I blogged about this about a month or two ago when they were still developing and testing and I didn't really understand what was going on. I signed up as a 'tester', although I have to admit that I really didn't use the app. Today, I received an email about changes to the site and the application and now I see what they were trying to do and it is actually pretty interesting. Once you signup for abazab you receive code snippets that allow you to insert your own 'abazab playbox' into any website (Myspace, your blog, you get the idea). You can then send video from your mobile phone (or from a webam or pc) to your playbox and it shows up on the website instantaneously. You can even send video comments to your friends' playbox's or share a playbox with a group of people. Right now, they only support certain phone models with service through Cingular, Verizon or T-mobile (big surprise..Sprint/Nextel sucks). Obviously, something like this will probably breed a lot of stupidity, but if used for relevant purposes, it is definitely very cool, especially since the playbox is completely independent of any particular social networking website. (Though I have to say, I do hate their name)

Continue reading to see whats new

From the email:

* You can mark messages as private so that only you can view them in your Playbox when you are logged in.
* You can send private video messages to other abazab users that only they can watch.
* You can moderate and approve video comments coming in to your abazab Playbox before they’re published to the world.
* You can choose and change what you want for your default outgoing video clip.

Posted by Cat at 12:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Another article published early this month in the New Scientist that suggests that the NSA is monitoring people using online resources. This surprises me, or rather bothers me, much less then the article I previously blogged about concenring AT&T new privacy policy. It makes sense that the government would attempt to use people's information on various social networking sites to develop elaborate profiles. It may be completely ridiculous, but lets face it, the information is public so it was bound to happen. Perhaps this is an example of why it is important to be careful when posting information about yourself that is so easily accesible to anyone. (And an argument for providing anonimity protection for people who don't want to be identified with certain posted information on sites that communicate via media.)

Posted by Cat at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to Megan for finding these statistics while doing research for our paper for the Identity and Identification in a Networked World: A Multidisciplinary
Graduate Student Symposium.

Nothing too surprising here. Myspace was number one, of course, with a 367% one year growth and the highest user retention rate. YouTube was number five with 12.5 million unigue users in about nine months. According to the Nielsen/NetRatings' latest figures, the Top 10 social-networking sites now reach a whopping 45% of active Web users, Together, the ten sites have grown 47% in the past year (from 46.8 million unique visitors in April 2005 to 68.8 million last month).

Posted by Cat at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today I received an email from David Todd at eyespot:

Hi Cat,
Thanks for the posts. It's nice to see people recognize the value of the ajax editor as compared to flash.We are listening and will be implementing more community features as soon as we can.
Best,
Dave
PS Say hi to Dan O'Sullivan at ITP for me.

I have to say, it is nice to know that people actually are listening (and reading cat's mind eye). Interestingly, after reading more about eyespot's ajax editor, I have become very particial to using ajax for freeformed instead of flash. More research on the pros and cons as related to our specific needs is needed, however.

Also very interesting that David knows Dan O'Sullivan...perhaps thats why I originally received the eyespot link from him.

Posted by Cat at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Until I read this article, I had no idea that eyespot was using a javascript video editor. I also had no idea that they had competition in the form of Motionbox and Jumpcut. I checked out these two sites. Motionbox was by far my favorite in terms of user interface and overall design. What can I say, I love the concept of the tag cloud (even though tagging is somewhat dead). However, Jumpcut seems to have a much wider user base and additional features, such as the inclusion of photos, event notification, commenting and a differentiation between 'clips' and movies that make it much more interesting. Both websites include the ability to create and join groups, although Motionbox seems to have very few. Jumpcut also provides users with the absolute url of any selected video and code to embed the video (yay for myspace users...I guess...although this is obviously useful for many other reasons), while Motionbox provides users with the ability to share videos with others via email or link to it via its url. Both applications use flash for editing purposes. I still think that eyespot's new fuctionality, especially their mobile posting capabilty, make them a much more interesting app, but I would still LOVE to make comments on things (if not tag stuff)...maybe they're listening...

Posted by Cat at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Unfinished....meaning I'm not completely happy with it.

