--- In [email protected], "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem that we have right now is that in some ways we're playing a > game of whack-a-mole. As sites like Veoh, MyHeavy and Magnify come to > our attention we have approached them and worked to solve the problem > presented by their behavior. There are lots of other sites out there, > and they'll only come to our attention in fits and starts. > > Because of the nature of the Web, particularly this fairly open "Web > 2.0" that we find ourselves in, we cannot go "default opt-in" for sites > we don't know about. It's just not feasible, unfortunately, at least > not using currently available technology. So we're stuck playing > whack-a-mole and applying negotiation and some mix of punitive and > non-punitive actions to those actors that come to our attention over > time. > > I would like nothing more than to be able to say "Don't aggregate > blip.tv video and stick it on your site without the explicit permission > of the content creators who use blip.tv." I can do this on a > case-by-case basis, and I do so, but I can't make that fifteen year old > kid in a garage who's building the "next great video aggregator" do this > until I know about him. > > Yours, > > Mike >
Knowing absolutely nothing about the "behind the scenes" of all this, I agree with what you're saying. The only way to avoid "whack a mole" is to have a specific list of sites that blip allows to aggregate video. This would mean (and I don't even know if this is possible) that anyone not on this preferred list would have no access to blip videos, which is completely infeasible and IMO defeats one of the main purposes of the site to begin with. I had never even heard of MyHeavy until Casey posted about it. I had never heard of Magnify until this thread. Even hearing of it, I haven't been interested enough to visit it and see what's going on. I'm sure sites like these come and go and come again all the time without the blip.tv end-user being aware of them at all. It seems like the only thing to do is monitor blip's logs to see when an inordinate amount of data is going to one particular place, then find out how they're treating the material. > 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 makes sense. If it weren't for these discussions, I would never even look at these options. I looked at them when I made my shows, and haven't thought about it since. Meanwhile, beneficial and non-beneficial aggregators have popped up, and I'd rather leave it to blip to determine who's doing the right thing in their estimation than to have to deal with it myself. I don't have the time or desire to check out this site and that site to determine whether they're advertising on my video and then flanking it with 8-story-tall chicks (relative to the people in my videos) in lingerie! :D I doubt anyone even checks those preferences to see if anything's new. -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv > 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. > >
