What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes.
They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
