> "We build a page for each producer's > show, complete with your show name, a link to your original website, > links to your RSS feed (for an audience to subscribe), and links to > the original media."
I think that is an interesting statement. My 'original' website links to my RSS feed, and links to my 'original' media. The only problem is that they are not respecting my 'original' media. Or my original site. Or my RSS feed (or at least Steve's which has a proper CC in the feed...). They are creating new media with my content. That's uncool. I have yet to ask them to remove our show from their listings, as I have yet to do with Magnify.net, which I consider to be the same disrespectful business model of Pyro and My Heavy. These asshats need to start playing by some respectful rules. Just because they went out and whored themselves for big VC money doesn't give them the right to slurp up our content and give us some song and dance about how they really are helping us. For crying out loud! Is it that difficult to give a link and not to re-encode content, and to drive traffic to the original site? Of course it's not. They simply have zero respect for independent content creators. And that's the real rub, isn't it? I mean is anyone here not offended by the total lack of respect that they give all of us? I'd like to see a my heavy, pyro, magnify business model that was scraping corporate media's content. Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Apr 15, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: > Aha, interesting, I hadnt noticed the permalink issue. > > Their publishers page still says "We build a page for each producer's > show, complete with your show name, a link to your original website, > links to your RSS feed (for an audience to subscribe), and links to > the original media." so hopefully this is just some oversight when > they redesigned their site - was it working as advertised in the past? > > Hmm I said I wouldnt still be ranting about network2 in 6 months, but > that was based on no new violations of creators rights. Still, I feel > more than a little awkward being in this territory again. > > I had hoped that the strong networking by network2's Chris Brogan, the > participation of some vloggers in that VON and other meetups, and the > participation by some members of this community in the network2 > competition, meant there were exceedingly strong channels of > communication between creators and network2, and that therefore this > sort of thing was unlikely to happen. > > What do people think about them now including easily cut&pasteable > 'permalinks' for your videos, which are permalinks to the network2 > page for the show, and also their embedded player, which I havent > tried yet but suspect will be another feature designed to drive > traffic to their site and not to the content creators. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > It matters. > > > > I just emailed them to fix it. > > > > No link back to permalink of blog entry ( it's in the feed ) > > > > http://network2.tv/episode/2832833/ > > > > No display of CC license ( it's in the feed ) > > > > http://network2.tv/episode/2832833/ > > > > --Steve > > > > On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > if sites like > > > network2 are opt-in now, then I suppose it doesnt amtter so > much if > > > they dont show creative commons feed info? > > > > -- > > Steve Garfield > > http://SteveGarfield.com > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
