I think part of the confusion was because you accidentally used the terms the wrong way round when talking about Magnify the other day....
"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." Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David > > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:38 AM > > To: [email protected] > > 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 [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <steve@> > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