Download file

Posted by Cat at 08:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Today was my first day of Design and Development with Flash with Eric Socolofsky. Given that I have played with Flash sparringly since Flash 4, I figured it was time to actually learn about it the right way, especially actionscript. Given the shortness of the class, I am not sure how much I will actually absorb, but Nanna and I are hoping to learn enough to start creating freeformed's video forum's in Flash and talking to php, and thus a database, with actionscript. Ultimately, we are probably looking to start playing with adding supplementary information, such as tags and comments, to frames of video, as well as other interesting features to expand the video forum user interface. On a more simple note, we are hoping to create animations for the site that explain the process of using freeformed, mobile posting and site navigation.

Posted by Cat at 08:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In a recent blog post by Alex Bisceglie, he references an article in the New York Times that suggests that there is a room that exists inside of AT&T in which intelligence agents from the NSA are monitoring all data flowing through their networks. While it is unclear from the article how true this actually is, I would suspect that it is not merely rumor. In this post, Alex suggests that it is less dangerous to have the government monitoring such information then members of the private sector. Initially, I disagreed. However, I can see his point. Our government is notoriously incapable of handling relevant intelligence information, let alone loads of possibly irrelevant data. In either case, I came to the conclusion that its probably all the same. The government is basically owned by large private corporation anyway. My initial thinking was that governments, in general, yield more power over individual people then corporations do and thus their obtaining of personal/private information and communications, and their ability to utilize such information for censorship purposes, illegal imprisonment, etc., is more dangerous. But I think the assumption that most of what they obtain is being filtered through inhuman robots is probably correct. The problem is, sometimes what a government perceives to be a threat is actually not and given the agenda and intelligence level of the people determining the context of 'threat' in most governmental intelligence agencies, I think it is still very scary.

Posted by Cat at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to Alex for pointing me to another interesting article relevant to my current interest in protecting mobile phone users' data and privacy. And yes, this is a shameless reposting of information, but I felt it was too important to pass up. In discussion on the importance of protecting human rights activists and ordinary citizens from their governments when transmitting and posting sensitive information and media in countries in turmoil, specifically many African countries, none of us in the freeformed group ever considered that concern over such blatant invasions of privacy were as relevant here yet (not so much because we thought the government wasn't capable of encouraging service providers to invade their customer's rights, they have proven they are, but moreso because we assumed that such companies would be too concerned that their customers would not put up with it). Apparently, AT&T has proven us wrong, although it will be interesting to see how their new policy is received among current users. Basically, their new privacy policy states that AT&T ,not customers, owns customers' confidential info and can use it "to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process." The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service -- something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing. Moreover, AT&T (formerly known as SBC) is requiring customers to agree to its updated privacy policy as a condition for service -- a new move that legal experts say will reduce customers' recourse for any future data sharing with government authorities or others.

Hopefully, AT&T users will read the fine print. This is really scary.

Posted by Cat at 01:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As reported on ZDNet, the Senate panel has proposed a net users 'bill of rights', a provision in the latest draft of the sweeping Consumer's Choice and Broadband Deployment Act which would allow the Federal Communications Commission to police subscribers' complaints of "interference" in their Internet activities and to levy fines on violators.Specifically, the bill would require all Internet service providers to adhere to nine basic principles of fair use that include: allowing consumers to access and post any lawful content they please; to access and run any Web page, search engine or application that they choose (including voice and video programs); and to connect any legal devices they please to the network..

This latest draft, scheduled for an intial committee vote on Thursday afternoon, still fails to address the most important complaint of net neutrality advocates, that network operators should give equal treatment to all content traveling across their pipes. Advocates would rather see the passage of a bill introduced by North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and seven other Democrats that would bar broadband providers from being able to block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade" access to content or to prevent users from attaching devices of their choosing to the network. Network operators would also be barred from making special deals with content providers to ensure speedier delivery or improved quality of service and would be required to offer all Internet material on an "equivalent" basis.

Some form of this particular proposal will likely be offered as an amendment to the Senate bill at the committee vote. But its prospects may not be good as a similar, Democratic-backed amendment was soundly defeated in the House, and Senate Republicans have indicated strong opposition to the idea.

Continue reading for information on how to contact members of the Senate Commerce Committee to vocalize your opinions.

