Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

Expand Messages
  • David
    I m glad we had that conversation. It sheds some light, for me, on the nuances of the issue. ... baseline ... the ... the ... I m ... to ... wouldn t ... it s
    Message 1 of 116 , Jan 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm glad we had that conversation. It sheds some light, for me, on
      the nuances of the issue.

      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" <groups-yahoo-
      com@...> wrote:
      >
      > On 1/30/07, David <castingtalent@...> wrote:
      > > Mike, in another post you wrote that opt-out wont work as a
      baseline
      > > strategy for sites like MyHeavy. You wrote: "It is the value ads
      > > that must be opt in. I.E. if myheavy or magnify want to put ads on
      > > your content that should be opt in."
      > >
      > > Below you wrote that opt-in
      > > won't work on some level. I understand this is an issue where you
      > > deal with a lot of complexity. It's clear you've thought about
      the
      > > nuances of how things need to work technically and socially for
      the
      > > continued evolution of media. But I'm a little confused. Maybe
      I'm
      > > missing something and both the devil and the clarity are in the
      > > details.
      >
      > Let me try to clarify, that whole thing was a mouthful.
      >
      > There must be some minimal level of interoperability for this space
      to
      > function. That means on some level I must as a search engine be able
      > to do some things with your media and metadata without asking your
      > permission.
      >
      > Case in point, if google had to ask every website owner's permission
      > to crawl their website and use their data in search it simply
      wouldn't
      > have happened. The web wouldn't be searchable.
      >
      > The same thing is obviously true of the video space... but since
      it's
      > video and not simple text people percieve it differently.
      >
      > As for what should be opt in? When someone wants to put ads on your
      > media or otherwise profit from it then it should be opt in.
      >
      > > Metadata, you suggest, is like public domain news.
      >
      > It's not like public domain news... it is public domain because it's
      > all just facts... and by definition facts cannot be copyright. The
      > sole exception is there is some debate about the body copy of the
      post
      > as it's not just facts.
      >
      > > It's
      > > information about what content is available where and in what
      format
      > > and it's published on an open network, so no one could ever claim
      > > ethical or legal infringement on anyone for republishing it. Is
      that
      > > a reasonable summary of one of your points?
      >
      > Exactly.
      >
      > > If it is it seems fair
      > > and sound. So far, so good, and, by the way, if I'm doing
      terrible
      > > injustice to your arguments, please forgive me, but I'm trying to
      get
      > > my mind around something.
      >
      > not at all... it's a complex and much debated issue.
      >
      > > You wrote that "putting video in RSS to be
      > > syndicated IMPLIES that that media can be aggregated by sites like
      > > mefeedia, that's what it was made for." That really caught my
      > > attention. That suggests to me that an argument can be made that
      a
      > > media enclosure by its inclusion in an RSS feed may make the
      content
      > > of that enclosure public domain.
      >
      > No... not pubic domain, not at all... it creates a grey area though
      > because putting a video in RSS and enclosing it does imply it's
      there
      > for syndication. After all, an RSS feed means Real Simple
      Syndication.
      > However, what takes far more precidence is if you specify an actual
      > licensce in your RSS feed. That removes any question of the issue.
      >
      > Also... of course if you place someone elses media in an RSS feed,
      > you're not the owner, so it doesn't change a thing.
      >
      > > Now I'm not saying you're saying
      > > this last bit or advocating it. I'm asking if you or anyone else
      > > sees that implication? Is that the crux of the legal attack on
      the
      > > creator's copyright in the web 2.0 context?
      >
      > Now we're really in the nitty gritty of the issue.
      >
      > Persoanlly I believe all this means is if some major player with
      deep
      > pockets comes along and sees their media in one of the dozens or
      > hundreds of RSS aggregators and decides to soo, that there is SOME
      > basis for these aggregators to protect themselves. It's the... if
      you
      > didn't want your media or news aggregated then why'd you put it in
      RSS
      > argument... It's unproven in court so far as I know... but yes...
      > maybe putting your media in RSS has some implications as for your
      copy
      > rights.
      >
      > BTW, there's really no conflict at all with RSS and the creative
      > commons licensces, which is exactly the point. The creative commons
      > licensces were fundamentally designed to say "heh, copyright law is
      > defective in this new metaverse, it conflicts with the new reality
      > that everything must be copied."
      >
      > I'd personally love to see an RSS feed with the copyright labeled as
      > "all rights reserved" this would seem an absolute contradiction of
      > syndication which fundamentally requires copying and redistribution.
      >
      > > I'm not well versed in
      > > the structure of RSS feeds. I've read elsewhere on this list that
      > > RSS includes data fields for copyright and licensing information.
      > > Whether or not various sites are parsing that data and respecting
      it
      > > is a subject of a lot of discussion on this board that I don't
      follow
      > > because my knowledge of RSS isn't sufficient for the task. But if
      > > the technical details are causing a significant gray area and
      giving
      > > rise to all sorts of questionable behavior, I know what I would
      like
      > > to see become the standard. I would like to see RSS feeds include
      > > copyright and licensing information about the enclosure, if they
      > > don't already.
      >
      > I'm not sure what plaform your using, not sure about how Moveable
      Type
      > or Wordpress handle this, but if you use feedburner I'm pretty sure
      > you can specidy your licensce right in feedburner.
      >
      > Note, I highly, highly doubt any of the platforms like myspace
      include
      > any licenscing info.
      >
      > I think youtube does though.
      >
      > > I would like to see metadata remain public domain,
      > > but enclosures that come after a copyright a license notice
      respected
      > > as separate.
      >
      > The metadata is fundamentally public domain except for of course the
      > body copy of the post. So all the licensce refers to is the body
      copy
      > and the media.
      >
      > >I would like to see aggregators parse the copyright and
      > > license fields in the RSS feed and respect their terms. Frankly
      > > that's what I thought was the community standard already.
      >
      > This near community is all about that, it's the outside players, the
      > other 95% of video sharing and search sites not represented here
      that
      > are just begining to pick up on this info.
      >
      > > In these
      > > discussions I come on very adamant because I think it's important
      to
      > > respect the rights of the creator. I understand that many people
      > > want to facilitate a new collaborative media. And so do I. I'm
      not
      > > advocating for the rights of the creators because I want to stymie
      > > creativity and collaboration. But I don't want to see the value
      > > created by the creations usurped. I want to see the creators
      benefit
      > > along with the companies that grow out of this new media.
      >
      > I think we're exactly in agreement. It's tough to be a search and
      > aggregation company in new media because it's a space rife with
      legal
      > inconsistencies. Google itself has become a magnate for lawsuits
      > around intellectual property, just with dabbling in book search,
      image
      > search and news search.
      >
      > I suspected this is why they started with building their own video
      > site and buying youtube before setting out to make other media
      outside
      > their walled garden searchable.
      >
      > When dealing with text, especially text born on the web we're used
      to
      > quoting, citing and fair use. But the world of media, especially
      audio
      > and video has belong to the world of big industry so long that it's
      > never been "socialized" the way reading and writing have. In many
      ways
      > the internet has caused a mass socialization of media the way the
      > printing press caused a mass socialization of reading and writing,
      > though that took hundreds of years. In those days it was the church
      > that had had the monopoly... these days it's the media industry...
      but
      > one things for sure... they no longer do, and in the future there
      will
      > be very few if any boundries between our everyday media and their
      > media. It will be one fluid mediascape... though they're trying
      their
      > damnedest to create walls around their media.
