This has been an interesting thread. We've actually been using YouTube for a client project right now http://www.inkisit.com for Kodak. I actually tried on their behalf to investigate a more direct relationship with them but to no avail. In particular didn't want to find ourselves up a creek one day if they took us down for any variety of reasons. We've been posting the video to all the broadband video sharing sites as a back up method but trying to consolidate things via YouTube. At the same time I have a feeling that the corporate use of these sites is what is probably making it harder for small guys in a way.
On a separate note, this same client was thinking of expanding it's outreach efforts to bloggers, podcasters, etc. and involve them in this "Ink Is It" talk show, mainly around issues of printing and the high cost of ink. Your show/blog doesn't even need to focus on these issues or even on technology - mainly they want to show how the problem has impacted everybody and doesn't discriminate. Kodak is coming out with a new line of inkjet printers in March that hopes to dirupt the model. So I'm in the midst of a hunt for folks that are open to working with advertisers in different ways, but the hunt is kind of a slog right now. Is it a direct person to person effort (which is what we've been conducting) or is there a clearinghouse of sorts to present the pitch of how we'd like to work with folks and see if there is interest? I figured in some ways this message list might be the best forum to start the conversation since a lot of the more vocal folks are right here. Thanks, Michael http://www.animaxent.com http://www.arnoldspeaks.com http://www.inkisit.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Right that's exactly the problem. > > We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that is built on these > crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own site, you're still at > the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. > > Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to corporate structure > that hosts it. > > Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, staking your little > claim on the net and building traffic, etc. > > Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are the value. > YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the value came from the > people there. Same with MySpace. > > But the legal structures and way of thinking have not caught up to > this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. And your rights are > different each site you go to. > > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that govern this new user > generated reality that gives we the users basic rights wherever we go. > > That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and it will take a > lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we don't tackle this > area, the door for new voices that has been opened a crack will get > slammed shut by the media monopolies. > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@> wrote: > > > > Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of action, but I think the > > arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an internet-wide problem. To > > cover themselves, just about every hosting service Ive ever seen has > > terms and conditions about what content is acceptable, and many of the > > terms are vague. > > > > People certainly should draw attention to services which are > > trigger-happy about removing stuff without good cause. Youtube are > > likely to show up as an offender a lot because of their sheer size, > > and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to save themselves > > from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way that also removes some > > legitimate content, and this is not good or nice to their users for > > them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein called for a boycott > > on youtube because he was banned and though it was due to being gay or > > hosting gay content, whereas after some research I thought it was more > > likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots of naked breasts, > > and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts for profit but the > > mainstream has a nipple phobia. > > > > So anyway theoretically most services are flawed in the sense that > > almost anybody could find their content falling foul of the terms & > > conditions, even if their content is innocent enough, and as far as I > > know the services dont even have an obligation to contact people who > > are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal issues will stop > > terms & conditions from changing that much, so the best we can hope > > for is that in practice many services are careful, think of their > > users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of material before > > hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the reasons behind > > youtubes removal of the content in this case, its certainly sloppy and > > shows no sense of responsibility to users who upload legitimate videos. > > > > As for the grey area where content might actually be deemed offensive > > or innapropriate, offends certain people, causes a stink and gets > > banned, I guess those involved in any way with sex or porn side of > > video have experience of this sort of thing. Even companies that > > appear to have enlightened attitude towards such things, may change > > policy at any time and suddenly crackdown on such content. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <kd1s@> wrote: > > > > > > In light of YouTube/Google's treatment of Nick Gisburne I've removed > > > all my videos on YouTube and also am in the process of removing my > > > blogger page. To hell with YouTube and Google and their arbitrary > > > acceptable use policies. > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Nichols" > > > <digitalfilmmaker@> wrote: > > > > > > > > That really sucks man. > > > > > > > > I think the stuff we're working on with MySpace ties in directly > with > > > > situations like this -- site proclaming to be open and community > > > > based, but are just fronts for corporate interests. > > > > > > > > And if you cross one of their arbitrary lines set fourth in their > > > > constantly evolving Terms of Use they can cancel you, or filter > > you out. > > > > > > > > I think that's the next fight -- establishing what is public > space and > > > > who "owns" it and what users rights are in this new user generated > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Rosenzweig" <rosenz@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I tried to log on to our YouTube account today and got the message > > > "Your > > > > > account has now been permanently disabled." > > > > > > > > > > It was our Daily Vlog account, which is a 5-minute-per-day vlog > > > from the > > > > > office. Pure vlog -- just us talking about various topics. > Couldn't > > > > possibly > > > > > be anything there they want to shut down, we don't even deal with > > > > sensitive > > > > > issues. Usually we talk about our lives, or what's going on in > > > > entertainment > > > > > or tech. And there certainly can't be any intellectual property > > > issues, > > > > > unless someone patented "having a conversation on a sofa" and I am > > > > not aware > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > You can see for yourself what the daily vlog is about by > checking it > > > > out at > > > > > http://thedailyvlog.com. You can see there is no reason why > YouTube > > > > would > > > > > want it removed. > > > > > > > > > > Anyone else had this happen to them? I'm certainly glad we don't > > > rely on > > > > > their as our main means of distribution. In fact, I may pull down > > > > our other > > > > > accounts. No point building an audience there just to have them > > > > carelessly > > > > > destroy it. > > > > > -- > > > > > Gary Rosenzweig > > > > > CleverMedia TV > > > > > rosenz@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
