On 1/26/07, Mike Hudack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that defaulting to opt-out would make our negotiations harder, > and I also think that a good number of people who wouldn't object to > syndication to, say, AOL, would never opt in simply because it takes > effort to do so.
What do opting -in and -out mean, Mike? About the issue of advertising on player pages, that doesn't make sense to me in the case of aggregators which link to rather than re-host media files. I don't think the content creator has any claim over whether third parties do advertising unless the third party is hosting a copy of the media. And frankly, that's a good thing because being unable to advertise would decimate the aggregator business and the lack of aggregators would make decentralized citizen media a non-starter. Only centralized sites like YouTube and blip.tv would be able to survive. About respecting Media RSS claims and providing a link back, there's an implicit assumption that the aggregator discovered the media via some particular source. If the aggregator just has a bare URL, which often happens, these conditions aren't possible. In my experience it is often hard or impossible to connect a media URL to the original source page, and for a popular URL it is hard or impossible to figure out which of multiple sources was the original one. For example, Akamaized media can only rarely be traced back to the original source. Companies the size of Yahoo are the only players who can even get into this game, so I suppose I should be happy to have barriers to entry, but I don't think it's right to keep startups out. -Lucas