      >
      > The bottom line is though they're creating their own prisons, as is
      > clearly the case with music... the only place major labels have
      > successfully sold their music digitally is apple. Apple gave them
      > exactly what they wanted and now they're stuck... they've created
      > their new master... or you might say they've made their own bed and
      > now they have to lie in it.
      >
      > Meanwhile the rest of the world hasn't ended... the amount of
      > independant artists in any form has not been negatively impacted, in
      > fact it has exploded in a cornicopia, some might even call it a
      modern
      > renasaince... funy when only a few short years ago the media
      companies
      > complained this would kill the arts... what they really meant is it
      > would destroy their domination and control. over the marketplace...
      it
      > had nothing to do with the artists they represented.
      >
      > Peace,
      >
      > -Mike
      >
      > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, groups-yahoo-com@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Bill had a good point. iTunes *directory* is opt in. Most of us
      did
      > > it
      > > > by default when setting up our feedburner feeds. I don't recall
      ever
      > > > agreeing to any terms of service with apple though that
      compromised
      > > my
      > > > god given right to my permalinks back to my blog, or supplanted
      my
      > > > creative commons. Do any of you remember agreeing to anything
      when
      > > you
      > > > opted in through feedburner?
      > > >
      > > > And then there is also another point I must point out to Bill.
      > > >
      > > > I am NOT talking about the itunes directory.
      > > >
      > > > I'm talking about the business end of iTunes where you go to
      watch
      > > > your podcasts and video on a regular basis. iTunes IS
      absolutely,
      > > > fundamentally and aggregator, so bill is only half right.
      Wether you
      > > > "opted in" to the itunes directory or not... anyone can place
      your
      > > > feed in iTunes... and therfore there is a certain agreement... a
      > > > certain expectation that must be met.
      > > >
      > > > This also proves another point about aggregators that most
      people
      > > > don't seem to completely get.
      > > >
      > > > Aggregators cannot on some level function on an OPT-IN only
      basis.
      > > >
      > > > If anyone can stick your feed in iTunes, and you DIDN'T opt into
      > > that
      > > > then how can itunes function on an opt-in only basis!?
      > > >
      > > > The truth is that most aggregators and there are many shades
      will
      > > not
      > > > be able to function on an opt in only basis.
      > > >
      > > > How would you like it if you went and put your favorite video
      blog
      > > > feed in iTunes.. or mefeedia... and a message popped up
      saying "this
      > > > feed owner has not yet opted into this service... you must get
      their
      > > > permission first."
      > > >
      > > > It's not just aggregators either. The entire search space would
      > > cease
      > > > to function if it was required to be opt-in only.
      > > >
      > > > It must be opt-out... but there also MUST be ground rules... an
      > > that's
      > > > where it gets all grey.
      > > >
      > > > So can I sue iTunes for not respecting my creative commons
      license
      > > > that requires attribution and a link? Well, maybe, and maybe
      not?
      > > > Maybe it's fair use based on the fact that the user is
      performing
      > > the
      > > > action, but apple fundamentally has some culpability in the
      > > action...
      > > > just like microsoft and their damn zune which indian gives MY
      media
      > > > wether I like it or not, but putting a 3 day time limit on my
      media.
      > > >
      > > > The only difference is that apple's putting a limit on YOUR
      media...
      > > > that says... your fans can't click back to your vlog or podcast
      > > from
      > > > itunes. (And again, I'm NOT talking about the g'damn poscast
      > > > directory.)
      > > >
      > > > Whatever legal side it falls on they have a responsibility to
      the
      > > > community, and it's in their best interest to keep us happy...
      it's
      > > > our opportunity to demand of apple what we demand of other
      > > > aggregators... or we can simply wuss out and give apple some
      special
      > > > permission to ignore one of our key demands of other
      aggregators...
      > > > that they LINK back from the media to the page it comes from.
      > > >
      > > > I personally don't get why so many people actually DEFEND apple
      on
      > > > this one. Like their doing us all some sort of damn favor
      meanwhile
      > > we
      > > > get enraged to find our content anywhere else on the web.
      > > >
      > > > The bottom line is the link back is TOP OF THE LIST when it
      comes to
      > > > aggregation and revlogging ettiquette. There is NO more
      important
      > > > point. Apple flaunts that with itunes.
      > > >
      > > > Let me break down why this issue is so important to me.
      > > >
      > > > And I mine as well tell you now... turn back yee who are week of
      > > interest.
      > > >
      > > > Right now mefeedia is open... it crosses a fine threshold
      between
      > > > private space where we could gain the argument of fair use like
      > > > itunes, and public space where we exist to your benifit but in a
      > > legal
      > > > grey area.
      > > >
      > > > When mefeedia started out it was all well and good, it was a
      > > generally
      > > > agreed upon part of a social contract and we've been
      grandfathered
      > > in
      > > > since then by thousands of new video podcasts, many of which
      are big
      > > > mainstream media companies.
      > > >
      > > > We aren't OPT-IN but we didn't go around hand putting your feeds
      > > into
      > > > mefeedia either. Sure some of you may have hand placed your own
      > > feeds
      > > > in mefeedia, but mostly I suspect YOUR fans put your feeds into
      > > > mefeedia so they could keep track of all your spectacular feeds.
      > > >
      > > > It was your fans who did it which is an VERY important
      distinction
      > > to
      > > > us... it's the fans choice... and almost all of us agree with
      that
      > > > concept to some extent, but now people have added in feeds like
      the
      > > > ABC Nightly news... the full 35 or so minutes of nightly news
      is on
      > > > mefeedia.... and content from MTV, and Viacom and AOL time
      warner.
      > > > There's all manner of crazy stuff on mefeedia, and if you can't
      > > agree
      > > > to a network2.tv, or some other player working with your
      content the
      > > > way mefeedia does... then what chance do we have of expecting
      viacom
      > > > not to come sue our pants off?
      > > >
      > > > What I'm afraid of is that these big players are going to come
      > > around
      > > > with the exact same arguments your making, and make us change
      our
      > > game
      > > > because the law doesn't make the distinctions we make.
      > > >
      > > > Anyway... mefeedia could at that point drastically pull back on
      the
      > > > amount of metadata we have available WITHOUT login... probably
      the
      > > > only thing we'd technically have to change is to stop embedding
      the
      > > > video in the page. Although... I hear bloglines and google
      > > newsreader
      > > > are now embedding videos in their aggregators as well... shame
      > > shame.
      > > >
      > > > After all... all the rest of the data we collect is PURE factual
      > > > metadata... the only POSSIBLE point of contention is the embeded
      > > > video. Everything else we do wether anyone likes it or not is
      > > > uncontestable because it's all factual data.
      > > >
      > > > Sure google got sued for thumbnails and even for displaying News
      > > > headlines from some belgium newspapers... but not only is
      mefeedia
      > > not
      > > > google... but you are also not smarmy cellular desktop picture
      > > makers,
      > > > nor can the majority of you sue as from belgium where they're
      > > > obviously not only stupid, but insane.
      > > >
      > > > So those INSANITITIES of copyright law are very remote, mefeedia
      > > DOES
      > > > have proper courses of action, and best of all mefeedia has the
      > > single
      > > > best tool money can buy... PRECIDENCE... Which is to say,
      mefeedia
      > > was
      > > > here first.
      > > >
      > > > Since the first video was enclosed in the first RSS feed we've
      been
      > > > aggregating media... as such to some degree the legal argument
      can
      > > say
      > > > that putting video in RSS to be syndicated IMPLIES that that
      media
      > > can
      > > > be aggregated by sites like mefeedia, that's what it was made
      for.
