Thanks for your thoughts Steve. Your faith in blip is understandable and I share it: they've been remarkably good brokers and advocates for this community. As I hope I communicated, my concerns are not about blip. Quite the contrary, I think they're doing everything they can to empower us. But permit me, for a moment, to argue with you a little. It is not stretching the non-commercial clause of the CC license to say that when I chose it I chose to deny anyone to whom I did not specifically grant the right to make money from my work that right. When I agreed to blip's TOS then I obviously waived those rights vis-a-vis blip. As I am offered and choose to opt-in to any other aggregators website through my blip RSS feed, then I will waive the non-commercial aspect of my license. My CC license means anyone can grab my video and play it pretty much anywhere so long as they attribute it to me. But they break that license when they stick advertising against it without my permission. Blip has that permission; I granted it to them when I signed up and accepted their TOS. Sites I don't know about and haven't given that permission to do not. If you read blip's TOS they state that they have the right to transfer "... for any non-commercial use ..." so, in fact, Magnify cannot get that license release by screenscraping or by pulling my RSS feed off blip. The right to make money from my work must be granted by me. That's the law. The CC licenses do nothing to change that. They provide a valuable way to encapsulate and communicate the rights I'm granting to the public. It's a wonderful service and I don't think the problem lies with creative commons. I think the problem is people's understanding of the CC license and their rights.
I think the legal issues are pretty straight-forward. You make it, you own it. How you choose to allow people to use it is your business. You might post to a site and accept their TOS that takes all those rights away from you. But if you post to blip you have done no such thing. You have signed up with them because they don't (or at least I have). It is actually a lot more efficient for people to honor the licensing we publish our work under than for everyone to tailor their TOS specifically to each situation. My advice is don't sign up on any site with bad TOS. Do sign up on blip. Don't accept opt-out as the default performance of these sites. It's wrong. --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess this depends on exactly what we mean by opt-out. Clearly the > rages against various sites shows that being asked to opt-out of > something we may not even know exists, is no good. > > But most of the recent opt-out stuff, has been related to blip.tv. > This is different because it only applies to people who are actively > using blip.tv to host their content, and the various opt-in's and > opt-out's are options that are centrally located in the blip.tv > control panel. This leaves you in much greater control, in the driving > seat with a clear view and control, so its not the same as having to > opt-out of things that arent even showing up on the radar. > > It also impacts on the crateive commons angle. Unknown services have > no agreement with the creators that gives them additional rights > beyond the cc or normal copyright license you use. But when you host > stuff with blip.tv, you are already giving blip additional rights > beyond the cc license, which should be fine as you are actively making > an agreement with them. I suppose it gets a little grey here because > theres then a question about whether these other sites are being given > some of these rights too, by being blip.tv partners and claiming that > their use is non-commercial as blip defines it, or whether they are > just relying on the rights you've granted via cc license, and claiming > to be non-commercial as Creative Commons defines it. Unfortunately cc > dont really define it much right now, and I suppose legally its down > to how a court would define non-commercial, if some test cases go to > court. Anyway this quickly becomes a quagmire, which brings us back to > blip.tv's attempts to give the users control, which I guess means more > to people at the end of the day than specific legal clarification? > > Personally I remain pretty strongly against attempts to stretch the > definition of non-commercial use too far, and would be happier if more > detail was given on this subject in the various terms & conditions > people are signing up to with hosts, but so long as there are service > slike blip trying to do the right thing, I perhaps shouldnt get caught > up in the finer details of the purely legal definition side of things, > and if the term non-commercial is too narrow it will I guess harm > innovation and the ability to syndicate in a 'fair' way?!? > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In [email protected], "David" <david@> wrote: > > > > Are we seriously okay with opt-out? A thousand aggregators take your > > material and use it however they want. Does anyone have the time to > > sift the net and sift those sites to ensure your material is being > > used as you have licensed it to be used? A CC, non-commercial > > license means you have to ask me if you can serve ads against my > > content. It means you can redistribute but you can't make money from > > doing so without further permission and