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

Re: videoronk & our cc licences

Expand Messages
  • David
    Several days ago Lucas characterized those who want to maintain full copyright control over their works as people engaging in victimization. Now Jay you say
    Message 1 of 38 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Several days ago Lucas characterized those who want to maintain full
      copyright control over their works as people engaging
      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 I'm
      suffering from victimization or that I'm whining. And in case you
      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 appeal
      to the crowd, but it doesn't make him wrong and it doesn't make you
      right.

      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" and "B."
      Operate on the ground rules of group "A" and the desires and wishes
      of people in group "B" are permissible. Everybody's happy. Operate
      on the ground rules of group "B" and the choices of those in
      group "A" are no longer allowable. People are unhappy, specifically
      people in group "A." If everyone respects copyright then people can
      limit the use of their material, that's "Group A" and other people
      can permit reuse, revlogging, derivative works, etc. by putting their
      work in the public domain or attaching the appropriate CC license to
      it, that's "Group B." Respect copyright and everyone's choices are
      permissible and everyone is repsected. If the people in group "B"
      force others to operate in a free-for-all, no copyright mashup world
      then they have taken the right away from people in group "A" to
      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 to
      repost in a networked environment, taking someone else's material for
      which you don't have permission is wrong. And the argument, "it's
      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 hope:
      One day, a serf turns to another serf and says, "Ivan, why do we take
      such abuse from the Czar." The second serf thinks about it and
      says, "Because that's the way it is, that's the way it's always been –
      my father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather – we've always
      accepted the abuse of the Czar." Funny joke right? No, it's a
      tragedy.


      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@...>
      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 includes
      special
      > > 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>
      > >
      <blip:picture>http://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746.
      jp
      > > 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 they
      don't
      > > exist yet -- we're including them in our own namespace right now
      so that
      > > our formal partners can pick up and use the data for attribution
      > > purposes.
      >
      > okay....so the info is all there if an aggregator site wants to read
      > it and provide titles and links.
      > I see Lucas' argument that its crazy for a vlogger to whine when his
      > video is posted by another site. But i think its important that we
      try
      > 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:
      >
      http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p132/marshal_rules/169957orjk5u57eg
      .jpg
      >
      > Jay
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > Here I am....
      > http://jaydedman.com
      >
    • David
      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
      Message 38 of 38 , Feb 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Hey David-
        >
        > Please don't take me out of context:
        > "I see Lucas' argument that its crazy for a vlogger to whine when
        his video
        > is posted by another site.
        > But i think its important that we try to help educate on linking or
        giving
        > attributing."
        >
        > I understand the argument that I cannot stop people from grabbing
        my videos
        > once they are online.
        > 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
        over it.
        > This is why I simply put a Creative Commons Attribution License on
        my
        > videos.
        > I'm fine with people remixing, posting, etc.....as long as they
        give me
        > attribution the way I ask.
        > (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
        what will
        > happen, is not always the same. These aggregator sites are sucking
        in videos
        > and run by people with different kinds of motives.
        > There will be people who just grab my video and say they made it,
        puts ads
        > around it, take a dump on it.
        >
        > 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
        the video
        > goes.
        > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_work
        > Add your own custom trailers here.
        >
        > --Work with this group and Creative Commons to educate aggregator
        sites.
        > Here's our working document now:
        > http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/
        > When a site comes online, we should approach the owners and let
        them know
        > the best way to play nice.
        > 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:
        > https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com/
        > List your own party....so we can all come together and make video
        about best
        > practices...that could be put on Youtube and other places. If we
        dont
        > practice what we preach, then there's no good examples to follow.
        >
        > So this is where I'm at on the issue.
        > Talk is good....but action is better.
        >
        > jay
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > On 2/1/07, David <castingtalent@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Several days ago Lucas characterized those who want to maintain
        full
        > > copyright control over their works as people engaging
        > > 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
        I'm
        > > suffering from victimization or that I'm whining. And in case you
        > > 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
        appeal
        > > to the crowd, but it doesn't make him wrong and it doesn't make
        you
        > > right.
        > >
        > > 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"
        and "B."
        > > Operate on the ground rules of group "A" and the desires and
        wishes
        > > of people in group "B" are permissible. Everybody's happy. Operate
        > > on the ground rules of group "B" and the choices of those in
        > > group "A" are no longer allowable. People are unhappy,
        specifically
        > > people in group "A." If everyone respects copyright then people
        can
        > > limit the use of their material, that's "Group A" and other people
        > > can permit reuse, revlogging, derivative works, etc. by putting
        their
        > > work in the public domain or attaching the appropriate CC license
        to
        > > it, that's "Group B." Respect copyright and everyone's choices are
        > > permissible and everyone is repsected. If the people in group "B"
        > > force others to operate in a free-for-all, no copyright mashup
        world
        > > then they have taken the right away from people in group "A" to
        > > 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
        to
        > > repost in a networked environment, taking someone else's material
        for
        > > which you don't have permission is wrong. And the argument, "it's
        > > 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
        hope:
        > > One day, a serf turns to another serf and says, "Ivan, why do we
        take
        > > such abuse from the Czar." The second serf thinks about it and
        > > says, "Because that's the way it is, that's the way it's always
        been –
        > > my father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather – we've always
        > > accepted the abuse of the Czar." Funny joke right? No, it's a
        > > tragedy.
        > >
        > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%
        40yahoogroups.com>,
        > > "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@>
        > >
        > > 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
        includes
        > > special
        > > > > 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>
        > > > >
        > >
        <blip:picture>http://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/user_photo_thatphoneguy746.
        > > jp
        > > > > 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
        they
        > > don't
        > > > > exist yet -- we're including them in our own namespace right
        now
        > > so that
        > > > > our formal partners can pick up and use the data for
        attribution
        > > > > purposes.
        > > >
        > > > okay....so the info is all there if an aggregator site wants to
        read
        > > > it and provide titles and links.
        > > > I see Lucas' argument that its crazy for a vlogger to whine
        when his
        > > > video is posted by another site. But i think its important that
        we
        > > try
        > > > 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:
        > > >
        > >
        http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p132/marshal_rules/169957orjk5u57eg
        > > .jpg
        > > >
        > > > Jay
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > Here I am....
        > > > http://jaydedman.com
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        > Here I am....
        > http://jaydedman.com
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.