      > > >
      > > > Indeed presidence is a fickle thing to prove and I wouldn't
      want to
      > > > stand up in court on this argument alone, but it's a good thing
      to
      > > > have on your side. It's the so called "granddaddy clause".
      > > >
      > > > Moving on it comes down to this... mefeedia could become LOGIN
      > > only,
      > > > meaning for private use only... it would become a walled
      garden... a
      > > > "dark net" of sorts.... and then under fair use we could
      > > theoretically
      > > > let your users do whatever the hell they wanted with your media
      at
      > > > all.
      > > >
      > > > After all.. .it's private use right? Because that's what
      you're
      > > > saying about itunes... if mefeedia were to put everything
      behind a
      > > > login and let users do what they wanted with your media for
      private
      > > > use that would be exactly like what your implying with iTunes.
      > > >
      > > > Anyway, it's a complex argument. One even craziest legal minds
      > > > wouldn't attempt to argue.
      > > >
      > > > Nedless to say... much of what's happening in this space that is
      > > > ABSOLUTELY required for this space to be free and open... what
      is
      > > > generally known as "search space" even though it's often
      refered to
      > > as
      > > > sharing, social networking, bubbling up, reblogging,
      aggregation,
      > > > playlisting, and numerous other things... it's all still
      > > fundamentally
      > > > the space by which YOUR media finds its way into the right
      hands in
      > > > ways they can use it ... and it is fundamentally at odds with
      > > > copyright law because copyright law was created before the
      internet.
      > > > We now function in a universe where nothing can be accomplished
      > > > without replicating and syndicating bits.
      > > >
      > > > The point is this... and I think someone elluded to it
      earlier...
      > > The
      > > > RIAA and MPAA among others feared the internet... they used
      > > copyright
      > > > to supress what is now coming to be understood as one of the
      BEST
      > > > features of the internet... sharing media.
      > > >
      > > > They drove all this media rich culture... music and the arts...
      off
      > > of
      > > > the web. They supressed it... and as has been seen in reare
      > > instances
      > > > in the past like prohibition this has caused an era of
      > > > "lawlessness"... which is to say it fundamentally drove culture
      of
      > > the
      > > > open web and into the dark recesses and black markets... closed
      > > > networks, what are often called "darknets"... often these are
      p2p
      > > > networks at one extreme... but that IS NOT the only form of a
      > > darknet,
      > > > it's just the most extreme.
      > > >
      > > > More often then not this suppression of freedom happens it
      causes
      > > > other market irregularities that arent so extreme... they're
      still
      > > > darknets of a sort, but more often then not you simply know
      them as
      > > > walled gardens.... and this is EXACTLY what I was illuding to
      > > earlier
      > > > about iTunes and Mefeedia.
      > > >
      > > > These walled gardens, what I like to call city states spring up
      to
      > > > take advantage of a hostile envirement... in this case a hostile
      > > legal
      > > > environment. If the market was sufficiently unregulated and free
      > > there
      > > > would be no city states... with their walled gardens. There
      would
      > > just
      > > > be an open and competitive landscape with equal opportunities
      for
      > > all.
      > > >
      > > > (BTW, read up on milton freedmon for more on free market
      economics
      > > and
      > > > deregulation. I'd be happy to get into it more later, but this
      is
      > > > already to long.)
      > > >
      > > > Anyway, these walled gardens exist because of market anomolies.
      > > >
      > > > We MUST reverse this suppression of culture, this pushing of
      our new
      > > > and glorious MEDIA rich culture... this explosion, this
      cornicopia
      > > of
      > > > creativity, communications, music, art, and just plain old
      > > > conversation... we must not make the same mistake as the RIAA
      and
      > > > MPAA, we must embrace this wild west and scrap over it and do
      what
      > > we
      > > > must... but we cannot deny the road builders... the people who
      will
      > > > bring the masses to your front doors.... the opportunity to
      build
      > > > their roads... to let you be found... to help you be enjoyed...
      we
      > > > must not allow this to suppress all the brilliant opportunities
      to
      > > > come.
      > > >
      > > > I'm absolutely not saying put up with the bad actors. I'm saying
      > > quite
      > > > the inverse... TOUGH LOVE.. take the bad actors and threaten
      them,
      > > > twist their arms, but turn them into positive actors... they
      will do
      > > > great things for you.
      > > >
      > > > Because if we do chase every search and every intermediary out
      of
      > > this
      > > > space we'll not only loose all those roads, and sidewalks that
      > > they're
      > > > building to your media, your vlogs, but that traffic will go
      else
      > > > where. NOT probably back into the P2P darkents... but
      DEFINITELY to
      > > > the city states like youtube that I elude to above.
      > > >
      > > > In short if we don't put copy-left licensing on our content,
      and we
      > > > don't constantly work on defining best practaces, and
      encouraging
      > > > them, and finding new players like myheavy, revver, veoh,
      magnatune,
      > > > dabble and what not, we can kiss our relevance good buy.
      > > >
      > > > These intermediaries keep this space from just collapsing in a
      > > winner
      > > > take all batter where youtube wins. These intermediaries keep
      you
      > > > relevant. They keep traffic coming to your vlog.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > What I really see this all as is the communications newtwork of
      > > > tomorrow. Videoblogging and podcasting are not like TV, but
      more
      > > like
      > > > email.
      > > >
      > > > RSS, OPML, and agregation are to this new communications network
      > > what
      > > > SMTP, POP or IMAP and a mail client are to email. And it
      matters not
      > > > wether that aggregatir is a piece of software like iTunes or a
      > > > webservice like mefeedia. There may be many differences between
      > > email
      > > > and podcasting... but this is still a damn good metaphor.
      > > >
      > > > What I'm wholy focused on is making sure ALL these networks...
      some
      > > > might call them 'social networks"... are interoperable so if you
      > > > "place a call" on one network it rings on another.
      > > >
      > > > Of course by "place a call" I mean... when your friend posts a
      > > video,
      > > > a photo, or an mp3 on bumble-fuck social network that you've
      never
      > > > heard of... or a bumble fuck blogging platform you've never hear
      > > of...
      > > > or youtube, or blip, or wherever the hell they host their
      media...
      > > > that that video will travel down the good old "series of pipes"
      as
      > > our
      > > > fine senator friend called them... and pop out in your
      iTunes... or
      > > > your Fireant, or Blogines, or Netnewswire, or... mefeedia.
      > > >
      > > > Whatever the hell "reciever" your using in the future your
      friends,
      > > > your family, and your peers will increasingly comunicate with
      you
      > > > through rich media, like photos fresh from their cameras, and
      > > > videos... and blog posts... and audio... and anycombination of
      the
      > > > above... these conversatiosn will not always be literal like a
      phone
      > > > conversation or email... they will not be explicit... as
      in "Howdy
      > > > bill how was your day"... like in email... they will continue
      to be
      > > > personal... they will be increasingly abstract...
      new 'semantics"
      > > and
      > > > language and etiquette for communications will evolve with these
      > > > media... people WILL probably continue to bitch about the
      quality
      > > of a
      > > > photo... or the legibility of a podcast.... or the "production
      > > > qualities" of a video... but they will NOT be in the same way
      they
      > > > bitch about a bad TV show... they will bitch just as they've
      always
      > > > bitched about your emails where you ramble, and mispell, and are
      > > > generally imperfect...
      > > >
      > > > Come to think of it... these communications will be a lot like
      this
      > > > mailing list... except they will be increasingly media rich...
      and
      > > > oh... well, exactly like your vlogs and podcasts.