so you have to ask to serve > > ads against my content. It doesn't mean I have to find out that > > you're breaking my license and then track you down and get you to > > stop. The burden on me to do that would break my back, let alone my > > spirits. How many emails would I have to send, how many phone calls > > would I have to make to get the offending website to stop? How long > > would it take them to compensate me? It's untenable. Opt-out is > > bogus, unethical and probably illegal. Are we really okay with > > this? Google is getting fried in the press. Lawsuits are being > > filed. Opt-out is bogus. What am I, krill to be swept up in the > > great big whale-y maw of some aggregator to whom I have to ask not to > > be eaten after I'm halfway down his throat? If that's the new > > regime, then let this be public notice: please don't come take stuff > > out of my house either. Thanks. > > > > Mike, this is not aimed at you. I appreciate the laudable work > > you've been doing on behalf of this entire community. I'm presenting > > my questions and opinions to everyone on this list. I think it's > > important. Opt-out is an ethically bankrupt, swindling, negligent > > policy of pillaging and these companies want to use it because it's > > in their self-interest. Well it's not in mine. And it's not in > > yours either. > > > > Please think about the implications. > > > > --- In [email protected], Ron Watson <k9disc@> wrote: > > > > > > All I was really looking for from Magnify was attribution and a > > link. > > > > > > Any word on that front? > > > > > > I just think it is unacceptable for them to attribute blip.tv and > > > then leave no avenue for their viewer to make it to the rest of my > > work. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ron > > > > > > On Jan 25, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Mike Hudack wrote: > > > > > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > > > I just wanted to give everyone an update on where we stand with > > > > MyHeavy > > > > and Magnify, since I've met with the CEOs both companies in the > > last > > > > three days. Both of the meetings were for the same purpose -- > > they > > > > took > > > > place because people on this list complained about the way the > > > > companies > > > > were aggregating their videos. The meeting agenda was simple: to > > work > > > > with these companies to allow them to meet their business goals > > > > without > > > > infringing on the copy or other rights of original content > > creators. > > > > > > > > Both meetings went well. MyHeavy removed aggregated video content > > from > > > > its site immediately after we spoke on the phone. This was an easy > > > > thing for them to do, since for them aggregation is a feature of a > > > > larger business. In the case of Magnify it's much more difficult > > to do > > > > this because their entire business is based on aggregation. > > > > > > > > MyHeavy is planning to bring aggregation back, but to do so in a > > way > > > > that conforms with the best practices that have been (I believe) > > > > largely > > > > agreed upon and endorsed by this group. Specifically, they will > > not > > > > include advertising in the playback experience without express > > > > permission from original content creators; they will not > > watermark the > > > > video; they will give credit by prominently noting the original > > source > > > > of the video in the form of a link to the original content > > > > creator's Web > > > > site; and they will allow content creators to control aggregation > > > > through support for the MediaRSS restriction standard (whch will > > be > > > > controllable through a MyHeavy aggregation control panel in the > > > > blip.tv > > > > Dashboard). > > > > > > > > Magnify continues to aggregate blip.tv video to their > > destination > > > > sites, > > > > and they are currently including Google AdSense advertisements > > on > > > > pages > > > > that include video players from other sources, including blip.tv. > > We > > > > are currently working with Magnify's CEO to determine how best to > > > > address this issue, since Magnify's entire business model is > > based on > > > > the ability to monetize aggregators through advertising. Either > > way, > > > > Magnify has agreed to support the MediaRSS restriction standard > > in the > > > > same way as MyHeavy and others. You will be able to control > > > > aggregation > > > > to Magnify through a control panel in the blip.tv Dashboard. > > > > Because of > > > > Magnify's current position on advertising we are considering the > > > > possibility of making the default position for Magnify "opt- out" > > > > rather > > > > than opt-in (unlike providers who adhere closely to all points of > > the > > > > best practices). Content creators who are okay with player- > > adjacent > > > > AdSense advertisements because they want the extra traffic that > > > > Magnify > > > > may generate will easily be able to opt in. > > > > > > > > Please let me know if these are acceptable outcomes for you, and > > we'll > > > > proceed with implementation with both companies. > > > > > > > > ------- > > > > Mike Hudack > > > > CEO, blip.tv > > > > > > > > Office: 917-546-6989 > > > > AIM: mikehudack > > > > > > > > Read the blip.tv blog: http://blog.blip.tv/ > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >
