Embedding the source is actually a great idea, or at least a flash version (7) that is recognizable. At Lulu.tv we added a link to the mp4, but anyone with a clue will see the other file
paths including avi's, and streaming ready 3gp's for viewing on cellphones. Google video also allows at least some
avi's to be downloaded... though I'm obviously partial to the first:)
Non copyrighted material would be listed as "public domain" which in essence would allow anyone to put their names on anything and lead to some potential unpleasantness for this co-operative content. This isn't to say that some stuff should just go in the public domain... I take video of the ocean all the time, that would be a perfect fit, or sunrises and sunsets... or news.... etc... Plus we wanted to make understanding CC licensing almost not neccessary.
An incredible amount of work, and we force interns to do it all while dangling the promise of potential employment, or free pizza over their heads to make sure they work very hard:) We actually have a kind of cool system for floating stuff to the "most likely to be seen" spots based on a combination of categorizing which our admins and moderators do. But in general between outright copyrighted stuff, and porn, watching content takes up a few full time jobs yeah. Thanks for the kudos btw, and watch for interesting stuff with music on the horizon...
Excellent point, as is the reason for copyright in the first place, initiated by England for Charles Dickens. He actually released his works in episode format prior to copyright so that printers wouldn't be able to just close the work and sell it. I usually hear this argument from young film students that are concerned their masterpieces will be pirated. There are two arguments to remember when thinking about protecting your valuable ip rights to your work. First... if no one sees it... it will never become wildly popular and the next stuff you do will be as obscure as the original. Second, these are your works and any site worth dealing with will respect the creators rights. The creative commons license comes in a great many flavors. We have chosen one, that by uploading you agree to. It precludes this as a possibility - by-nc-nd. If you are the creator... at lulu.tv we will honor your rights. Which removes the probability of anyone getting the credit for a work other than the originator. Additionally we are paying based on traffic and parcipitation, not just single point sales. The more people that come to the site, the more likely your stuff is to be seen. The more likely it is to be seen, the more likely you are to be paid.
So in short if Fox came and posted family guy, others couldn't take it and upload it for commercial gain. They could share it and give credit back to the originator though. Plus they would probably win a great portion of the pool, and get to be known as generally good guys:)
Killer is an interesting phrase. It would indicate that you are quashing the life from the original. The issue really is that people have a bunch of problems. One of those is that they want to share videos with their friends, another they want to share with their fam. The last is that they want to make some cash because their work doesn't actually suck, or isnt incredibly personal. Lulu.tv is answering the third, the first, and partially the second, and there is plenty of room for businesses in this space. How many want to service just the networks? Google, Itunes etc... How many want to just service off revenue... well thats a much bigger number. Or us with a co-op... any which way its not killing anything, there are soooo many problems that need to be addressed that there is room for plenty of companies in this space. The ones that are doing whats right for the end producer while finding a way to keep the lights on will succeed, those trying to answer their own problems will not. So sayeth the killer-thread-killer.... So in short, I concur.
As long as its creative commons licensed or public domain nuthin. In fact I would recommend starting with the archive.org content as a great place for public domain content, especially if you are into mashups or mouseovers. Or if you have an afternoon to burn while waiting for a kernel recompile, you can make something like catassterpiece theatre... which while no picasso, sure is fun to spread around. I have grabbed a bunch of the public domain stuff I'm interested in, like the old superman and popeye toons, but there are way more that would be cool to see redone... keystone cops linux commercial mashup anyone?
The last thing we want to encourage is FUD, and the first thing we want to do is bring the cash back to the creators for their works. The more cash the better. Lulu itself is dedicated to helping creators handle their IP, and if you check out lulu.com we have paid authors a great deal of cash off the 80/20 split. We have no interest in changing the percentage, and we love to pay creators.
The truth is we are trying to change the way media rights are handled. We have a few professionals in the system already that have agreed to do their webisodes on Lulu.tv instead of selling them through traditional channels. These would normally be copyrighted works with all the traditional horror for people that want to share the works. Instead they are licensed under the creative commons license and go out with all our feeds for use on ipods, psp's, or however you want to view them. We are actually about to launch a bittorrent server to make sure the word gets out.
All that being said, if its not clear we would appreciate deeply suggestions to make sure that the message that we are providing creators a new way to make money with a creative commons based approach is as straight forward as humanly possible.
Lulu.tv is actually all creative commons. So copyrighted materials will not get paid. Stealing an episode of family guy will get you a big fat 0 (unless you created it). We do not endorse copyright infringement, but instead wish to replace it with CC licensing for all. Technically we aren't paying for the shows though either, we are paying based on a bunch of factors which mostly include getting lots of people to come participate in the site.
Speaking of video business models, Bob Young is in the NYTimes this morning covering www.lulu.tv and the business model of a creator co-op. Bob Young was actually talking specifically about
the possibilities of sharing advertising back in his presentation at Linuxworld.
It is good that open source folks are focusing on the business models for Internet Video as this is another place that if we are not careful will get yanked away from joe public and put into the hands of execs and studios that push their cookie cutter dreams all over my viewing experience... and far more importantly take the cash that should be going to creators.
So it seems that the obvious applications for this would come in a couple of old discussions. First space exploration. When it takes 100+years to reach a destination it would be nice to arrive somewhat in shape. Second what if I just don't like the current administration? Put me to sleep for a few millenia and wake me up later!
In all honesty though has anyone ever thought of hibernation as a solution to overpopulation? Presumably the reason we are all so busy propogating the species is the sense that we don't just want our races DNA to help the race thrive, we want OUR DNA to do it... leaving a legacy. This is an interesting way to really leave a legacy.... yourself, with no children needed. Freeze ya, bag ya and store ya on the moon. Though the possibility of being revived several generations later and being younger than your great great great.... is interesting too. Also does you life insurance still pay out at 99+1.5? Or better still can you get government benefits while sleeping. Stick 100 bucks in a 100 stocks and go hibernate for 50 years to see how close you are to retiring!
The point seems pretty clear. This lawsuit is lame.
Ya know everytime I say we're trying to change the world of IP around here he corrects me and makes me utter the mantra of making the world a better place. So in light of Bob constantly trying to keep the rightous prize in sight, I say shove off ya hosers, Id prefer to avoid beating up on the good guys that are all aboot protecting against corporate giants doing stupid things.
Oh yeah and he is CEO of www.lulu.com not Red Hat, eh?
Just as a thought lets say gravity as we know it isn't exactly what we think it is. In fact empty space, is similar on a molecular level to molasses. Or to make up a better description... slow matter. The theory would go something like this:
Matter that is not being "touched" or acted upon is idle and the more idle it becomes the less structure it has. Finally breaking down into a quiet string. At this point if there is not a force acting on the slow matter it will act as a broken subway turnstyle, pulling energy and modifying direction from anything interacting with it and brining it back into a agitated state.
However, with proper agitation, such as the force emitted by a rotating object, or high energy emission from a star the slow matter becomes active and the turnstyle starts letting fares through without charge. Which would make "gravity" as we know it the opposite of what we know... since the sun is fundamentally a massive agitator the environment allows uninterrupted movement, and since our planet is spinning it keeps us from becoming piles of squish.. just not squish the way we normally think of it.
Whats this mad line of reasoning tell us? Nothing, except getting out of the solar system might be more difficult than we originally thought, spaceships spinning in movies was more accurate than we could have guessed, antigravity might be possible by slowing matter, and as usual answers are as plentiful and accurate as opinions and orifices, everybodys got one, and can never be certain of whats going to come of one.
Excellent, I can stream to my computer, and using the other technology meant to enable connection of computers beyond the computer world, send the information via bluetooth to my fridge with the tv mounted in it.
Great, I was just complaining the other day that my computer is a lazy, good for nothing document editor. Here I sit with 3ghz and a gig of ram and nothing to actually process other than ps streams.
Since its based on working your computers resources perhaps other names could possibly be "RPOW by Jake"? Or "RPOW's of steel"?
Seriously, what happens next year when its not computationally expensive to compute the tokens? Ew, or what if you are a clever spammer with a degree in electrical engineering and the time to make your own token generating card to sell to all the other spammers on ebay for a small fortune (or you could prove it works by spamming them with advertisements...)?
Well, its always good to have another device to keep honest folks honest I guess.
There is another cool form of ram drive, based on Sdram from a company called Texas Memory Systems. These aren't that far off the 1k a gig number and aren't prone to the write failures that flash cards inherently succumb to. The Systems are called "RamSan"'s, and actually have built in battery back up with a write system on failure that dumps data to a disk.
They come in up to 1Terabyte flavors and from the tech specs blow most other systems out of the water on IOPS. They also have partners in the form of SGI/SUN/IBM/Dell that I could find. Worth a looksie if your into seriously geeky, and seriously fast storage systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Embedding the source is actually a great idea, or at least a flash version (7) that is recognizable. At Lulu.tv we added a link to the mp4, but anyone with a clue will see the other file paths including avi's, and streaming ready 3gp's for viewing on cellphones. Google video also allows at least some avi's to be downloaded... though I'm obviously partial to the first:)
Non copyrighted material would be listed as "public domain" which in essence would allow anyone to put their names on anything and lead to some potential unpleasantness for this co-operative content. This isn't to say that some stuff should just go in the public domain... I take video of the ocean all the time, that would be a perfect fit, or sunrises and sunsets... or news.... etc... Plus we wanted to make understanding CC licensing almost not neccessary.
An incredible amount of work, and we force interns to do it all while dangling the promise of potential employment, or free pizza over their heads to make sure they work very hard:) We actually have a kind of cool system for floating stuff to the "most likely to be seen" spots based on a combination of categorizing which our admins and moderators do. But in general between outright copyrighted stuff, and porn, watching content takes up a few full time jobs yeah. Thanks for the kudos btw, and watch for interesting stuff with music on the horizon...
Excellent point, as is the reason for copyright in the first place, initiated by England for Charles Dickens. He actually released his works in episode format prior to copyright so that printers wouldn't be able to just close the work and sell it. I usually hear this argument from young film students that are concerned their masterpieces will be pirated. There are two arguments to remember when thinking about protecting your valuable ip rights to your work. First... if no one sees it... it will never become wildly popular and the next stuff you do will be as obscure as the original. Second, these are your works and any site worth dealing with will respect the creators rights. The creative commons license comes in a great many flavors. We have chosen one, that by uploading you agree to. It precludes this as a possibility - by-nc-nd. If you are the creator... at lulu.tv we will honor your rights. Which removes the probability of anyone getting the credit for a work other than the originator. Additionally we are paying based on traffic and parcipitation, not just single point sales. The more people that come to the site, the more likely your stuff is to be seen. The more likely it is to be seen, the more likely you are to be paid.
So in short if Fox came and posted family guy, others couldn't take it and upload it for commercial gain. They could share it and give credit back to the originator though. Plus they would probably win a great portion of the pool, and get to be known as generally good guys:)
Foamy is my hero btw.
Killer is an interesting phrase. It would indicate that you are quashing the life from the original. The issue really is that people have a bunch of problems. One of those is that they want to share videos with their friends, another they want to share with their fam. The last is that they want to make some cash because their work doesn't actually suck, or isnt incredibly personal. Lulu.tv is answering the third, the first, and partially the second, and there is plenty of room for businesses in this space. How many want to service just the networks? Google, Itunes etc... How many want to just service off revenue... well thats a much bigger number. Or us with a co-op... any which way its not killing anything, there are soooo many problems that need to be addressed that there is room for plenty of companies in this space. The ones that are doing whats right for the end producer while finding a way to keep the lights on will succeed, those trying to answer their own problems will not. So sayeth the killer-thread-killer.... So in short, I concur.
As long as its creative commons licensed or public domain nuthin. In fact I would recommend starting with the archive.org content as a great place for public domain content, especially if you are into mashups or mouseovers. Or if you have an afternoon to burn while waiting for a kernel recompile, you can make something like catassterpiece theatre... which while no picasso, sure is fun to spread around. I have grabbed a bunch of the public domain stuff I'm interested in, like the old superman and popeye toons, but there are way more that would be cool to see redone... keystone cops linux commercial mashup anyone?
The last thing we want to encourage is FUD, and the first thing we want to do is bring the cash back to the creators for their works. The more cash the better. Lulu itself is dedicated to helping creators handle their IP, and if you check out lulu.com we have paid authors a great deal of cash off the 80/20 split. We have no interest in changing the percentage, and we love to pay creators.