      > > >
      > > > Anyway... I'm rambling, but I hope I got my point across.
      > > >
      > > > Mefeedia is just another traffic router... a switching hub...
      except
      > > > instead of being just like your wireless linksys router... we're
      > > more
      > > > intellegent, because we're made of people... the most intellgent
      > > > filters, and switches of all.... your friends... at least we
      > > hope. ;)
      > > >
      > > > In order for these new social switching plants for media to
      > > operate...
      > > > like digg video... (an agregator)... or myspace (also an
      aggregator
      > > of
      > > > all sorts of crap they've lost all control of)... or
      slashdot... or
      > > > bloglines... or dabble... or webjay... or yahoo video search...
      they
      > > > have to be afforded some wiggle room. Especially when dealing
      with
      > > > media like images, and video, and audio which are the most taboo
      > > > subjects of copyright as the lawsuits on google image search
      > > > illustrate.
      > > >
      > > > It's a very tought road, but it is the most noble of battles.
      > > >
      > > > -Mike
      > > > he who loves to write even if he can't do it that well and has
      no
      > > time
      > > > to proof read. Sorry for any errors.
      > > >
      > > > mmeiser.com/blog
      > > > mefeedia.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > On 1/29/07, sull <sulleleven@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the
      > > iTunes
      > > > > > Store
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > apparently they are. last i checked i didnt see linkbacks.
      has
      > > this been
      > > > > the case for a while now?
      > > > > i dont use itunes much so I was taking mike meiser's word for
      > > it. good to
      > > > > know :)
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > On 1/29/07, tim@ <tim@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the
      > > iTunes
      > > > > > Store and we get lots of traffic from them. If it wasn't
      for
      > > Apple
      > > > > > we wouldn't have the advertisers that we have today. We
      also
      > > have
      > > > > > lots of comments on our Apple page from people who love us
      and
      > > hate
      > > > > > us. So there is a place for user feedback.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Apple has been very good to the community. Keep in mind they
      > > generate
      > > > > > no direct revenue from podcasting, and there's no way to
      > > quantify any
      > > > > > indirect revenue on their site at this time. I guess you
      could
      > > set up
      > > > > > an affiliate account and make some money sending people to
      > > iTunes but
      > > > > > they send way more people to us than we send to them.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I look forward to other big players following Apple's lead
      and
      > > > > > stepping up to the plate and creating a UI that is as good
      as or
      > > > > > better than Apple iTunes. Competition is a good thing.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Tim
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Tim Street
      > > > > > Creator/Executive Producer
      > > > > > French Maid TV
      > > > > > The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids
      > > > > > http://frenchmaidtv.com
      > > > > > Subscribe for FREE on
      > > > > > <ahref="http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes"
      > > target="_blank">iTunes</a>
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, sull wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > I am often disgusted by Apple...
      > > > > > > Is there even once example of Apple implementing user
      > > feedback?
      > > > > > > Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback....
      > > > > > > especially when it
      > > > > > > comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been
      > > ongoing
      > > > > > > for 3-4
      > > > > > > years.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be
      > > similarly
      > > > > > > scrutinized
      > > > > > > for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist
      to
      > > serve
      > > > > > > MSM first
      > > > > > > and foremost.
      > > > > > > But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when
      they
      > > are
      > > > > > > displaying
      > > > > > > independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What
      Control
      > > > > > > Freaks they
      > > > > > > are!
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take
      the
      > > UI of
      > > > > > > their
      > > > > > > hardware devices and apply it to their software apps.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > sull
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser <groups-yahoo-com@> wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > What still suprises me is that people get so mad at
      myheavy
      > > and all
      > > > > > > > these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is
      > > itunes with
      > > > > > > > their iTunes.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and
      podcasters
      > > to build
      > > > > > > > traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media,
      and
      > > more
      > > > > > > ipods
      > > > > > > > and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give
      you
      > > a reach
      > > > > > > > arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes
      > > interface so
      > > > > > > after
      > > > > > > > I'm done watching your video or listening to your
      podcast I
      > > can
      > > > > > > click
      > > > > > > > back to your website and see your shownotes, comments,
      or
      > > any of
      > > > > > > that
      > > > > > > > crap.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a
      > > webservice, or
      > > > > > > > because of some steve jobs reality distortion field.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting
      ads
      > > > > > > directly on
      > > > > > > > your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors.
      > > They're
      > > > > > > > alienating you from your users.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog
      > > post in
      > > > > > > > Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on
      and
      > > on an
      > > > > > > > one... but simply ignore apple?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > -Mike
      > > > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
      > > > > > > > mefeedia.com
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > On 1/28/07, Ron Watson <k9disc@ <k9disc%40mac.com>>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > > > The problem is that videobloggers are going down the
      > > same
      > > > > > > hopelessly
      > > > > > > > > > unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the
      record
      > > > > > > labels and
      > > > > > > > > > movie companies.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely
      > > wrong.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even
      if
      > > your site
      > > > > > > > > has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is
      totally
      > > free
      > > > > > > as soon
      > > > > > > > > as I post it on blip.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their
      > > subsidiary
      > > > > > > > > investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et
      al.)
      > > give me
      > > > > > > some
      > > > > > > > > kind of consideration as a content creator.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > If they are making millions, I want a share. If
      smaller
      > > > > > > entities are
      > > > > > > > > gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin'
      > > correct
      > > > > > > link
      > > > > > > > > on it for cryin' out loud.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > To say that expecting to get royalties off of large
      > > economic
      > > > > > > > > endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is
      > > standing
      > > > > > > > > reality on its head.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like
      old
      > > school
      > > > > > > > > record companies; robbing artists of their hard work
      and
      > > > > > > creativity;
      > > > > > > > > screw the talent!
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Ron
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > On 1/27/07, David <david@<david%
      > > > > > > 40captainhumphreys.com>>
      > > > > > > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > > > > Even accepting reality for what it is, however,
      there
      > > are
      > > > > > > > > > > many good reasons to continue to push for our
      rights
      > > as
      > > > > > > creators to
      > > > > > > > > > > be sacrosanct.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > The problem is that videobloggers are going down the
      > > same
      > > > > > > hopelessly
      > > > > > > > > > unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the
      record
      > > > > > > labels and
      > > > > > > > > > movie companies. What's driving you is the same
      > > misplaced
      > > > > > > sense of
      > > > > > > > > > victimization and and righteous anger.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US
      (except
      > > with
      > > > > > > regard to
      > > > > > > > > > attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's
      > > wrong in a
      > > > > > > way
      > > > > > > > > > which is important. If creators were to be granted
      > > sacrosanct
      > > > > > > rights
      > > > > > > > > > it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the
      > > expense
      > > > > > > of the
      > > > > > > > > > public.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > And not just at the expense of the public, but also
      at
      > > the
      > > > > > > expense of
      > > > > > > > > > creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to
      prevent
      > > from
      > > > > > > mashing
      > > > > > > > > > up your video have just as much right to make art as
      > > you do. If
      > > > > > > > > > what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why
      > > does
      > > > > > > your work
      > > > > > > > > > trump theirs?
