Building players that include links and attribution directly is great, but for blip it's not a complete solution since we need to support every format under the sun (from divx to mp4) in order to ensure content creator flexibility and device / platform compatibility. So while we may build a Flash player that includes attribution and links in it we won't be able to do that with, say, mp4 files which don't have a container to build such tools in.
I suppose that we could offer people an option to lock their content down and lose the direct references to video files in RSS and the like, but that is somewhat counter to our philosophy. We're all about sharing media openly all over the Interwebs, and personally I'm not interested in letting a few bad apples get in the way of that. > -----Original Message----- > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Micki Krimmel > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:49 PM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences > > And I'm saying I think we have the tools to correct that > ourselves which in the long run will better serve us than > hunting down every aggregator out there that doesn't take > upon themselves to do so. There's just no way to keep up. > Let's build players that include attribution and links directly. > And as creators, we should be sure to add that information to > the videos themselves. > > On 1/30/07, Mike Hudack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't think the issue is advertising. If it was there > wouldn't be > > an issue since ads with video is now fairly commoditized > technology. I > > think the bigger issue is credit and respect for the terms > of the cc > > license itself, which can put restrictions on commercial use and > > require proper attribution. > > > > In terms of videoronk my concern is that credit is given to > blip but > > not to the content creator. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > < videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>> > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> < > > videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>> > > Sent: Tue Jan 30 21:37:27 2007 > > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences > > > > Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of > > education that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not > sure that's > > the issue at play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from > all over the > > place - they certainly aren't all covered by CC. > > > > And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness > of this slope. > > I > > personally value CC licenses because they take into account the > > openness of the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have > > google ads on my blog > > > > and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC > license? Are we > > going to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and > > using DRM to protect them? Blip can block these sites all > day long and > > they're just going to keep popping up. > > > > I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver > feed. Because > > they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are > included and > > I'm > > > > making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :) > > Revver's business model was built upon the understanding > that videos > > would be increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give > > creators a way to benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to > > improve our player so that attribution and linkbacks are > automatically > > included. But at least in this > > > > scenario, Revver users are making money for their work. > > > > Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being > on Videoronk. > > The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at > > least so far). I think this example is very different than what > > happened with MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own > player and > > attached advertising to the video - not on the page around > the video. > > That was clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure > I think my > > CC license is > > > > being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it). What is > > missing from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's > build those > > directly into the players. Let's attribute ourselves and > provide urls > > directly in the videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal > to get what > > we want instead of embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down > > everyone pulling RSS feeds. > > We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally > on the web > > instead of trying to constantly battle it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu>> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 3. For me, I have to consider switching to a > traditional license. > > > > I don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of > the videos > > > > are being used by non-profits for their purposes. > > > > > > > > There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on > > > > the other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to > > > > some of my > > > > > > content. One of my posts is titled "Love Prosper" about > Christian > > > > Hip Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what > > > > kind of ads > > > > > > are going to latch on to that post. > > > > > > > > Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to > the practical. > > > > > > <sigh> I need chocolate. > > > > > > > > Gena > > > > > > > > http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com > > > > http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com > > > > http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video > > > > > > Can you expand on that? What kind of license are you going to get > > > that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds? > > > > > > It's not "Creative Commons" that's being disrespected. They're > > > ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video > and they > > > can subscribe to your feed. > > > > > > Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they > aggregate to see > > > if there's a licensing block at the end? Do you think, especially > > > given the response you received in this case, that they > would bother > > > to remove each particular individual feed whose license they were > > > disregarding? CC or Traditional? > > > > > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "switching to a > > > traditional license". > > > > > > -- > > > Bill C. > > > http://ReelSolid.TV > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.mickipedia.com > > www.worldchanging.com > > http://blog.revver.com > > > > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security > > Agency > > > > may have read this email without warning, warrant, or > notice. They may > > do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no > > recourse or protection from this unwarranted intrusion save to call > > for the impeachment of the current President. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > -- > www.mickipedia.com > www.worldchanging.com > http://blog.revver.com > > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National > Security Agency may have read this email without warning, > warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or > legislative oversight. You have no recourse or protection > from this unwarranted intrusion save to call for the > impeachment of the current President. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
