Do we know how much revenue they generated dsirectly from blip & google videos? Do we know how long they had the 'search engine' aspect of their site running before it got pulled down?
I support you on one level with what you are suggesting, but there are several hurdles Id think carefully before trying to jump: 1) The company to be taken to court neds to be a serial offender who doesnt shift when there is a verbal web backlash. So far all the major offenders have corrected themselves, have listened, which makes it harder for me to see them as worthy of being made a legal example of. 2) Would any compensation actually even cover legal costs let along build up a slush-fund? 3) Consider the possible legal-precedent setting - could an undesirable outcome ensue where things are locked down? Some people on digg etc seemed to think this stuff would mean the end of the internet as we know it, which I dont agree with, but there is some potential danger of going too far I suppose? Dont want to end up penalising viewers, just commercial leeches. 4) Double-standards. During the network2.tv rant, it became clear that some of the old friendly homegrown services may be getting cut more slack by this group than new 'obviously commercial' services that we rage against. For example Michael Verdi noticed that fireant directory had added some adverts since he opted in, I didnt notice them responding here at all. I suppose at the end of the day I feel any money for legal battles could be better spend elsewhere, technology and blip.tv etc's influence, word of mouth and blogosphere backlash seem to have served the cause well so far. I guess I dont feel like seeing lawyers become another group that gets a load of cash ahead of the video creators! Although Im on the wrong continent I would love to help with some sort of content creators guild that would publicise and discuss these issues, if not go down the legal route. Although theres still a huge lack of detail, things like Baron & Pulvers 'Abbey Corp' seems interesting, but my overriding cynicism means Id probably be more into such things if they were not-for-profit, or indeed a new type of UK company that has emerged in recent years. Listen to this description and ponder if it makes sense... "Community Interest Companies Community Interest Companies (CICS) are limited companies with special additional features created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes.Registration of a company as a CIC has to be approved by the Regulator who also has a continuing monitoring and enforcement role." Wibble! Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "schlomo rabinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with you Mike that Litigation is expensive and difficult, but > honestly, heavy.com can afford to pay for back revenues they have > generated. That's all I want. > > In Web2.0 Land, part of the money-making scheme is having users > populate a site with content to make the site "valuable". We have > brought value to heavy.com and some sort of compensation should be > asked for. > > It's the beginning of the year; perfect time for tipping over large > monuments. Or rattling cages. Or just asserting the fact that what I > do has some value to these companies. YOU BRING VALUE TO MULTIPLE WEB > COMPANIES. Time to get paid when someone steps up and takes your > value for granted. > > And then, with this money, maybe we could have a slush fund to help > others. (Though I just want to give my part to blip.tv to pay for > hosting for the last year!:) > > We are ripe for a beautiful lawsuit. One that will take these > companies to task and make a new chapter in the Court of Copyright. > This is trail-blazing stuff that can affect online video makers for > the foreseeable future. > > I'm serious. I haven't had coffee yet, and I'm still ready to sue! > (I hope this doesn't make me sound like a Sue-Happy American, I'm not > really like that. I just think this is important to lock down.) > > Schlomo > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com > http://hatfactory.net > http://evilvlog.com > > On 1/4/07, Mike Hudack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Litigation is expensive and difficult. I've been on the phone with > > them, and I'm hopeful that we can resolve this issue with simple > > communication and without the need for lawyers. That said, if we have > > to, we'll have our attorneys send them a nastygram. We're not at that > > point yet, though. Soon, maybe. > > >
