You're right Jay, action is better than talk alone and your constant pioneering and educating is admirable and has got to be more effective than my chatter is on its own. Sincerely. Even recognizing that, I will continue to voice my opinion because it's what I've got since I don't have your facility for organizing. And that's why I get a little snappish when I see verbiage being used to silence others and I raise my voice to say bullshit. Sorry if I took you out of context.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey David- > > Please don't take me out of context: > "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." > > I understand the argument that I cannot stop people from grabbing my videos > once they are online. > To think I can... starts making us sound like the MPAA. > Starts going towards DRM. > Its a dumb loop. > > I do not agree with Lucas that all is hopeless. > I simply think I got to be realistic. > I want to get beyond the platitudes. > > When I post a video, Im going to assume i'm losing some control over it. > This is why I simply put a Creative Commons Attribution License on my > videos. > I'm fine with people remixing, posting, etc.....as long as they give me > attribution the way I ask. > (for me, its a linkback). > > So this is what I want to happen. > But as pioneers here...I'm seeing that what I want to happen, and what will > happen, is not always the same. These aggregator sites are sucking in videos > and run by people with different kinds of motives. > There will be people who just grab my video and say they made it, puts ads > around it, take a dump on it. > > So the question for me is...."what am I going to do about it?" > here's my answers right now: > > --put the CC license at the end of my videos so it travels where the video > goes. > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_work > Add your own custom trailers here. > > --Work with this group and Creative Commons to educate aggregator sites. > Here's our working document now: > http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/ > When a site comes online, we should approach the owners and let them know > the best way to play nice. > They can be dicks about it.....but then they get no community love. > > --Educate other videobloggers about using Creative Commons. > We're having a "worldwide" event on April 1: > https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com/ > List your own party....so we can all come together and make video about best > practices...that could be put on Youtube and other places. If we dont > practice what we preach, then there's no good examples to follow. > > So this is where I'm at on the issue. > Talk is good....but action is better. > > jay > > > > > > > > > On 2/1/07, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@> > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Here I am.... > http://jaydedman.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