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --
      > > > > > > Sull
      > > > > > > http://vlogdir.com (a project)
      > > > > > > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog)
      > > > > > > http://interdigitate.com (otherly)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --
      > > > > Sull
      > > > > http://vlogdir.com (a project)
      > > > > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog)
      > > > > http://interdigitate.com (otherly)
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • David
      I m glad we had that conversation. It sheds some light, for me, on the nuances of the issue. ... baseline ... the ... the ... I m ... to ... wouldn t ... it s
      Message 116 of 116 , Jan 31, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm glad we had that conversation. It sheds some light, for me, on
        the nuances of the issue.

        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" <groups-yahoo-
        com@...> wrote:
        >
        > On 1/30/07, David <castingtalent@...> wrote:
        > > Mike, in another post you wrote that opt-out wont work as a
        baseline
        > > strategy for sites like MyHeavy. You wrote: "It is the value ads
        > > that must be opt in. I.E. if myheavy or magnify want to put ads on
        > > your content that should be opt in."
        > >
        > > Below you wrote that opt-in
        > > won't work on some level. I understand this is an issue where you
        > > deal with a lot of complexity. It's clear you've thought about
        the
        > > nuances of how things need to work technically and socially for
        the
        > > continued evolution of media. But I'm a little confused. Maybe
        I'm
        > > missing something and both the devil and the clarity are in the
        > > details.
        >
        > Let me try to clarify, that whole thing was a mouthful.
        >
        > There must be some minimal level of interoperability for this space
        to
        > function. That means on some level I must as a search engine be able
        > to do some things with your media and metadata without asking your
        > permission.
        >
        > Case in point, if google had to ask every website owner's permission
        > to crawl their website and use their data in search it simply
        wouldn't
        > have happened. The web wouldn't be searchable.
        >
        > The same thing is obviously true of the video space... but since
        it's
        > video and not simple text people percieve it differently.
        >
        > As for what should be opt in? When someone wants to put ads on your
        > media or otherwise profit from it then it should be opt in.
        >
        > > Metadata, you suggest, is like public domain news.
        >
        > It's not like public domain news... it is public domain because it's
        > all just facts... and by definition facts cannot be copyright. The
        > sole exception is there is some debate about the body copy of the
        post
        > as it's not just facts.
        >
        > > It's
        > > information about what content is available where and in what
        format
        > > and it's published on an open network, so no one could ever claim
        > > ethical or legal infringement on anyone for republishing it. Is
        that
        > > a reasonable summary of one of your points?
        >
        > Exactly.
        >
        > > If it is it seems fair
        > > and sound. So far, so good, and, by the way, if I'm doing
        terrible
        > > injustice to your arguments, please forgive me, but I'm trying to
        get
        > > my mind around something.
        >
        > not at all... it's a complex and much debated issue.
        >
        > > You wrote that "putting video in RSS to be
        > > syndicated IMPLIES that that media can be aggregated by sites like
        > > mefeedia, that's what it was made for." That really caught my
        > > attention. That suggests to me that an argument can be made that
        a
        > > media enclosure by its inclusion in an RSS feed may make the
        content
        > > of that enclosure public domain.
        >
        > No... not pubic domain, not at all... it creates a grey area though
        > because putting a video in RSS and enclosing it does imply it's
        there
        > for syndication. After all, an RSS feed means Real Simple
        Syndication.
        > However, what takes far more precidence is if you specify an actual
        > licensce in your RSS feed. That removes any question of the issue.
        >
        > Also... of course if you place someone elses media in an RSS feed,
        > you're not the owner, so it doesn't change a thing.
        >
        > > Now I'm not saying you're saying
        > > this last bit or advocating it. I'm asking if you or anyone else
        > > sees that implication? Is that the crux of the legal attack on
        the
        > > creator's copyright in the web 2.0 context?
        >
        > Now we're really in the nitty gritty of the issue.
        >
        > Persoanlly I believe all this means is if some major player with
        deep
        > pockets comes along and sees their media in one of the dozens or
        > hundreds of RSS aggregators and decides to soo, that there is SOME
        > basis for these aggregators to protect themselves. It's the... if
        you
        > didn't want your media or news aggregated then why'd you put it in
        RSS
        > argument... It's unproven in court so far as I know... but yes...
        > maybe putting your media in RSS has some implications as for your
        copy
        > rights.
        >
        > BTW, there's really no conflict at all with RSS and the creative
        > commons licensces, which is exactly the point. The creative commons
        > licensces were fundamentally designed to say "heh, copyright law is
        > defective in this new metaverse, it conflicts with the new reality
        > that everything must be copied."
        >
        > I'd personally love to see an RSS feed with the copyright labeled as
        > "all rights reserved" this would seem an absolute contradiction of
        > syndication which fundamentally requires copying and redistribution.
        >
        > > I'm not well versed in
        > > the structure of RSS feeds. I've read elsewhere on this list that
        > > RSS includes data fields for copyright and licensing information.
        > > Whether or not various sites are parsing that data and respecting
        it
        > > is a subject of a lot of discussion on this board that I don't
        follow
        > > because my knowledge of RSS isn't sufficient for the task. But if
        > > the technical details are causing a significant gray area and
        giving
        > > rise to all sorts of questionable behavior, I know what I would
        like
        > > to see become the standard. I would like to see RSS feeds include
        > > copyright and licensing information about the enclosure, if they
        > > don't already.
        >
        > I'm not sure what plaform your using, not sure about how Moveable
        Type
        > or Wordpress handle this, but if you use feedburner I'm pretty sure
        > you can specidy your licensce right in feedburner.
        >
        > Note, I highly, highly doubt any of the platforms like myspace
        include
        > any licenscing info.
        >
        > I think youtube does though.
        >
        > > I would like to see metadata remain public domain,
        > > but enclosures that come after a copyright a license notice
        respected
        > > as separate.
        >
        > The metadata is fundamentally public domain except for of course the
        > body copy of the post. So all the licensce refers to is the body
        copy
        > and the media.
        >
        > >I would like to see aggregators parse the copyright and
        > > license fields in the RSS feed and respect their terms. Frankly
        > > that's what I thought was the community standard already.
        >
        > This near community is all about that, it's the outside players, the
        > other 95% of video sharing and search sites not represented here
        that
        > are just begining to pick up on this info.
        >
        > > In these
        > > discussions I come on very adamant because I think it's important
        to
        > > respect the rights of the creator. I understand that many people
        > > want to facilitate a new collaborative media. And so do I. I'm
        not
        > > advocating for the rights of the creators because I want to stymie
        > > creativity and collaboration. But I don't want to see the value
        > > created by the creations usurped. I want to see the creators
        benefit
        > > along with the companies that grow out of this new media.
        >
        > I think we're exactly in agreement. It's tough to be a search and
        > aggregation company in new media because it's a space rife with
        legal
        > inconsistencies. Google itself has become a magnate for lawsuits
        > around intellectual property, just with dabbling in book search,
        image
        > search and news search.
        >
        > I suspected this is why they started with building their own video
        > site and buying youtube before setting out to make other media
        outside
        > their walled garden searchable.
        >
        > When dealing with text, especially text born on the web we're used
        to
        > quoting, citing and fair use. But the world of media, especially
        audio
        > and video has belong to the world of big industry so long that it's
        > never been "socialized" the way reading and writing have. In many
        ways
        > the internet has caused a mass socialization of media the way the
        > printing press caused a mass socialization of reading and writing,
        > though that took hundreds of years. In those days it was the church
        > that had had the monopoly... these days it's the media industry...
        but
        > one things for sure... they no longer do, and in the future there
        will
        > be very few if any boundries between our everyday media and their
        > media. It will be one fluid mediascape... though they're trying
        their
        > damnedest to create walls around their media.
