--- In [email protected], Charles Hope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The storm has reached blip.tv now. > > Yesterday, Loren Feldman, the author of a controversial video, decided to use > blip as his host. A few hours later we received a letter warning us of > potential damage to our brand. I responded that speech should be countered with > speech, not censorship. What do you think? Here's the e-mail exchange... > > http://tinyurl.com/2cjy4g
Clearly, there's a difference between being a host and being an employer. On top of that, blip has an infinite number of "shows" that it has no contract with as opposed to a grand total of 7 (now 6) "digital entertainment shows" which have been selected and then PAID to carry a company's brand name. Regardless of freedom-of-speech issues, like you said, if blip didn't accept the feed then any of the other platforms that already exist or are in the works would have accepted it. Even if they didn't, these hosting platforms are merely luxury. There's always the option to go "back to the old school" and set up your server space and bandwidth and serve your own videos to you own video blog. Of course, I'm assuming that the show has some form of "regular" blip status, like anyone else that can sign up for free and post videos, or even the paid (meaning the show PAYS blip.tv for added functionality) "pro account". -- billcammack http://realfans.tv