You can contact the members of the Senate Commerce Committee via the main switchboard toll free at: 1-888-355-3588. Or you can contact them individually at the following phone and fax numbers:

Chairman Ted Stevens (AK): (202) 224-3004; (202) 224-2354 FAX

John McCain (AZ): (202) 224-2235; Fax: (202) 228-2862

Conrad Burns (MT): 202-224-2644; Fax: 202-224-8594

Trent Lott (MS): (202) 224-6253; Fax: (202) 224-2262

Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX): 202-224-5922; 202-224-0776 (FAX)

Olympia J. Snowe (ME): (202) 224-5344; FAX (202) 224-1946

Gordon H. Smith (OR): 202.224.3753; Fax: 202.228.3997

John Ensign (NV): (202) 224-6244; Fax: (202) 228-2193

George Allen (VA): (202) 224-4024; Fax: (202) 224-5432

John E. Sununu (NH): (202) 224-2841; FAX (202) 228-4131

Jim DeMint (SC): 202-224-6121; Fax: 202-228-5143

David Vitter (LA): (202) 224-4623; Fax: (202) 228-5061

Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI): 202-224-3934; Fax: 202-224-6747

John D. Rockefeller (WV): (202) 224-6472; (202) 224-7665 Fax

John F. Kerry (MA): (202) 224-2742 - Phone; (202) 224-8525 - Fax

Byron L. Dorgan (ND): 202-224-2551; Fax: 202-224-1193

Barbara Boxer (CA): 202-224-3553

Bill Nelson (FL): 202-224-5274; Fax: 202-228-2183

Maria Cantwell (WA): 202-224-3441; 202-228-0514 - FAX

Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ): (202) 224-3224; Fax: (202) 228-4054

E. Benjamin Nelson (NE): Tel: (202) 224-6551; Fax: (202) 228-
0012

Mark Pryor (AR): (202) 224-2353; Fax: (202) 228-0908

Posted by Cat at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It appears as though eyespot has had a little makeover. The once ugly and somewhat unintuitive home page has had a very much needed facelift. They also are now offcially a creative commons site and appear to have changed their terms of use slightly enabling members to automatically retain credit for their videos when other members use the content in their own mixes, this applies to all media except if it is marked as private. They have also begun a partnership with Current TV, a cable and satellite TV station created by Al Gore that specializes in the broadcasting of video mixes made by anyone. Eyespot has also included new features and improvements to their mixing engine, improved their search/browse engine by creating an explore function and claim that their once sluggish search is now faster. They have also opened up their mixing engine to except plugins so that developers can contribute custom effects, transitions, filters, or any other audio/visual transformations. Read about all the changes here.

The most interesting thing that they are promoting, however, is MobileTV, an eyespot group dedicated to the sharing of mobile posted video. Apparently, they are planning to start a program with an 'as yet un-named television station' to broadcast user videos from this group.

Posted by Cat at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yes flickr, not a human being from flickr, apparently it was the website itself. This is slightly exciting even though the comment from 'flickr' is slightly wrong.

Apparently, 'flickr' read my blog post about the various changes at radar and found some 'discrepencies' in my assesment of flickr's functionality.

I wrote: The people at radar have been doing some work. I logged on and was directed to a new screen. Instead of the usual picture stream, with the most recent uploads listed first, I was directed to a page with new options including 'latest comments on my pictures', 'on my firend's pictures (hmm flickr doesn't do this) and 'on pictures I've commented on' (flickr doesn't do this either).

And flickr commented:

There are prominent links to this in several places on the site (the functionality has been there almost since the dawn of Flickr):

Perhaps I was not clear, but I was referring to the fact that radar includes the ability to view the latest comments on your friends pictures and on pictures that you've commented on. EVERYONE knows that flickr lets you view the latest comments on your own pictures and view all of your own comments, but they don't provide a way to view the LATEST comments on your friends pictures or the LATEST comments on pictures you've commented on from the main screen. Yes, when you click the 'your comments' link you can see if there have been new comments on pictures you've commented on, but there is no indication that this is even an available option from the main screen, which I simply think is slightly bad ui design. However, maybe I wasn't as clear as I should've been (and maybe flickr is very sensitive and gets its feelings hurt easily....) but don't worry I still luv ya.

