I don't want to apply opt-out to an aggregator unless they agree to abide by this community's definition of best practices and actually do so. Under these circumstances, and these circumstances alone, should an aggregator be placed in a privileged position such as opt-out. Otherwise the aggregator should be placed in an opt-in scenario.
A default position of opt-out is one of the most powerful negotiating tools I have in my arsenal, and it allows me to tell a company that I can give them access to a great library of content if they'll follow the rules. I have a lot of experience with the difference in user behavior between opt-in and opt-out, and I have to tell you that when something (anything) is placed in an "opt-in" state very few people actually go ahead and opt in. This is a good thing when an aggregator won't abide by the best practices (and we'll be sure to mention this on the Dashboard page of any aggregator that doesn't abide by them). It's a bad thing when an aggregator does follow the best practices. In my opinion aggregators that abide by the best practices are "good actors" and beneficial to this community. They help content creators get additional exposure, additional views, and make additional money (since there's more opportunity for advertising that actually benefits the content creator to be shown). We've spent a lot of time talking to people about this, and my view is that in these cases "opt-out" is appropriate, both because there's relatively little to object to and because the upside is significant. Yours, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 7:48 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and > aggregators in general > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > >
