wrong use

Andreas, you are so totally *Correct*, i mean *Right*- that is is really *Wrong*.

If we put such limits on how technologies are to be used it would not allow for the kinds of
uses we didn't even know could exist.

Freespeeches.net is suprising example of how the ability to mix media can be used. I have
stopped in enough times to get the feel for what he is doing and I am digging it. You can
catch an interesting highlight pulled from the vast sea of televised political speeches. Each
short (quick to download !) clip is accompanied with a few lines of text that point to what
one might consider while watching it. Good clean edutainment, fast and simple to use. It is
encouraging people to be critical media consumers. Something, i think most would agree
is of utmost importance.

you are fighting a loosing battle (if it IS a battle I'll be on the opposite side). As prolific
content maker, I deeply understand the need to protect ones own work, or be able to
track it. But once you put it out there you don't get to control its use. You can have it both
ways unless you have lots and lots of money and can protect your precious unique ideas
through threat of litigation. Then you and your fabu idea will be sad and alone.

YOU CAN"T BREAK THE WEB (note to self: possible title for my next book).
god forbid its should become more web like or convoluted than it already is
maybe the wild web not a place for people who think this way?

HYPERTEXT IS OVERRATED (note to self; possible title for book after next). We do need
'curators of content' and 'reblogs'. There's a lot out there. Some people don't make
interesting original content. Those that do, don't often put it in places where it could be
most relevant.

As history proves people will use technologies however they want to, whether or not they
understand how it works. What we can do is offer tools, be supportive of what we respond
to (agro name calling is just bizarre!), be open to new ways of doing things, be fearless in
own own practices.

I do agree that to mark ones own intellectual property on the internet in the way that it is
posted is a great option to have.

questions im thinkng about:
if i dissagree with the content of a site linked to one linked to mine should i cut ties? To
what extent should I curate / control context of my content? Is it possible to be exclusive
on the web?


— In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@s…> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:33:52 -0400, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@g…>
> wrote:
> > i mean, somehow feedster, radio userland, are making RSS feeds that
> > put videos as enclosures.
> > it must be possible to do it consistently.
> It's not hard to take a website and extract all links to videos and then
> add those as enclosures.
> It's also a wrong use of enclosures (more below).
> > I know this does not lend itself to the hyperlink nature of the web.
> > this is different.
> I must've not been explaining things well enough. RSS is a good
> technology, I like it. I even use it a lot in my daily routine. But it
> needs to be used right.
> RSS is a transport format. It transports content that exists elsewhere,
> nothing else (that's why 'syndication' is in the name). For RSS to work it
> needs to represent the content it is representing correctly. If there is
> misrepresentation the whole idea of RSS goes out the window. Imagine an
> RSS feed where the titles in the feed are not the same as the titles on
> the website. That's one type of representation.
> Mindlessly adding all linked videos as enclosures is a sure way to hell.
> Errr, I mean a sure way to get misrepresentation in your feed. Take the
> some different cases I've mentioned.
> a) I link to one of Jay's videos in one of my blog posts. He has added a
> video on how to get video from your computer to your tv. I think it's a
> good video and I write some commentary on the subject and link people to
> Jay's video.
> Jay's video should not be enclosed in my feed. I'm only making a reference
> to his video. His video is not a part of my blog post and thus it
> shouldn't be added as an enclosure. However if some software out there
> adds Jay's video as an enclosure in my feed we have misrepresentation, a
> bad bad feed.
> b) I link to one of my own videos using the exact same syntax as above.
> The difference is that the video is one of my own (only stored on another
> server because I don't have space to host it myself). This time the video
> *is* a part of my blog post – it is in fact the main content of my blog
> post. It obviously *should* be included in my feed as an enclosure – if it
> *isn't* added we have misrepresentation (the feed doesn't contain the same
> information as the content it represents).
> The whole problem is that there is no way for software to distinguish
> between case a) and case b). Or rather there is if your blogging software
> can handle it, but since no blogging software handles feeds with
> enclosures out of the box. It is simply not logically possible for
> software to make that distinction because the links in a) and b) look
> exactly the same to the software.
> *That's* why you need to mark up the videos that are a part of your
> content. And you need to do that in the blog post content, not by adding
> something to your feed (your feed-creator needs to pick up on the content
> and represent that data). That's why you use use the rel="alternate" so
> your feed-creator knows which videos are your own, and which videos are
> just links to other people's videos.
> I can give you an example with video comments too if you'd like. The
> results are much more destructive there (there is still more below).
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:02:11 -0400, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@g…>
> wrote:
> > I'm not so concerned with the *right* videos. If someone is linking to
> > a video in their blog entry, obviously they would like me to check it
> > out — whether its their own creation or someone else's.
> The problem is with the vocabulary of the feed is being raped (all the
> stuff above). Additionally: By enclosing something in RSS you are saying
> it's an integral part of your blog post, when in reality it's someone
> else's work. Those who see your feed will see *you* as the author of
> someone else's work. I'm sorry to bring it up, but that's not only a bad
> idea, it's illegal. Unless you have explicit permission you cannot
> re-distribute the work of others like that.
> > Getting it as an
> > enclosure is just another way of accessing that content — what
> > difference does it make if I click a hyperlink in a web browser or
> > suck it down with some type of aggregator?
> It's not just another way of getting the content. If it's done right we
> have no problems, but if the RSS feed misrepresents the content, by
> changing the content (eg. by adding a video that is not a part of the
> content, but only a referenced video) you have a problem. Again RSS is a
> transport format, not a format for saving content.
> – Andreas
> —
> Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
> File Thingie – PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>