I still think their needs to be a standardized whitelist/blacklist for 3rd
party services that want to use content on their advertiser supported site.
If nothing is defined (in feed or page) then by default any site is
whitelisted. If a content creator wants more granular control over where
their content is aggregated on or re-hosted on, then they would specify the
allowed domains. Additionally, you could specify how much it costs to
re-distribute the content. If a violator is found, you send them a bill.
This is not applicable to content you are hosting on services with their own
TOS that may supersede your own terms. But it applies to those who host
content themselves and/or on let's say Amazon S3/EC2.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Steve Watkins <steve@...> wrote:
> How long ago did mefeedia get polluted with ad overload, and was it
> discussed on this list at all?
> Anybody know if there have been any more legal cases related to creative
> commons that get us any further along the road of working out what counts as
> 'commercial use'?
> For video aggregation & search engine sites, I tended to use google image
> search as a vague guide, in so much as if you embed the full media within
> your site, you have to abide by the license for that work.
> In practise I suppose it remains a grey area, and many people decided long
> ago that to fight eery site that makes use of peoples video's, is too big a
> task. This can lead to a more philosophical approach such as:
> Oh well, its publicity I suppose, and if the viewers love my vids but hate
> the ads they will find another destination to view the vids
> These sites are desperate, they probably arent making much money anyway,
> and its just a waste of my time trying to stop them earning peanuts or try
> to claim my share of the peanuts
> Having said that, approaching sites and complaining loudly tended to
> achieve results back when it was a lot of 'reputable web 2.0 companies
> trying to make a great image for themselves' but maybe we are beyond those
> times now?
> Bottom line is that video producers have rights, enforcing them is not a
> trivial task, but the most grotesque violators still deserve a good slagging
> off at least.
> Steve Elbows
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]