I'm going to respond to each e-mail in this thread individually, or at least try to. Before doing that, though, I'd like to ensure that we have clarity around our terms, particularly the difference between "opt-in" and "opt-out." These are terms of art that originated in the e-mail marketing space and that we're now co-opting for use in our space. They're confusingly similar, and each could easily be taken to mean the other.
In my usage, when I say "opt-out" I mean that the default toggle is "on" or that "permission is granted by default." This is the way that blip.tv operates when it comes to aggregation with partners who meet all or almost all of the provisions of our agreed upon "best practices." When I say "opt-in" I mean to say that the default toggle is "off" or that "permission is not granted by default." This is the way that blip.tv will operate with aggregators who do not meet the provisions of our "best practices" documents. So, to summarize, it looks like MyHeavy is going to respect all or most of the best practices provisions when it comes to aggregation from blip.tv. In exchange we're planning to make MyHeavy "opt-out," meaning that permission is granted by default and that content creators must uncheck the MyHeavy aggregation box in order to prevent their videos from appearing in MyHeavy. By contrast, negotiations with Magnify are ongoing and it looks like it's possible that Magnify will not respect some of the key provisions of our best practices. For this reason we're considering the possibility of making Magnify aggregation "opt-in" -- meaning that users will have to explicitly choose to aggregate their videos to Magnify. My ability to speak to the Magnify discussions is fairly limited right now since I'm still working with their CEO to come to a conclusion that works well for everyone. I hope that this makes sense and clears up what I think is some level of confusion that's been introduced into this discussion. If you're interested in learning more about the origin of the terms "opt-in" and "opt-out" and their particular meanings within the e-mail marketing context, check out this excellent resource: http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=825751 Yours, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:38 AM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and > aggregators in general > > 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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
