111–118 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't affect the non-subscribing users. They will see ads either way. It is the artists and the subscribers who would be adversely affected by artists that do not participate.
It is the artists ... who would be adversely affected by artists that do not participate. Adverse affects for independent artists who do not sign up translate to adverse affects for non-subscribers that want to watch those artists on YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally think there should be a protocol that would turn everything into one big social network where you could sign up on any server and then OAuth to other servers. We are building it: http://platform.qbix.com (Better than Diaspora* :)
Did you consider an open-source or dual-licensing business model? See http://www.1060research.com/products/ for an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally think there should be a protocol that would turn everything into one big social network where you could sign up on any server and then OAuth to other servers. We are building it: http://platform.qbix.com (Better than Diaspora* :)
That was a slick transition from healthy conversation to self promotion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be great for videos to default to a permissive license, but I don't see how that would change anything fundamentally with regard to copyright problems. You'd still have to deal with people uploading whatever they want, and so you'd still have to deal with DMCA takedowns, and you'd still have to deal with the vast gray area of fair use (remixes, snippets of songs playing in the background, parody and comedy,…
The point is it is not ambiguous. I think the hardest part with video content is trying to figure out the boundary line. But like I said, whether or not you have copyright assignment rights is really straightforward.
And you'll still have hordes of unhappy users when you take down their Let's Play videos and videos of their kids when they had Prince playing on their computer in another room of the house.
Upon reflection , I think this article (and others like it) are starting from the wrong place and end up confusing the issue more than illuminating it. I think the right place to start is that Google wants to offer a premium, ad-free YouTube service. Given that, what happens to videos that are ad-supported today: 1. They participate and are ad-supported for free users and subscription-supported for premium users. Coo…
The premium ad-free service is already here: youtube-dl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statement "youtube simply won't have the license to show them anymore" reads drastically different from "His confirmation that YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier" What is your source for the first - i.e. where are artists revoking YouTube's license to display their videos?
They are quoting one side of the negotiation that is trying to pressure youtube for better terms, "blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down. Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. What is happening here isn't youtube taking down the music of 'individuals' that have up…
Of course they can, it's their service.
rm "$VIDEO"Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you consider an open-source or dual-licensing business model? See http://www.1060research.com/products/ for an example.
Elaborate :)
http://www.1060research.com/resources/#open
Essentially, if the code that uses the framework is open-source, then the framework can be used with a public license at no charge. If the code that users the framework is proprietary, then the framework has a license fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wanted to try a media content site (obviously based on open standards) where to avoid the whole DMCA mess you'd require all content to be relicensed under a CC license (of your choice). That means if you don't own licensing rights, which is very obvious if you even include third party material, you can't upload it. That means personal video is entirely safe, and anything you personally record is always sa…
> I keep throwing it around and if I ever met a few folks interested in trying it I'd definitely be up for giving it a major go - I think its the inevitable "maximal" solution to intellectual content. I've looked at business models for all-open content with strong attribution. One question is, how do you protect the business from free-riding competitors who are better capitalized and want to "enclose the public commo…