Just to clarify that Im mostnly talking about their flash player thingy, the feed & direcotry issues should be pretty much the standard, witht he suual fixes that everyone is already talking about. Im probably making things seem more complex anyway, I usually do, and maybe any flash player issues wil also be easily fixable with the same solutions - link back to creator, display of CC info etc.
Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You've walked right into the middle of a real big issue. > > This isnt just about one or 2 technical issues with feeds being > republished, for example even if you offered no feeds, some people > would take issue with the core functionality of your embedded player. > > See unfortunately theres a common misconception about web 2 user > generated content, and blogging, podcasting and videoblogging. There > can be an assumption that these sorts of content creators have far > more liberal ideas about how their content may be shown and > redistributed on the net. But in reality, a lot of these creators are > interested in giving more rights to the users of the content, the > viewers. > > But the same technologies that enable such things as subscribing to > stuff that is then automatically downloaded, also enables other sites > & services & companies to do things with the content. This is the > dangerous ground, made especially sensitive by the fact the majority > of creators arent reaping in loads of money, so may be extra miffed if > they see 3rd parties, services, others, exploiting their work for profit. > > Now I am usually one of the loud shouters who starts verbally abusing > such services & sites for taking liberties with peoples content. > Theres been loads of ugly examples, some have made creators feel far > more violated than others. Many specific technical remedies have > formed part of the solution, most have come to comply a bit more with > creators wishes but few have genuinely gone the whole distance. > Sometimes it is because they would have no business if they complied > fully, or acknowledged that their use of stuff might be a commercial > use, and thus exclude to them a bulk of cc-non-commercial content out > there. > > If you are unable to make specific feature changes to make everyone > happy, then you may have to consider the opt-in model. > > Now you offer quite a few different services so it will be easy for me > to trip-up in discussing this, but I get quite excited by some of the > features you offer. I like the open web with mashups and people being > able to make playlists and stuff. In an ideal world Id be happy if > most creators hel that view, but I can see why this would not be an > ideal world for many creators. One of the big problems is that the > videos themselves are often not a self-contained representation of > that persons web-publishing efforts. No matter how much we embrace > various web gadgets, there is much resistance to the idea that a > playlist someones work could be embedded in other sites. There are > many good reasons why, but I remain conflicted because I love the > elegant simplicity of say a podcast where the creator just wants it to > spread any way it can. And services such as yours seem to rely on this > stuff being accepted. But it isnt, people still want control, and it > feels right for them to want control because of all the leechy ways > people have found to exploit their work. > > You avoid my hate for now because I believe your service actually has > potential added value for creators and viewers. In the web & world of > my dreams such things would be deeply normal. But we dont live in that > world, and its even possible that the corporations will give up on DRM > before the little creators give up the right to have some control over > how their content is used. Probably they shouldnt give it all up, but > it will not be a dead simple path to finding the right balance. Your > feed issue is trivial to fix compared to the potential conflict > between your embedded players playlist etc abilities and what peopl > feel is accaptable. Its a shame, youd probably get no stick at all if > your thang was a desktop app, aggregation software can get away with > having adverts in the app and nobody seems to moan much, but doing the > same thing on a webpage will draw instant flak. > > Now just like youtube tries to avoid having to take on all > responsibility for potential misuse of its service, I dont think you > can be fully held accountable for every single potential misuse of > your service. But the way Ive read things so far, there arent really > any safeguards at all, and the featurelist reads like a wishlist for > leeches. You make it easy for users to do all sorts of legitimate > things, but you rely on humans to honour any copyright & creative > commons isues with reuse of others video etc through your player. So > you also make it easy for it to be misued. But then to be fair so does > RSS in general, and that doesnt make everyone abandon or crap on RSS. > It make people want to add their license terms to their feed, and so > some do, but few services bother to read such information properly and > do anything intelligent with it. > > Like I said, it will be a tricky balancing act. I guess you wont want > to move to opt-in for all content, as that will decimate your content > base. So you'll need to consider having a lengthy debate with the > masses to learn more about where concensus lies, and preferably > implement quite a few mechnaisms that reassure people and make your > service less open to be used to leech peoples feeds wholesale. > > For example I havent heard many vloggers complain about another site > embedding one of their videos on a page, its more when someones entire > feed gets ripped off and put into a different context. This clashes > badly with your feature that enables people to embed all someones work > n a page somewhere, as I said I personally find such things > interesting bu they are far from accepted, and the idea of such things > fills many with dread due in part to bad experiences with adversiting > & exploitation ruining it for all concerned. I hazard a guess that > people would be more inclined to consider such things if there were a > non-commercial internet that was clearly defined, where concent could > be free from more shackes without running the risk of being exploited > so readily. > > Ahh what a terrible shame, I often waffle in this group about exciting > potential for flash players to mix text, video & audio together in > interesting ways, and your service seems to do interesting stuff in > this regard. But some of those features have led you to this > minefield, hope it works out ok. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ahwfour_1027" > <ahwfour_1027@> wrote: > > > > Hi, Roxanne -- We're working on the issues that Todd has addressed. > > Please see Marshall's comments on Todd's blog: > > http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007003.html. We'll keep > > everyone posted on the developments underway to address the issues and > > concerns of the podcasting and vlogging communities. > > > > Thanks. Alex. > > > > Alex Williams > > SplashCast > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Roxanne Darling" <okekai@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Here is some communication between SplashCast and Todd Cochrane of > > > Geek News Central: > > > http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007003.html#comments > > > > > > From Todd: > > > "I like both Marshall, and Alex but hey guys this is not good in a big > > > way. When I click on the channel feed you have created it says "Geek > > > News Central Podcast by SplashCast Feed Agent -- SplashCast Channel" > > > this is a cheap way of trying to defer the issue you have here. NOT > > > ACCEPTABLE > > > > > > Every subscriber they get to their new re-purposed feeds is a > > > subscriber taken away from my original feed. SplashCast will use those > > > subscriber numbers to value their business. Its one thing if I had > > > "opted in" but they have created a directory of content producers all > > > with hijacked feeds." > > > > > > Roxanne > > > > > > Here's the other link: > > > http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork > > > > > > > > > On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield <steve@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where's the link back to the original blog site or video? > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:19 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: > > > > > > > > > It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with > > > > > podcasters and > > > > > vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service > > will be > > > > > improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing > > audio or > > > > > video programs. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Steve Garfield > > > > http://SteveGarfield.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Roxanne Darling > > > "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian > > > 808-384-5554 > > > > > > http://www.beachwalks.tv > > > http://www.barefeetshop.com > > > http://www.barefeetstudios.com > > > http://www.inthetransition.com > > > > > >
