I see a link between this openng up of flvs and the hot water that splashcast have got themselves into, as I was waffling about earlier, am I making any sense?
The balance between how open and flexible people & services make their content, and whether the creators are intending this only for the benefit of 'end users' and not for other services to do as they wish with their video, feeds etc. I know when we've gone down this path before, the notion is that this stuff shouldnt put us off open technology, relying instead on the law to put people off misusing the open media, feeds etc. But in practice maybe a lot of serives genuinely dont realise they are doing anything wrong, and so we are left with choices about control through technology vs the possibility of educating everyone. I dunno, companies seem to consider these issues so slightly before implementing, that we dont usually get beyond the basics of what people want - acknowledgement of creative commons terms such as attribution, link to their site, etc. But I wonder how much is beyond that, in this age where users are getting used to accessing or embedding other peoples stuff within certain pages. Widgets inside myspace are a simple example, I guess I am just trying to say that Im not sure its clear what people consider acceptable when it comes to their videos being embedded elsewhere on the web. So its complicated enough before even factoring in the business aspects, the choices services wont want to make, for competitive & revenue reasons. And likewise for some creators who have a financial aspect to their work. Why does it feel like the only progress on these issues has been getting specific violators to mend their ways to one extent or another, whilst little has been achieved through technology or otherwise, to reduce the likelihood of this stuff happening again and again. The way I smell it, flash is playing a role on all sides. It may power interesting mashup services that may not be paying due attention to license issues. It can be used by services to enforce certain aspects of their revenue model. It could be used by creators to ensure the information they want is always expressed to the viewer, even if their work is recontextualized. It could be used by creators to restrict certain uses of their content. But so far we are miles away from any promised land that fused technology with honor. We struggle to get even basic auto-recognition by services of creative commons info in feeds, when Id hoped by now we'd have moved on to sophisticated implementations. Why cant I wake up one day and hear about a great new service thats launched, and allows reuse, embedding etc of content, based on the rights granted by the specific cc license of each bit of content. So for example if I wanted to use a megaembedomixywidget widget, somehere when I sign up I must specify whether Im using it for commercial purposes, and if so it doesnt let me include cc-non-commercial videos in my revlogowidget. I guess such things dont happen for a variety of reasons, and the whole thing gets mixed up with wider 'the internet as the wild west' issues. A tricky balancing act, go too far towards protection and some will shout that such rulings threaten many exciting potentials of the net. And they are sometimes right. Hell even the creative commons stuff isnt quite as clearcut as we like to makeout when having these battles. Its clear when it comes to actually redistributing content, ie rehosting the videos somewhere, but Ive yet to see anything that makes me 100% sure whether the law has really decided where it stands when it comes to things like embedding media in other pages. Personally I believe that sort of thing is sort of equivalent to 'public performance' of a work and so its still covered in much the same way as redistributing the files. But that in turn raises a further issue - one reason people moan about feed or video file rehosting is it messes up their stats. But one of the main points of creative commons is to allow redistribution of content, so people that really want to have total control over who can host their stuff, and try to maintain stat accuracy etc, may need to reconsider their license. Then there are those that dont mind if its for non-commercial purposes, but this nice rule has already been smeared to grey by the number of online sites/services that try to suggest their use is not commercial, even if the vids are the lifeblood of their business. Hopefully this particular issue only remains grey due to an inability for some services to work out how to get a revenue stream, although Im not sure that really makes them non-commercial. Maybe some of these complexities are the reason some companies think it might be safer to skirt round the issue as much as possible. eg if you build technology into the system that can fully interpret cc licenses, and then you flount some of those terms yourself, it look extra bad, cant claim ignorance. Sorry this is sort of the wrong thread for where my waffle went in this post, but to return to where I started, it was your comments on flv openness that I needed to illustrate the point Im probably still failing to explore very well. