It's the difference between personal aggregation and global aggregation. It's an extremely important distinction. I don't have a right to demand much of anything from the developers of Firefox in terms of how they display my Web pages. The location bar may be a standard part of the user interface, but that doesn't mean I can get angry at the Mozilla Foundation if they fail to include it in their next release and therefore fail to tell people the URL of my Web site. The burden on Web site creators who aren't building personal software (BlogLines is personal software, Y! Video is not) is different.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:03 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and > aggregators in general > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
