I'm having trouble following and contributing to this discussion because the posts aren't showing up in any order I can determine. Seriously. Weird.
Anyway, Mike, please don't feel it necessary to respond to my earlier posts. You've explained that the opt-out/opt-in that you're discussing is vis-a-vis blip and its dashboard and RSS feeds and "partners." That's fine. Blip can inform its users that certain "network partners" get our stuff on an opt-out basis and that's part of the TOS explicit or implicit when we use blip. I think Steve was right that there's some cross-talk and I'm sorry if I contributed to it. I'm very happy to deal with these other sites through the blip dashboard and choose my options from there. I do want folks to realize that sites pursuing an opt-out strategy outside this kind of sandbox arrangement with blip or other services we use is inappropriate. And, again, thanks for your advocacy. -David --- In [email protected], "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John, > > I'm going to reply to David directly in just a moment. I'd just like to > point out that my ability to discuss the particular case of Magnify > right now is fairly limited since negotiations with Magnify are ongoing > and I don't want to jeopardize those conversations. It's kind of like > lawyers negotiating a settlement or heads of state trying to end a > shooting war -- you don't want to make off-handed comments to the press > which may filter back into the negotiating room and change opinions, > offend people, or put people in difficult positions because of the > public discussion of the issue which may put pressure on people and > force their hands. > > Yours, > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of johnleeke > > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:26 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and > > aggregators in general > > > > It is fascinating to read between the lines and learn > > business diplomacy from Mike. > > > > I agree with David, when it comes to the legality and > > morality of the issue, "opt out" simply empowers the illegal > > and immoral actions of these secondary agrigators and > > distributors of our content. They want and take our content > > because it has a higher value that what they have to pay for > > it. The fact that their business model is based on paying > > absolutely nothing for the content is the problem. > > > > "We cannot afford it" sounds pretty lame when they have > > million dollar budgets. But even on lesser budgets what > > happened to the "micro payment" idea? Wern't computers > > supposed to make "micro payments" > > practical? Why don't they set a policy of always paying, then > > pay what they can negotiate with the content maker? Blip has > > done it so we know it is possible. If they cannot arrive at > > an agreement with the content makers, then they don't take > > the content. > > > > This seems pretty simple, and most of us learned it from our > > Mommies by the time we were ten: > > > > "If it doesn't belong to you, then don't take it." > > > > Every particle of the conflict in this issue arises out of > > the fact that it appears they think they can ignore this > > basic tenant of our morality-based society. > > > > I think the fact that they do, or do not, "show their faces" > > in this discussion tells us a lot about their character and intent. > > > > Mike and all, thanks for the good works and thoughtful discussions. > > > > John > > www.HistoricHomeWorks.com > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