Posted by Cat at 09:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I happen to really like flickr, as anyone who reads this blog knows. But apparently there are some who are starting to hate flickr because of their policy on screenshots, specifically as it relates to screenshots from Second Life, according to an article in wired. In the article, Flickr co-founder Stewart Butterfield stated that uploading screenshots and illustrations is fine, but when more then half of a users photostream contains this kind of NIPSA content, the images will not show up in global search results. I think it would do flickr good to re-evaluate what its users are using the site for. If history is any indication, social and media sharing sites that have not done so run the risk of losing out to those who do (any one remember friendster). But letting your users go buck wild can also change the functionailty, relevance and integrity of the site's original mission, which many users may fully support.

I rarely search flickr as I am mostly interested in posting my own pictures and seeing what my friends have uploaded. But when I have searched flickr I have definitely been searching for photographs. But then again, what do I know.....

Posted by Cat at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The people at radar have been doing some work. I logged on and was directed to a new screen. Instead of the usual picture stream, with the most recent uploads listed first, I was directed to a page with new options including 'latest comments on my pictures', 'on my firend's pictures (hmm flickr doesn't do this) and 'on pictures I've commented on' (flickr doesn't do this either). The page still lists the most recent uploads in a small box on the left hand side and also lists the number of pictures uploaded and comments made by each of my friends. You can still access the original stream by clicking on the 'pictures' link at the top right. Interestingly, and this is a problem in the ui design of flickr as well, there is no way to get back to this original page once you navigate away from it.

Another interesting fact, I now have fifteen radar friends and of those fifteen, only two have actually uploaded pictures and only four have made any comments on my pictures. It seems that my friends are using radar just to view my stuff rather then participating in any kind of social way. Three of these people don't have camera phones, a very valid explanation, and the others have various excuses from their mobile phone plan to hatred of their camera phone's pictures. Hmmmm...

Posted by Cat at 06:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I read this posting this morning on Smart Mobs, originally posted by the Nation. Admittingly, I haven't done extensive research on this issue, but it seems to me that by passing the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), the House did not go far enough to protect the internet. The Markey Amendment, which would have prevented broadband providers from rigging their services to create two-tier access to the Internet failed, causing many democrats to agrue that the act fails the non-descriminatory history of the internet. George Ou on ZDNet, argues that the overwhelmling backlash against the possible passing of this act is merely scare tactics, stating that internet service providers are already providing traffic prioritization today in various forms and that Google already provides better search placement for additional cost at the expense of companies who can't afford to pay and the internet has not ceased to exist. He also states that net neutrality is more of an issue of technology, asking his readers how they "believe the politicians are capable of regulating the routers on the Internet when they have no clue how the Internet actually works."

First, I think that politicians are perfectly capable of regulating things they don't understand, they do it all the time. And whether or not this SHOULD be the case, as David Berlind points out in his response, politics played a role in Net neutrality long before "Net neutrality" even became a catch phrase. In addition, I think it is quite ridculous to state that simply because their is currently a certain amount of 'unfairness' and corporate prioritization online means that we should continue along that path. I certainly wouldn't want the internet to become like cable TV where a handful of massive companies decide what you can see and how much it will cost. The fight will now move to the Senate

If you agree that the internet should not be a road paved with tolls sign the petition.

Posted by Cat at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At least according to the Village Voice. (I couldn't resist this post). I personally think that anyone who can do what they love for over 25 years, never sell-out, change the face of their chosen profession by accident and still be relevant in their 50s in a genre that celebrates youth and one-hit wonders will have my vote any day of the week. We should all be so lucky.

Posted by Cat at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And I received a little email thanking me for my support in signing the petition. This is definitely good news. Despite your feelings on homosexuality on a personal, emotion or psychological level, it is unacceptable, in my opinion, for the government to step into the bedrooms of anyone and institute laws that, in effect, pass judgement on who you sleep with (relationships are confusing enough). If two consenting adults have the courage to dedicate themselves to each other who has any right to stop them? The traditional marriage between men and women is so 30 years ago anyway.

Posted by Cat at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

can I get one too?

