The web space could not exist with opt out. The search space fundamentally would not exist if it were opt out.
Our job is not to figure out the best standards for opt-in... indeed there need be no standard on opt-in at all... Our job is to figure out the minimum standards for opt in, so this space can become fluid. This space will not evolve if everyone in the search space was required to get your permission... quite simply this would be couter productive. Indeed they just wouldn't bother to deal with all the little players. There must be fluidity, the center of the market must be open. It is the value ads that must be opt in. I.E. if myheavy or magnify want to put ads on your content that should be opt in. I think of it in terms of physical space. What we're doing is building the roads the parks, the public spaces, the sidewalks. We must reach a minimal agreement to keep the information superhighway coming to your front door. Because if we don't the alternative is that we have a bunch of inoperable city-states... hundreds of videos sharing sites with no interoperability. And one or two players (i.e. youtube) will dominate because within their city state they can make search, findability, bubble up filtering work. Meanwhile independant vloggers will have "full control" over every aspect of their content, but their sites will be isolated. No traffic will come to their front doors. We must build robust infrastructure in the search and intermediaries area so that not only can we compete with the likes of these city states, but to keep the center of the marketplace open and ensure that there's enough capacity for free speach, for us all to have a voice. Else... marginalization. Intermediaries need tough and clear love. One last thing... if magnify can't provide a level of service without advertising on your content... if they're only opt in they're not even in the game at all. They're standing on the sidelines. They've already lost. The bottom is in order for this space to function the must be a minimal agreed upon level of interoperability. Whatever companies do after that is opt-in and they can do anything they want, I don't care an neither should you have to unless you specifically want to opt-in. Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 1/27/07, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[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 > > > >
