videoronk & our cc licences
- 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 email@example.com, "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@...>
> Hey David-
> Please don't take me out of context:
> "I see Lucas' argument that its crazy for a vlogger to whine when
> is posted by another site.giving
> But i think its important that we try to help educate on linking or
> attributing."my videos
> I understand the argument that I cannot stop people from grabbing
> once they are online.over it.
> 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
> This is why I simply put a Creative Commons Attribution License onmy
> videos.give me
> I'm fine with people remixing, posting, etc.....as long as they
> attribution the way I ask.what will
> (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
> happen, is not always the same. These aggregator sites are suckingin videos
> and run by people with different kinds of motives.puts ads
> There will be people who just grab my video and say they made it,
> around it, take a dump on it.the video
> 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
> Add your own custom trailers here.
> --Work with this group and Creative Commons to educate aggregator
> Here's our working document now:them know
> When a site comes online, we should approach the owners and let
> the best way to play nice.about best
> 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:
> List your own party....so we can all come together and make video
> practices...that could be put on Youtube and other places. If wedont
> practice what we preach, then there's no good examples to follow.full
> So this is where I'm at on the issue.
> Talk is good....but action is better.
> On 2/1/07, David <castingtalent@...> wrote:
> > Several days ago Lucas characterized those who want to maintain
> > copyright control over their works as people engagingI'm
> > 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
> > suffering from victimization or that I'm whining. And in case youappeal
> > 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
> > to the crowd, but it doesn't make him wrong and it doesn't makeyou
> > right.and "B."
> > 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"
> > Operate on the ground rules of group "A" and the desires andwishes
> > of people in group "B" are permissible. Everybody's happy. Operatespecifically
> > on the ground rules of group "B" and the choices of those in
> > group "A" are no longer allowable. People are unhappy,
> > people in group "A." If everyone respects copyright then peoplecan
> > limit the use of their material, that's "Group A" and other peopletheir
> > can permit reuse, revlogging, derivative works, etc. by putting
> > work in the public domain or attaching the appropriate CC licenseto
> > it, that's "Group B." Respect copyright and everyone's choices areworld
> > permissible and everyone is repsected. If the people in group "B"
> > force others to operate in a free-for-all, no copyright mashup
> > then they have taken the right away from people in group "A" toto
> > 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
> > repost in a networked environment, taking someone else's materialfor
> > which you don't have permission is wrong. And the argument, "it'shope:
> > 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
> > One day, a serf turns to another serf and says, "Ivan, why do wetake
> > such abuse from the Czar." The second serf thinks about it andbeen
> > says, "Because that's the way it is, that's the way it's always
> > my father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather we've always40yahoogroups.com>,
> > accepted the abuse of the Czar." Funny joke right? No, it's a
> > tragedy.
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org <videoblogging%
> > "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@>includes
> > 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
> > special<blip:picture>http://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746.
> > > > 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>
> > > >
> > jpthey
> > > > 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
> > don'tnow
> > > > exist yet -- we're including them in our own namespace right
> > so thatattribution
> > > > our formal partners can pick up and use the data for
> > > > purposes.read
> > >
> > > okay....so the info is all there if an aggregator site wants to
> > > it and provide titles and links.when his
> > > I see Lucas' argument that its crazy for a vlogger to whine
> > > video is posted by another site. But i think its important thatwe
> > tryhttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p132/marshal_rules/169957orjk5u57eg
> > > 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:
> > >
> > .jpg
> > >
> > > Jay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Here I am....
> > > http://jaydedman.com
> > >
> Here I am....
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]