Posted by Cat at 02:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to the ever wise ITP list for calling attention to this important topic, as it relates to YouTube. As the blog post from the creators of I/ON, contributed to the list by Xinroman, states, YouTube only broadcasts its video in flash video format, which makes it relatively difficult for people to steal the content for purposes outlined in the license agreement. However, it still doesn't change the fact that as a YouTube user, you are giving up certain rights. I did a little digging and found that google, yahoo and AOL video also retain quite extensive rights over your uploaded video content. Even eyespot has a long explanation of the amount of rights you waive when contributing content to their site, although they hide it behind the premise that eyespot is a video mixing community.

With fear in my heart, I signed on to flickr to check what rights I have been waiving to my photographs without even knowing it. Even though they are part of yahoo, they seem to have a little bit more of a flexible agreement (or maybe yahoo is just more adept at making things confusing). It seems that you own your photographs but that if they are public, yahoo can use them for promotional and other purposes.

Much respect to radar, who seem to specify that privacy is their number one concern. No where do they state that they own anything or that you are giving up any rights to your media. But we'll see if this changes once they have a larger user base.

(continue reading this post for highlighted portions of all these 'terms of service' agreements)

I'm not sure how I feel about giving up my rights to my media. I am all for creative commons and opensource material (I've downloaded a few pictures from flickr that weren't my own for certain non-commercial purposes). But it is kind of scary to me that many people DO NOT read the terms of service, such as myself, and may therefor be contributing content that they would not want to end up on some DVD making money for whatever coporate giant they uploaded to. Considering that there are places that do not retain rights to your content, the best advice is to read about what you're submitting to. Or, if you really don't care (which many people seem not to) don't be surprised when something you made ends up somewhere you never intended it to.

Selection from Google Video agreement:

2. Your Content. After entering into this Agreement, You may
designate content for hosting and display to end users (i) by
uploading such content directly to Us, by sending copies of Your
content to Google at the address located at
www.google.com/corporate/address.html, Attention: Google Video
Upload Program, in a format designated by Google, or to such
other address as designated by Google, and/or by otherwise
making such content available to Us; and (ii) by providing
additional information about Your content in the form provided
online when You upload Your content and/or by submitting a
completed metadata form as provided by Google to You (each, a
"Metadata Form") to Google at video-partner@google.com. All
content so designated by You and contained within or provided by
You in association with such content, including but not limited
to all images, closed captioning, metadata and music, is
referred to collectively as "Authorized Content." Google shall
have no obligation whatsoever to return any materials delivered
to it for uploading under this Agreement.

3. Use of Content. By entering into this Agreement and
uploading, sending or otherwise making available Your Authorized
Content to Google, you are directing and authorizing Google to,
and granting Google a royalty-free, non-exclusive right and
license to, host, cache, route, transmit, store, copy, modify,
distribute, perform, display, reformat, excerpt, facilitate the
sale or rental of copies of, analyze, and create algorithms
based on the Authorized Content in order to (i) host the
Authorized Content on Google's servers, (ii) index the
Authorized Content; (iii) display, perform and distribute the
Authorized Content, in whole or in part, in the territory(ies)
designated in the Metadata Form, in connection with Google
products and services now existing or hereafter developed,
including without limitation for syndication on third party
sites; and in connection with each of the uses, if any, of the
Authorized Content authorized in the video information page (the
"Video Information Page") which will be made available to You no
sooner than at the time Google enables any of the features
designated on the Video Information Page This license gives
Google the right to display Your Authorized Content via
streaming and/or downloading technologies, and to display
limited excerpts of Your Authorized Content for no fee to the
end user. Google may in its sole discretion display a link or
links to the website You designate (subject to Google's
approval) in the Metadata Form in connection with any display of
Your Authorized Content, and to display links to third party
commercial retailer web sites where purchases of the Authorized
Content may be available, to the extent such third party
commercial retailer web site serves as a distributor of the
Authorized Content. You expressly agree that any and all links
provided by You shall function properly and effectively to allow
end users to transfer immediately to the intended and indicated
site(s), and that You are solely responsible for maintaining and
updating as necessary any such links. Failure to do so may
result in immediate termination without notice to You. Unless
You specify otherwise in the Video Information Page, Google
reserves the right to display advertisements in connection with
any display of Your Authorized Content. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Google is not required to host, index, or display any
Authorized Content uploaded or otherwise provided to Google, and
may remove or refuse to host, index or display any Authorized
Content. Google is not responsible for any loss, theft,
intellectual property infringement or damage of any kind to the
Authorized Content.

