of government regulation of the Internet and this is not a technical problem that needs regulating. No one is saying that deep linking in of itself is a problem. The confusion lies in that a company can access YOUR content and identify lots of revenue by republishing it with advertising. -eddie
