YouDem, YouTube

Massimo Mantellini points out the disappointing approach followed by PD (the Italian Democratic Party) in the license agreement with users contributing to their soon-to-be-launched web TV: PD will have the rights to do anything they want with the content, but those rights are not exclusive (i.e. the user will retain the right to do anything they want with it – elsewhere).

There is nothing evil in that, just wasting an opportunity to create a two-way relationship. Maybe there is no specific reason for this, just lack of attention to details, but in a grassroots-wannabe initiative this is unforgivable.

Commenters to Mantellini’s post are also saying that it is not such a strange thing to do: after all, YouTube does the same. But I find really inappropriate to compare a consensus-creating machine to a profit-making one…

  • Fabio |

    @Guido – I see your point: that’s where problems would indeed arise – and even with a correct, respectful form of licensing. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Guido |

    Fabio, I don’t see licensing as a major issue here. The real problem, and the big difference wrt YouTube and simila, is how the content will be selected and organized:
    “C’è una redazione che organizza i contenuti in relazione ad una linea editoriale che può arricchirsi e modellarsi anche a fronte della discussione tra i membri della community” (too lazy to translate it in English, sorry)

  • mfp |

    The only thing I’m nailing down is you. You – and many many many others – are the central point of the issue.
    All the rest is non sense:
    – what does it mean “wasting an opportunity to create a two-way relationship” speaking about self-serving and self-perpetuating entities?
    Once we are speaking about those entities, two-way relationship is impossible… that’s why the conclusion of this trial is a dictatorship wheter you explicitly want a one-to-many relationship or you fake a two-way one (btw, saying this I’m not pretending to predict the future; I’m just stating what have already been in the past).
    – what does it mean “political should be closer to no-profit than to business”? Have you ever read Gandhi? Have you ever tought that a politician have to be disinterested, regardless of social and business revenues?
    – over all: what does it mean complaining about Hope? Blog-show business?
    bwuahahhahahhaah! Suckers.

  • Fabio |

    @mfp – so you’ve nailed down the central point of the issue: in my opinion, political should be closer to “no profit” than to “business”. Self-serving and self-perpetuating (?) might be relevant to both.

  • mfp |

    Internet Archive is a no profit, no self-serving, no self-perpetuating, project. Ie: it’s not a valid example beacouse can’t be compared with business or political projects. (Anyway, if you don’t agree with me, please quote the relevant parts of its ToU)

  Post Precedente
Post Successivo