Several days ago Lucas characterized those who want to maintain full copyright control over their works as people engaging in "victimization." Now Jay you say they are "whining." Gentlemen, why do you denigrate and deride the people on the opposite side of the debate from you? I may advocate for any number of ethical, legal, and political perspectives. Racism is bad. Universal healthcare is good. Arguing these things, like arguing my right to ownership of my created content here on this board, does not mean I'm suffering from victimization or that I'm whining. And in case you don't know it, there's no amount of insults you can throw at your opposition that will make them wrong. Your opponent in an argument may be a flatulent fugly booger eater and calling him so may appeal to the crowd, but it doesn't make him wrong and it doesn't make you right.
What I don't get about this argument is how the asymmetry isn't enticing people to one side. We've got two groups, say "A" and "B." Operate on the ground rules of group "A" and the desires and wishes of people in group "B" are permissible. Everybody's happy. Operate on the ground rules of group "B" and the choices of those in group "A" are no longer allowable. People are unhappy, specifically people in group "A." If everyone respects copyright then people can limit the use of their material, that's "Group A" and other people can permit reuse, revlogging, derivative works, etc. by putting their work in the public domain or attaching the appropriate CC license to it, that's "Group B." Respect copyright and everyone's choices are permissible and everyone is repsected. If the people in group "B" force others to operate in a free-for-all, no copyright mashup world then they have taken the right away from people in group "A" to choose how their work is used. By putting content on the internet, some argue, you abrogate your rights in your work since it's just a click away. That's not true. My rights are abrogated when someone else doesn't read my license terms and doesn't respect them. There is legal precedence for copyright on the internet. Remember when "frames" first came out? People and companies were using frames to subsume the content of other sites under their banner. Remember what happened? Lawsuits and rulings. You can't do it. It's wrong and it's also illegal. What's going on with videos is similar. No matter how easy it is to repost in a networked environment, taking someone else's material for which you don't have permission is wrong. And the argument, "it's going to happen" or "that's the way it is" also doesn't change the ethical and legal truth. Here's a joke that will explain it I hope: One day, a serf turns to another serf and says, "Ivan, why do we take such abuse from the Czar." The second serf thinks about it and says, "Because that's the way it is, that's the way it's always been my father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather we've always accepted the abuse of the Czar." Funny joke right? No, it's a tragedy. --- In [email protected], "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, all of that information is in the feed. It includes the permalink > > to the post on blip in the item:link element, and also includes special > > metadata that's presently unique to blip for credit. Here's an example > > from a random video I picked on blip: > > <blip:user>thatphoneguy</blip:user> > > <blip:show>30 Seconds with Phone Guy</blip:show> > > <blip:showpage>http://thatphoneguy.blip.tv/</blip:showpage> > > <blip:picture>http://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746. jp > > g</blip:picture> > > So that tells the aggregator that the video is from the "30 Seconds with > > Phone Guy" series, which can be found at http://thatphoneguy.blip.tv/. > > It even gives the aggregator a picture that can be used to represent the > > series, which can be found at > > http://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746.jpg. We'd love > > to use standard elements for these pieces of metadata, but they don't > > exist yet -- we're including them in our own namespace right now so that > > our formal partners can pick up and use the data for attribution > > purposes. > > okay....so the info is all there if an aggregator site wants to read > it and provide titles and links. > I see Lucas' argument that its crazy for a vlogger to whine when his > video is posted by another site. But i think its important that we try > to help educate on linking or giving attributing. > > and as I said recently, im going to start putting a CC license INSIDE > my videos so I dont need to rely on someone's good will. > > or Ill use this: > http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p132/marshal_rules/169957orjk5u57eg .jpg > > Jay > > > > -- > Here I am.... > http://jaydedman.com >