        >
        > The bottom line is though they're creating their own prisons, as is
        > clearly the case with music... the only place major labels have
        > successfully sold their music digitally is apple. Apple gave them
        > exactly what they wanted and now they're stuck... they've created
        > their new master... or you might say they've made their own bed and
        > now they have to lie in it.
        >
        > Meanwhile the rest of the world hasn't ended... the amount of
        > independant artists in any form has not been negatively impacted, in
        > fact it has exploded in a cornicopia, some might even call it a
        modern
        > renasaince... funy when only a few short years ago the media
        companies
        > complained this would kill the arts... what they really meant is it
        > would destroy their domination and control. over the marketplace...
        it
        > had nothing to do with the artists they represented.
        >
        > Peace,
        >
        > -Mike
        >
        > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, groups-yahoo-com@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Bill had a good point. iTunes *directory* is opt in. Most of us
        did
        > > it
        > > > by default when setting up our feedburner feeds. I don't recall
        ever
        > > > agreeing to any terms of service with apple though that
        compromised
        > > my
        > > > god given right to my permalinks back to my blog, or supplanted
        my
        > > > creative commons. Do any of you remember agreeing to anything
        when
        > > you
        > > > opted in through feedburner?
        > > >
        > > > And then there is also another point I must point out to Bill.
        > > >
        > > > I am NOT talking about the itunes directory.
        > > >
        > > > I'm talking about the business end of iTunes where you go to
        watch
        > > > your podcasts and video on a regular basis. iTunes IS
        absolutely,
        > > > fundamentally and aggregator, so bill is only half right.
        Wether you
        > > > "opted in" to the itunes directory or not... anyone can place
        your
        > > > feed in iTunes... and therfore there is a certain agreement... a
        > > > certain expectation that must be met.
        > > >
        > > > This also proves another point about aggregators that most
        people
        > > > don't seem to completely get.
        > > >
        > > > Aggregators cannot on some level function on an OPT-IN only
        basis.
        > > >
        > > > If anyone can stick your feed in iTunes, and you DIDN'T opt into
        > > that
        > > > then how can itunes function on an opt-in only basis!?
        > > >
        > > > The truth is that most aggregators and there are many shades
        will
        > > not
        > > > be able to function on an opt in only basis.
        > > >
        > > > How would you like it if you went and put your favorite video
        blog
        > > > feed in iTunes.. or mefeedia... and a message popped up
        saying "this
        > > > feed owner has not yet opted into this service... you must get
        their
        > > > permission first."
        > > >
        > > > It's not just aggregators either. The entire search space would
        > > cease
        > > > to function if it was required to be opt-in only.
        > > >
        > > > It must be opt-out... but there also MUST be ground rules... an
        > > that's
        > > > where it gets all grey.
        > > >
        > > > So can I sue iTunes for not respecting my creative commons
        license
        > > > that requires attribution and a link? Well, maybe, and maybe
        not?
        > > > Maybe it's fair use based on the fact that the user is
        performing
        > > the
        > > > action, but apple fundamentally has some culpability in the
        > > action...
        > > > just like microsoft and their damn zune which indian gives MY
        media
        > > > wether I like it or not, but putting a 3 day time limit on my
        media.
        > > >
        > > > The only difference is that apple's putting a limit on YOUR
        media...
        > > > that says... your fans can't click back to your vlog or podcast
        > > from
        > > > itunes. (And again, I'm NOT talking about the g'damn poscast
        > > > directory.)
        > > >
        > > > Whatever legal side it falls on they have a responsibility to
        the
        > > > community, and it's in their best interest to keep us happy...
        it's
        > > > our opportunity to demand of apple what we demand of other
        > > > aggregators... or we can simply wuss out and give apple some
        special
        > > > permission to ignore one of our key demands of other
        aggregators...
        > > > that they LINK back from the media to the page it comes from.
        > > >
        > > > I personally don't get why so many people actually DEFEND apple
        on
        > > > this one. Like their doing us all some sort of damn favor
        meanwhile
        > > we
        > > > get enraged to find our content anywhere else on the web.
        > > >
        > > > The bottom line is the link back is TOP OF THE LIST when it
        comes to
        > > > aggregation and revlogging ettiquette. There is NO more
        important
        > > > point. Apple flaunts that with itunes.
        > > >
        > > > Let me break down why this issue is so important to me.
        > > >
        > > > And I mine as well tell you now... turn back yee who are week of
        > > interest.
        > > >
        > > > Right now mefeedia is open... it crosses a fine threshold
        between
        > > > private space where we could gain the argument of fair use like
        > > > itunes, and public space where we exist to your benifit but in a
        > > legal
        > > > grey area.
        > > >
        > > > When mefeedia started out it was all well and good, it was a
        > > generally
        > > > agreed upon part of a social contract and we've been
        grandfathered
        > > in
        > > > since then by thousands of new video podcasts, many of which
        are big
        > > > mainstream media companies.
        > > >
        > > > We aren't OPT-IN but we didn't go around hand putting your feeds
        > > into
        > > > mefeedia either. Sure some of you may have hand placed your own
        > > feeds
        > > > in mefeedia, but mostly I suspect YOUR fans put your feeds into
        > > > mefeedia so they could keep track of all your spectacular feeds.
        > > >
        > > > It was your fans who did it which is an VERY important
        distinction
        > > to
        > > > us... it's the fans choice... and almost all of us agree with
        that
        > > > concept to some extent, but now people have added in feeds like
        the
        > > > ABC Nightly news... the full 35 or so minutes of nightly news
        is on
        > > > mefeedia.... and content from MTV, and Viacom and AOL time
        warner.
        > > > There's all manner of crazy stuff on mefeedia, and if you can't
        > > agree
        > > > to a network2.tv, or some other player working with your
        content the
        > > > way mefeedia does... then what chance do we have of expecting
        viacom
        > > > not to come sue our pants off?
        > > >
        > > > What I'm afraid of is that these big players are going to come
        > > around
        > > > with the exact same arguments your making, and make us change
        our
        > > game
        > > > because the law doesn't make the distinctions we make.
        > > >
        > > > Anyway... mefeedia could at that point drastically pull back on
        the
        > > > amount of metadata we have available WITHOUT login... probably
        the
        > > > only thing we'd technically have to change is to stop embedding
        the
        > > > video in the page. Although... I hear bloglines and google
        > > newsreader
        > > > are now embedding videos in their aggregators as well... shame
        > > shame.
        > > >
        > > > After all... all the rest of the data we collect is PURE factual
        > > > metadata... the only POSSIBLE point of contention is the embeded
        > > > video. Everything else we do wether anyone likes it or not is
        > > > uncontestable because it's all factual data.
        > > >
        > > > Sure google got sued for thumbnails and even for displaying News
        > > > headlines from some belgium newspapers... but not only is
        mefeedia
        > > not
        > > > google... but you are also not smarmy cellular desktop picture
        > > makers,
        > > > nor can the majority of you sue as from belgium where they're
        > > > obviously not only stupid, but insane.
        > > >
        > > > So those INSANITITIES of copyright law are very remote, mefeedia
        > > DOES
        > > > have proper courses of action, and best of all mefeedia has the
        > > single
        > > > best tool money can buy... PRECIDENCE... Which is to say,
        mefeedia
        > > was
        > > > here first.
        > > >
        > > > Since the first video was enclosed in the first RSS feed we've
        been
        > > > aggregating media... as such to some degree the legal argument
        can
        > > say
        > > > that putting video in RSS to be syndicated IMPLIES that that
        media
        > > can
        > > > be aggregated by sites like mefeedia, that's what it was made
        for.
