> The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly
> unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and
> movie companies.

That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong.

I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site  
has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon  
as I post it on blip.

I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary  
investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some  
kind of consideration as a content creator.

If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are  
gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link  
on it for cryin' out loud.

To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic  
endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing  
reality on its head.

It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school  
record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity;  
screw the talent!

Ron


On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote:

> On 1/27/07, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are
> > many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to
> > be sacrosanct.
>
> The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly
> unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and
> movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of
> victimization and and righteous anger.
>
> Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to
> attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way
> which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights
> it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the
> public.
>
> And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of
> creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing
> up your video have just as much right to make art as you do. If
> what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why does your work
> trump theirs?
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to