Absolutely. I've been working from the discussions we've had on this list previously, including the best practices document that you, me and Bre put together during the Veoh catastrophe and with the draft I've put up on videovertigo.org at http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/, which isn't finished yet.
I'd love to hear what you think of the Vertigo draft (which I sent to the list a few weeks ago), particularly in how we deal with representing Creative Commons licenses as part of the consumption experience. > -----Original Message----- > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay Dedman > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:03 PM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and > aggregators in general > > > Since we're using this list to publicly discuss these > relationships between a video hosting site and > aggregators....it'd be good if we all defined what we expect > when someone uses ouir videos. > > Jay > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:57:09 > To:<videoblogging@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and > aggregators in general > > 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 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: videoblogging@: > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:videoblogging@: > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of Steve Watkins > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 > 11:53 AM > To: videoblogging@: > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and > > aggregators in general > > Cheers, though I feel we are > ever so slightly talking at > cross-purposes and > misunderstanding eachother on a couple of > details, but not > the main issues. > > > > Im basically saying that although it seems > straightforward, > the term 'non-commercial' is subject to > interpretation. Im > not saying that creative commons makes > the problem any worse > or that its their fault, but that > they arent making that > stuff any clearer. Same with blip, > when I asked in the past > about the nature of their > partners and what non-commercial > meant to them, it did not > seem to be a simple 'if they are a > commercial entity they > are using stuff commercially' > > response, and even the issue of advertising (such as some > > simple text google > ads) didnt seem to end up totally > clearcut, not universal > zero tolerance of ads or anything > like that. > > > > I am 100% in agreement with you on the issue of having to > > opting-out of sites that you may not even know exist, and > > just how wrong that is. > > > > I am 100% with you on the issue that people can only reuse > > your work without permission if they stick totally to your > > creative commons terms. > > > > All Im saying is that there is some grey about what > > non-commercial means, both when it comes to creative commons, > > and services like blip. > > And that you may be giving blips partners more rights > above > and beyond the creative commons rights that everyone > else has > been granted. > > > > Here is an example of grey issue over what commercial use is. > > Is there any use of video by a commercial entity, that can > be > considered non-commercial? Network2 had no adverts, but > still > seemed like commercial use to some. Once the other > issues > such as attribution and displaying creative commons > licenses, > to remain complaint with creative commons terms, > were sorted, > do they still need to ask you to opt-in to > their service, or > can they really count themselves as > non-commercial and so > just make assumptions that creative > commons covers them? Itss > this sort of grey that makes > opt-in the safe approach, > whether it be blip partners or > totally unrelated or unknown sites. > > > > Im also trying to keep any opinions on how morally sound & > > decent blip.tv are considered to be, out of the equation. > > Trust and such things are important, but best-practice and > > legal issues should not take account of such things > really, > because people can move on, companies can be > bought out, > commercial pressures can change etc, so its no > long-term > guarauntee for creators. > > > > Oh daer I am making a pigs ear of this subject again, sorry. > > Let me see if I can dig up the creative commons > > non-commercial guidelines so that I can better show what I > > mean by that stuff being grey. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@: > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, > "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > 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 videoblogging@: > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, > "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 videoblogging@: > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, > "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 videoblogging@: > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, 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.: > <http://blog.blip.tv/> blip.tv/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this > message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