        > > >
        > > > Indeed presidence is a fickle thing to prove and I wouldn't
        want to
        > > > stand up in court on this argument alone, but it's a good thing
        to
        > > > have on your side. It's the so called "granddaddy clause".
        > > >
        > > > Moving on it comes down to this... mefeedia could become LOGIN
        > > only,
        > > > meaning for private use only... it would become a walled
        garden... a
        > > > "dark net" of sorts.... and then under fair use we could
        > > theoretically
        > > > let your users do whatever the hell they wanted with your media
        at
        > > > all.
        > > >
        > > > After all.. .it's private use right? Because that's what
        you're
        > > > saying about itunes... if mefeedia were to put everything
        behind a
        > > > login and let users do what they wanted with your media for
        private
        > > > use that would be exactly like what your implying with iTunes.
        > > >
        > > > Anyway, it's a complex argument. One even craziest legal minds
        > > > wouldn't attempt to argue.
        > > >
        > > > Nedless to say... much of what's happening in this space that is
        > > > ABSOLUTELY required for this space to be free and open... what
        is
        > > > generally known as "search space" even though it's often
        refered to
        > > as
        > > > sharing, social networking, bubbling up, reblogging,
        aggregation,
        > > > playlisting, and numerous other things... it's all still
        > > fundamentally
        > > > the space by which YOUR media finds its way into the right
        hands in
        > > > ways they can use it ... and it is fundamentally at odds with
        > > > copyright law because copyright law was created before the
        internet.
        > > > We now function in a universe where nothing can be accomplished
        > > > without replicating and syndicating bits.
        > > >
        > > > The point is this... and I think someone elluded to it
        earlier...
        > > The
        > > > RIAA and MPAA among others feared the internet... they used
        > > copyright
        > > > to supress what is now coming to be understood as one of the
        BEST
        > > > features of the internet... sharing media.
        > > >
        > > > They drove all this media rich culture... music and the arts...
        off
        > > of
        > > > the web. They supressed it... and as has been seen in reare
        > > instances
        > > > in the past like prohibition this has caused an era of
        > > > "lawlessness"... which is to say it fundamentally drove culture
        of
        > > the
        > > > open web and into the dark recesses and black markets... closed
        > > > networks, what are often called "darknets"... often these are
        p2p
        > > > networks at one extreme... but that IS NOT the only form of a
        > > darknet,
        > > > it's just the most extreme.
        > > >
        > > > More often then not this suppression of freedom happens it
        causes
        > > > other market irregularities that arent so extreme... they're
        still
        > > > darknets of a sort, but more often then not you simply know
        them as
        > > > walled gardens.... and this is EXACTLY what I was illuding to
        > > earlier
        > > > about iTunes and Mefeedia.
        > > >
        > > > These walled gardens, what I like to call city states spring up
        to
        > > > take advantage of a hostile envirement... in this case a hostile
        > > legal
        > > > environment. If the market was sufficiently unregulated and free
        > > there
        > > > would be no city states... with their walled gardens. There
        would
        > > just
        > > > be an open and competitive landscape with equal opportunities
        for
        > > all.
        > > >
        > > > (BTW, read up on milton freedmon for more on free market
        economics
        > > and
        > > > deregulation. I'd be happy to get into it more later, but this
        is
        > > > already to long.)
        > > >
        > > > Anyway, these walled gardens exist because of market anomolies.
        > > >
        > > > We MUST reverse this suppression of culture, this pushing of
        our new
        > > > and glorious MEDIA rich culture... this explosion, this
        cornicopia
        > > of
        > > > creativity, communications, music, art, and just plain old
        > > > conversation... we must not make the same mistake as the RIAA
        and
        > > > MPAA, we must embrace this wild west and scrap over it and do
        what
        > > we
        > > > must... but we cannot deny the road builders... the people who
        will
        > > > bring the masses to your front doors.... the opportunity to
        build
        > > > their roads... to let you be found... to help you be enjoyed...
        we
        > > > must not allow this to suppress all the brilliant opportunities
        to
        > > > come.
        > > >
        > > > I'm absolutely not saying put up with the bad actors. I'm saying
        > > quite
        > > > the inverse... TOUGH LOVE.. take the bad actors and threaten
        them,
        > > > twist their arms, but turn them into positive actors... they
        will do
        > > > great things for you.
        > > >
        > > > Because if we do chase every search and every intermediary out
        of
        > > this
        > > > space we'll not only loose all those roads, and sidewalks that
        > > they're
        > > > building to your media, your vlogs, but that traffic will go
        else
        > > > where. NOT probably back into the P2P darkents... but
        DEFINITELY to
        > > > the city states like youtube that I elude to above.
        > > >
        > > > In short if we don't put copy-left licensing on our content,
        and we
        > > > don't constantly work on defining best practaces, and
        encouraging
        > > > them, and finding new players like myheavy, revver, veoh,
        magnatune,
        > > > dabble and what not, we can kiss our relevance good buy.
        > > >
        > > > These intermediaries keep this space from just collapsing in a
        > > winner
        > > > take all batter where youtube wins. These intermediaries keep
        you
        > > > relevant. They keep traffic coming to your vlog.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > What I really see this all as is the communications newtwork of
        > > > tomorrow. Videoblogging and podcasting are not like TV, but
        more
        > > like
        > > > email.
        > > >
        > > > RSS, OPML, and agregation are to this new communications network
        > > what
        > > > SMTP, POP or IMAP and a mail client are to email. And it
        matters not
        > > > wether that aggregatir is a piece of software like iTunes or a
        > > > webservice like mefeedia. There may be many differences between
        > > email
        > > > and podcasting... but this is still a damn good metaphor.
        > > >
        > > > What I'm wholy focused on is making sure ALL these networks...
        some
        > > > might call them 'social networks"... are interoperable so if you
        > > > "place a call" on one network it rings on another.
        > > >
        > > > Of course by "place a call" I mean... when your friend posts a
        > > video,
        > > > a photo, or an mp3 on bumble-fuck social network that you've
        never
        > > > heard of... or a bumble fuck blogging platform you've never hear
        > > of...
        > > > or youtube, or blip, or wherever the hell they host their
        media...
        > > > that that video will travel down the good old "series of pipes"
        as
        > > our
        > > > fine senator friend called them... and pop out in your
        iTunes... or
        > > > your Fireant, or Blogines, or Netnewswire, or... mefeedia.
        > > >
        > > > Whatever the hell "reciever" your using in the future your
        friends,
        > > > your family, and your peers will increasingly comunicate with
        you
        > > > through rich media, like photos fresh from their cameras, and
        > > > videos... and blog posts... and audio... and anycombination of
        the
        > > > above... these conversatiosn will not always be literal like a
        phone
        > > > conversation or email... they will not be explicit... as
        in "Howdy
        > > > bill how was your day"... like in email... they will continue
        to be
        > > > personal... they will be increasingly abstract...
        new 'semantics"
        > > and
        > > > language and etiquette for communications will evolve with these
        > > > media... people WILL probably continue to bitch about the
        quality
        > > of a
        > > > photo... or the legibility of a podcast.... or the "production
        > > > qualities" of a video... but they will NOT be in the same way
        they
        > > > bitch about a bad TV show... they will bitch just as they've
        always
        > > > bitched about your emails where you ramble, and mispell, and are
        > > > generally imperfect...
        > > >
        > > > Come to think of it... these communications will be a lot like
        this
        > > > mailing list... except they will be increasingly media rich...
        and
        > > > oh... well, exactly like your vlogs and podcasts.