4. Promotional License, Brand Features, Publicity. You hereby
grant Google a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license
to use Your name and logo ("Brand Features"), in connection with
Your Authorized Content, and to use limited excerpts from Your
Authorized Content for advertising or promotional purposes,
including without limitation the right to publicly display,
perform, reproduce and distribute such excerpts and Brand
Features on the Internet and in presentations, marketing
materials, customer lists, financial reports and Web site
listings of customers. If this Agreement is terminated, Google
may continue to use such excerpts and Brand Features in printed
(versus "online") materials that are in existence as of the date
of termination until such materials are depleted or are
redesigned, whichever comes first.

SUBMISSION OF VIDEO CONTENT TO YAHOO!

You retain ownership to the Video Content You submit for inclusion into the Yahoo! Video Service. However, by submitting Your Video Content to Yahoo!, You hereby grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable and transferable rights and licenses:

a. to host, cache, store, archive, index, crawl, create algorithms based thereon, modify or transcode the Video Content to appropriate media formats, standards or mediums as part of the Yahoo! Video Service;

b. to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, remix, excerpt, adapt, prepare derivative works of, publicly perform and publicly display the Video Content on the Yahoo! Video Service or on any Yahoo! property, including in connection with any distribution or syndication arrangement thereof with third parties or third party sites, in any media format or medium and through any media channels; and

c. to use Your Video Content for advertising, promotional or commercial purposes, including without limitation, the right to publicly display, perform, reproduce and distribute Your Video Content in any media format or medium and through any media channels.

By submitting Your Video Content for inclusion into the Yahoo! Video Service, you also grant the following use of and rights to Your Video Content to others: (i) the non-exclusive license to access Your Video Content through the Yahoo! Video Service; (ii) the ability for Yahoo! registered users ("Yahoo! Users") to rate, review, comment on and tag Your Video Content; (iii) the ability to embed Yahoo!'s video player with Your Video Content on their web site; (iv) the ability for Yahoo! Users to send and distribute Your Video Content via E-mail or Instant Messenger; (v) the ability to access Your Video Content via Yahoo!'s web service APIs or via RSS or any similar XML or related feeds; and (vi) the non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, distribute, remix, prepare derivative works of and compilations, display and perform Your Video Content as permitted through the functionality of the Yahoo! Video Service and under these Additional Terms and the TOS.

Selection from AOL video agreement:

By submitting a video through this feature (the "Content"), you hereby grant AOL LLC, its affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, licensees and legal representatives ("AOL") the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, edit, market, store, distribute, have distributed, publicly and privately display, communicate, publicly and privately perform, transmit, have transmitted, create derivative works based upon and promote the Content (as such may be edited and modified by AOL in its discretion), or any portion thereof, through the AOL brand service and any other other products or services as AOL may designate, and any other web sites not designated by AOL, in any medium now known or hereafter devised, online or offline and by any means of delivery, for editorial, commercial, promotional and all other purposes. You acknowledge and agree that the Content may be shown on any web site, whether within or outside the AOL service. AOL is not obligated to include the Content in this or any program, and AOL reserves the right to remove the Content for any reason at its sole discretion. In addition, AOL cannot guarantee that technical difficulties will not occur during the upload of the Content or that the Content will upload successfully.

While you retain ownership of all right, title, and interest in the Content itself, you agree that AOL owns all right, title, and interest in any compilation, collective work, or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating the Content. You represent and warrant that (i) the Content does not and shall not infringe on any copyright or any other third-party right nor violate any applicable law or regulation, (ii) you have the right to grant any and all necessary rights and licenses provided herein, including, without limitation, all necessary copyright and other related rights to the Content, free and clear of all claims and encumbrances without violating the rights of any person or entity, including any right to privacy or publicity.

Flickr Agreement

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

* With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Service.

* With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Service.