The truth is we are trying to change the way media rights are handled. We have a few professionals in the system already that have agreed to do their webisodes on Lulu.tv instead of selling them through traditional channels. These would normally be copyrighted works with all the traditional horror for people that want to share the works. Instead they are licensed under the creative commons license and go out with all our feeds for use on ipods, psp's, or however you want to view them. We are actually about to launch a bittorrent server to make sure the word gets out.
All that being said, if its not clear we would appreciate deeply suggestions to make sure that the message that we are providing creators a new way to make money with a creative commons based approach is as straight forward as humanly possible.
Dont forget to yell "Get off my lawn" at the monitor when you see these videos:)
Lulu.tv is actually all creative commons. So copyrighted materials will not get paid. Stealing an episode of family guy will get you a big fat 0 (unless you created it). We do not endorse copyright infringement, but instead wish to replace it with CC licensing for all. Technically we aren't paying for the shows though either, we are paying based on a bunch of factors which mostly include getting lots of people to come participate in the site.
Speaking of video business models, Bob Young is in the NYTimes this morning covering www.lulu.tv and the business model of a creator co-op. Bob Young was actually talking specifically about the possibilities of sharing advertising back in his presentation at Linuxworld.
It is good that open source folks are focusing on the business models for Internet Video as this is another place that if we are not careful will get yanked away from joe public and put into the hands of execs and studios that push their cookie cutter dreams all over my viewing experience... and far more importantly take the cash that should be going to creators.
So it seems that the obvious applications for this would come in a couple of old discussions. First space exploration. When it takes 100+years to reach a destination it would be nice to arrive somewhat in shape. Second what if I just don't like the current administration? Put me to sleep for a few millenia and wake me up later!
In all honesty though has anyone ever thought of hibernation as a solution to overpopulation? Presumably the reason we are all so busy propogating the species is the sense that we don't just want our races DNA to help the race thrive, we want OUR DNA to do it... leaving a legacy. This is an interesting way to really leave a legacy.... yourself, with no children needed. Freeze ya, bag ya and store ya on the moon. Though the possibility of being revived several generations later and being younger than your great great great.... is interesting too. Also does you life insurance still pay out at 99+1.5? Or better still can you get government benefits while sleeping. Stick 100 bucks in a 100 stocks and go hibernate for 50 years to see how close you are to retiring!
The point seems pretty clear. This lawsuit is lame.
Ya know everytime I say we're trying to change the world of IP around here he corrects me and makes me utter the mantra of making the world a better place. So in light of Bob constantly trying to keep the rightous prize in sight, I say shove off ya hosers, Id prefer to avoid beating up on the good guys that are all aboot protecting against corporate giants doing stupid things.
Oh yeah and he is CEO of www.lulu.com not Red Hat, eh?
Matter that is not being "touched" or acted upon is idle and the more idle it becomes the less structure it has. Finally breaking down into a quiet string. At this point if there is not a force acting on the slow matter it will act as a broken subway turnstyle, pulling energy and modifying direction from anything interacting with it and brining it back into a agitated state.
However, with proper agitation, such as the force emitted by a rotating object, or high energy emission from a star the slow matter becomes active and the turnstyle starts letting fares through without charge. Which would make "gravity" as we know it the opposite of what we know... since the sun is fundamentally a massive agitator the environment allows uninterrupted movement, and since our planet is spinning it keeps us from becoming piles of squish.. just not squish the way we normally think of it.
Whats this mad line of reasoning tell us? Nothing, except getting out of the solar system might be more difficult than we originally thought, spaceships spinning in movies was more accurate than we could have guessed, antigravity might be possible by slowing matter, and as usual answers are as plentiful and accurate as opinions and orifices, everybodys got one, and can never be certain of whats going to come of one.
Since its based on working your computers resources perhaps other names could possibly be "RPOW by Jake"? Or "RPOW's of steel"?
Seriously, what happens next year when its not computationally expensive to compute the tokens? Ew, or what if you are a clever spammer with a degree in electrical engineering and the time to make your own token generating card to sell to all the other spammers on ebay for a small fortune (or you could prove it works by spamming them with advertisements...)?
Well, its always good to have another device to keep honest folks honest I guess.
They come in up to 1Terabyte flavors and from the tech specs blow most other systems out of the water on IOPS. They also have partners in the form of SGI/SUN/IBM/Dell that I could find. Worth a looksie if your into seriously geeky, and seriously fast storage systems.