        > > >
        > > > Anyway... I'm rambling, but I hope I got my point across.
        > > >
        > > > Mefeedia is just another traffic router... a switching hub...
        except
        > > > instead of being just like your wireless linksys router... we're
        > > more
        > > > intellegent, because we're made of people... the most intellgent
        > > > filters, and switches of all.... your friends... at least we
        > > hope. ;)
        > > >
        > > > In order for these new social switching plants for media to
        > > operate...
        > > > like digg video... (an agregator)... or myspace (also an
        aggregator
        > > of
        > > > all sorts of crap they've lost all control of)... or
        slashdot... or
        > > > bloglines... or dabble... or webjay... or yahoo video search...
        they
        > > > have to be afforded some wiggle room. Especially when dealing
        with
        > > > media like images, and video, and audio which are the most taboo
        > > > subjects of copyright as the lawsuits on google image search
        > > > illustrate.
        > > >
        > > > It's a very tought road, but it is the most noble of battles.
        > > >
        > > > -Mike
        > > > he who loves to write even if he can't do it that well and has
        no
        > > time
        > > > to proof read. Sorry for any errors.
        > > >
        > > > mmeiser.com/blog
        > > > mefeedia.com
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > On 1/29/07, sull <sulleleven@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the
        > > iTunes
        > > > > > Store
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > apparently they are. last i checked i didnt see linkbacks.
        has
        > > this been
        > > > > the case for a while now?
        > > > > i dont use itunes much so I was taking mike meiser's word for
        > > it. good to
        > > > > know :)
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > On 1/29/07, tim@ <tim@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the
        > > iTunes
        > > > > > Store and we get lots of traffic from them. If it wasn't
        for
        > > Apple
        > > > > > we wouldn't have the advertisers that we have today. We
        also
        > > have
        > > > > > lots of comments on our Apple page from people who love us
        and
        > > hate
        > > > > > us. So there is a place for user feedback.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Apple has been very good to the community. Keep in mind they
        > > generate
        > > > > > no direct revenue from podcasting, and there's no way to
        > > quantify any
        > > > > > indirect revenue on their site at this time. I guess you
        could
        > > set up
        > > > > > an affiliate account and make some money sending people to
        > > iTunes but
        > > > > > they send way more people to us than we send to them.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I look forward to other big players following Apple's lead
        and
        > > > > > stepping up to the plate and creating a UI that is as good
        as or
        > > > > > better than Apple iTunes. Competition is a good thing.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Tim
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Tim Street
        > > > > > Creator/Executive Producer
        > > > > > French Maid TV
        > > > > > The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids
        > > > > > http://frenchmaidtv.com
        > > > > > Subscribe for FREE on
        > > > > > <ahref="http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes"
        > > target="_blank">iTunes</a>
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, sull wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > I am often disgusted by Apple...
        > > > > > > Is there even once example of Apple implementing user
        > > feedback?
        > > > > > > Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback....
        > > > > > > especially when it
        > > > > > > comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been
        > > ongoing
        > > > > > > for 3-4
        > > > > > > years.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be
        > > similarly
        > > > > > > scrutinized
        > > > > > > for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist
        to
        > > serve
        > > > > > > MSM first
        > > > > > > and foremost.
        > > > > > > But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when
        they
        > > are
        > > > > > > displaying
        > > > > > > independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What
        Control
        > > > > > > Freaks they
        > > > > > > are!
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take
        the
        > > UI of
        > > > > > > their
        > > > > > > hardware devices and apply it to their software apps.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > sull
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser <groups-yahoo-com@> wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > What still suprises me is that people get so mad at
        myheavy
        > > and all
        > > > > > > > these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is
        > > itunes with
        > > > > > > > their iTunes.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and
        podcasters
        > > to build
        > > > > > > > traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media,
        and
        > > more
        > > > > > > ipods
        > > > > > > > and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give
        you
        > > a reach
        > > > > > > > arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes
        > > interface so
        > > > > > > after
        > > > > > > > I'm done watching your video or listening to your
        podcast I
        > > can
        > > > > > > click
        > > > > > > > back to your website and see your shownotes, comments,
        or
        > > any of
        > > > > > > that
        > > > > > > > crap.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a
        > > webservice, or
        > > > > > > > because of some steve jobs reality distortion field.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting
        ads
        > > > > > > directly on
        > > > > > > > your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors.
        > > They're
        > > > > > > > alienating you from your users.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog
        > > post in
        > > > > > > > Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on
        and
        > > on an
        > > > > > > > one... but simply ignore apple?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > -Mike
        > > > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
        > > > > > > > mefeedia.com
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > On 1/28/07, Ron Watson <k9disc@ <k9disc%40mac.com>>
        > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > The problem is that videobloggers are going down the
        > > same
        > > > > > > hopelessly
        > > > > > > > > > unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the
        record
        > > > > > > labels and
        > > > > > > > > > movie companies.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely
        > > wrong.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even
        if
        > > your site
        > > > > > > > > has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is
        totally
        > > free
        > > > > > > as soon
        > > > > > > > > as I post it on blip.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their
        > > subsidiary
        > > > > > > > > investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et
        al.)
        > > give me
        > > > > > > some
        > > > > > > > > kind of consideration as a content creator.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > If they are making millions, I want a share. If
        smaller
        > > > > > > entities are
        > > > > > > > > gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin'
        > > correct
        > > > > > > link
        > > > > > > > > on it for cryin' out loud.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > To say that expecting to get royalties off of large
        > > economic
        > > > > > > > > endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is
        > > standing
        > > > > > > > > reality on its head.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like
        old
        > > school
        > > > > > > > > record companies; robbing artists of their hard work
        and
        > > > > > > creativity;
        > > > > > > > > screw the talent!
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Ron
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > On 1/27/07, David <david@<david%
        > > > > > > 40captainhumphreys.com>>
        > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > Even accepting reality for what it is, however,
        there
        > > are
        > > > > > > > > > > many good reasons to continue to push for our
        rights
        > > as
        > > > > > > creators to
        > > > > > > > > > > be sacrosanct.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > The problem is that videobloggers are going down the
        > > same
        > > > > > > hopelessly
        > > > > > > > > > unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the
        record
        > > > > > > labels and
        > > > > > > > > > movie companies. What's driving you is the same
        > > misplaced
        > > > > > > sense of
        > > > > > > > > > victimization and and righteous anger.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US
        (except
        > > with
        > > > > > > regard to
        > > > > > > > > > attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's
        > > wrong in a
        > > > > > > way
        > > > > > > > > > which is important. If creators were to be granted
        > > sacrosanct
        > > > > > > rights
        > > > > > > > > > it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the
        > > expense
        > > > > > > of the
        > > > > > > > > > public.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > And not just at the expense of the public, but also
        at
        > > the
        > > > > > > expense of
        > > > > > > > > > creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to
        prevent
        > > from
        > > > > > > mashing
        > > > > > > > > > up your video have just as much right to make art as
        > > you do. If
        > > > > > > > > > what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why
        > > does
        > > > > > > your work
        > > > > > > > > > trump theirs?
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --
        > > > > > > Sull
        > > > > > > http://vlogdir.com (a project)
        > > > > > > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog)
        > > > > > > http://interdigitate.com (otherly)
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --
        > > > > Sull
        > > > > http://vlogdir.com (a project)
        > > > > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog)
        > > > > http://interdigitate.com (otherly)
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.