Jay, you might find this interesting. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/commons_without_commonality/
Trine On 1/29/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > LucasGonze said: > > 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? > > I agree that we can always tone down the outrage and drama when > discussing these aggregator sites that grab our videos...but let's not > lose sight of the real subject here. > > CreativeCommons.org > is this just a noble experiment? > or is CC a real tool that can help make the web a healthy place. > > Lucas, all I ask of MyHeavy.com, Magnify.net or any other site is that > they respect the CC license I have on my video. If they are pulling in > the Blip.tv feed....they can very well read the license in the feed. > > Most videos I have are CC-Attribution > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/). > Its very clear that anyone can put this on their site, remix, even use > commerically. > but they must link back to me. > period. > > If I have an attribution-noncommerical license > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), then any site should > respect this accordingly and not put ads around my video. > None of this is difficult to understand. > the question is...will these aggregators sites respect or not. > > Lucas, I know you did a lot of work for CCmixter.org. > its an awesome place where people can put up music for sharing. > To use any of these songs, all most artists require is attribution. > But if I make a site, list of these songs and act like I wrote > them....what kind of ecology are we creating? Instead of people > wanting to share their work, it'll just make people feel ripped off. > > the only issue I have with Youtube.com and other similar sites is that > they do not allow creators to put a CC license on point of upload. > They help break the ecology. Nothing is clear. Confusion is ripe. A > lawyers dream. > > So Lucas, I am not crying. > i want anyone to link to my videos, just give me a linkback. > Its so easy to do technically. > The difficulty here is sorting out people's motives and awareness. > If a funded company is building a business by grabbing content without > attribution, its simply ignorance, maliciousness, or laziness. > I would love for the Videoblogging Group to at least be able to > educate so we eradicate the Ignorance. Then its up to each site to > choose where they stand with the community. > > is Creative Commons a noble experiment, or is it a real tool to help > create a healthy online ecology? > > jay > > -- > Here I am.... > http://jaydedman.com > -- +++++ http://www.davidandtrine.org +++++