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and i'm hoping that more services will open up their flvs like blip does... > and remove the need for flv url decryption etc. let flv move around. > encourage it. dont just rely on swf wrappers to control the video. > > adobe media player is a step in this direction. its a good thing. > > the lite drm features, to me, are a side note. > > sull > > On 5/1/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > the game changing will be in the continual and vast usage of the flv > > format which wont just be for "online" video playback. > > > > On 5/1/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > It shows there is at least a granular understanding of the issue > > > however... I'll believe it when I see it. > > > > > > Adobe is a big player in this field... but people send out PR on B.S. > > > like this all the time. > > > > > > People and companies like Apple who say... we're going to release this > > > product that's going to change the game and can deliver on it are few > > > and far between. > > > > > > This simply sounds like anotehr B.S. attempt at DRM. > > > > > > To create a downloadable proprietary format and player that will work > > > on thousands of pieces of hardware is a pipe dream... it's a > > > contradiction in itself. Adobe should stick to problems it can solve. > > > > > > -Mike > > > mmeiser.com/blog > > > mefeedia.com > > > > > > > > > On 4/16/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <sulleleven%40gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Game Changer? - Yes. > > > > > > > > On 4/16/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <heathparks%40msn.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Check this out, interesting article > > > > > > > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070416/tc_nm/adobe_player_dc;_ylt=AqF8l.m > > > > > > > > rZ2KqopCFainOFEjMWM0F > > > > > > > > > > SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Adobe Systems Inc. unveiled on Sunday > > > video- > > > > > player software that lets consumers play back video online or > > > > > offline, a move that could help reshape an acrimonious debate over > > > > > video-sharing. > > > > > > > > > > Adobe Video Player builds on the leading design software maker's > > > > > Flash player, already the dominant technology used to stream video > > > > > online by sites ranging from YouTube to MySpace to MSN to Yahoo > > > Video. > > > > > > > > > > The video player is due to become available to consumers over the > > > > > next several months, Adobe officials said. > > > > > > > > > > Analysts hailed the new Adobe Video player as a technology > > > > > breakthrough by allowing consumers to download and carry video from > > > > > the Web to computers to mobile phones, while ensuring programmers > > > can > > > > > deliver advertising and track video usage. > > > > > > > > > > Rival video players such as Windows Media Player from Microsoft > > > > > Corp., QuickTime from Apple Inc. and RealPlayer from RealNetworks > > > > > Inc. run on a range of devices but have none of the offline tracking > > > > > features. > > > > > > > > > > "Adobe has created the first way for media companies to release > > > video > > > > > content, secure in the knowledge that advertising goes with it," > > > > > Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey said. > > > > > > > > > > "Control is something that media companies absolutely get high on," > > > > > he said. > > > > > > > > > > Fearful of piracy, media companies have been slow to release much of > > > > > their TV, film and video programming onto the Web. > > > > > > > > > > Last month, media conglomerate Viacom Inc. filed a $1 billion > > > lawsuit > > > > > against Google Inc. and its YouTube video-sharing site for failing > > > to > > > > > thwart the piracy of MTV, South Park and other popular Viacom > > > > > television shows. > > > > > > > > > > At root, the debate over digital piracy has been a case of digital > > > > > tools outstripping the power of copyright owners to decide who > > > > > watches what while also ensuring they can get paid. > > > > > > > > > > The Adobe Video Player could ease such tensions by giving consumers > > > a > > > > > convenient way to watch, and even, in certain instances, to edit, > > > > > video content, while assuring media owners they can retain ultimate > > > > > control over where the video ends up. > > > > > > > > > > "Consumers think: I bought my media, I own it, I should get to carry > > > > > it with me from device to device. Adobe's video player works the way > > > > > consumers think about media by giving them the freedom to carry it > > > > > with them," McQuivey said. > > > > > > > > > > Adobe officials said they have relied on a set of familiar, openly > > > > > accessible technologies to create Adobe Video Player and will > > > > > distribute the software, for free, using the same viral strategy > > > that > > > > > made Adobe's Flash and Acrobat into the most popular ways to view > > > > > video or read documents, respectively. > > > > > > > > > > It relies on open standards for syndicating content, synchronizing > > > > > multimedia and advertising tracking. Consumers disturbed that media > > > > > owners can track their consumption habits have the option of > > > blocking > > > > > such tracking. > > > > > > > > > > And because Adobe is already a primary supplier of the prior > > > > > generation of video watching and editing tools, the company may > > > avoid > > > > > the classic "chicken and egg problem" that delays adoption of most > > > > > new Web technologies: Will consumers use the video player before > > > > > media owners embrace it? > > > > > > > > > > Adobe Media Player offers higher-quality Flash video, full-screen > > > > > playback and the ability to be disconnected from the Web -- on > > > > > airplanes, for example. Viewers also can search for shows or share > > > > > their ratings of shows with other viewers and automatically download > > > > > new episodes of shows. > > > > > > > > > > Mark Randall, chief strategist for dynamic media, said Adobe is > > > > > working with a wide range of media companies, and plans to announce > > > > > partnership deals next month. > > > > > > > > > > The Adobe Video Player offers a way for established media companies > > > > > to securely offer ad-supported video but also independent video > > > > > producers, podcasters and home movie makers. > > > > > > > > > > Adobe, of San Jose, California, timed the announcement for the start > > > > > of the National Association of Broadcasters show, a major industry > > > > > event, now underway in Las Vegas. > > > > > > > > > > Will this help or hurt? > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