* With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

"Publicly accessible" areas of the Service are those areas of the Yahoo! network of properties that are intended by Yahoo! to be available to the general public. By way of example, publicly accessible areas of the Service would include Yahoo! Message Boards and portions of Yahoo! Groups, Photos and Briefcase that are open to both members and visitors. However, publicly accessible areas of the Service would not include portions of Yahoo! Groups that are limited to members, Yahoo! services intended for private communication such as Yahoo! Mail or Yahoo! Messenger, or areas off of the Yahoo! network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Yahoo!

Radar

Radar takes your privacy seriously

* Only your Radar friends will be able to see your nickname, real name, and email address. We won't share this or any other personal information with anyone else.
* Nobody can "look you up" on Radar. To send you an invitation, your friends must ALREADY know your mobile number or email address.
* We won't send you promotional or marketing email or text messages. We won't ever call your mobile number. And we'll never sell your personal information.

Eyespot

GRANT OF RIGHTS
eyespot is a remixing community. Therefore, eyespot requires that you grant it the appropriate rights to support mixing and remixing of your media with other media. There are also certain rights needed to allow you to mix and remix your content with "paid-for" or "premium" content. The following license grant covers the community's remixing needs.

You grant eyespot a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, license to do the following with any and all content in all forms and media now known or hereafter developed, that you upload to the Services, or otherwise provide to eyespot (collectively "Your Content"):

1. reproduce, use, create derivative works based upon, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, transmit, and/or otherwise exploit Your Content,
2. create derivative works based upon Your Content, and
3. The rights under this license apply to eyespot and its affiliates, successors, assigns, end-users, licensees and sublicensees.

A right, primarily honored in Europe that protects a creator (and his or her heirs) against distortions of the work and its attribution, is outlined below. This helps protects users in the eyespot mixing community and is addressed with the following:

You irrevocably waive any and all "moral rights" that you may have in any of Your Content, including but not limited to the rights of paternity or integrity, and rights to claim authorship in relation to any of Your Content, or in any other works or content in which it is incorporated. eyespot does not currently support an eMarket whereby you as a user of the Service can charge for Your Content. If/when eyespot does offer this additional service, our terms of use will change to support it. However, currently if the user were to benefit from remuneration from subscriptions or sales of Your Content title-by-title, eyespot and the user may have to pay royalties to others (e.g. MPEGLA). Due to this, eyespot requires the following waiving of rights:

You expressly and irrevocably waive any rights to receive any fees of any kind (including without limitation public performance fees if applicable, and any share of advertising revenue of any kind received by eyespot in connection with the Services or otherwise), for use of Your Content as set forth in this Agreement

Posted by Cat at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A friend of mine recently gave me his copy of Linked by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. Given that he usually has reasonably good reading recommendations and that he thoroughly enjoyed my recommendation of Emergence by Steven Johnson, which I have now read twice, I thought that it would be a good read. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that interesting at all. In the beginning, I had found it somewhat readable, figuring that it would slowly get to some relevant point. It never really did, seeming to simply rehash things I had already known and making conclusions that were somewhat obvious. For someone that has zero background in the idea of networks, perhaps it might be an easy starting point, but towards the end I found it so boring that I'm not even quite sure how I finished it. Big sorry to my friend but this was definitely not worth the effort.

In other reading news, I am finding J2ME in a Nutshell to be quite a good purchase. Java is quite difficult for me to grasp, even after plowing through Head First Java. But this book is slowly making sense to me. I have also just finished Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML, which I borrowed from another webdesigner friend, just to have yet another css reference book. I found myself skipping most of it, but the aspects of css that I didn't yet understand are now very clear. Head First books have a great ability to talk down to you, which is sometimes necessary for me with programming, Its probably not really worth it for anyone else to buy if they know anything at all about HTML, but hey it was a free read so why not.

Posted by Cat at 07:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I have aforementioned, I decided, after years of keeping my life somewhat private, to join a variety of 'social networking/media sharing' sites, partly because I saw the use and value in some of them and partly for research. As ideas and development for freeformed began to take shape, I thought it would be wise to use what others are using online to share media and communicate with people to see what was really valuable, what the implications were and what was wrong with the current models. After doing so, I have found a lot of things I like and a lot of things that I find strange and even somewhat scray. But I really began thinking about the implications of leading a public social life when I friend of mine, somewhat computer illiterate, called me and asked me to help him permanently delete his myspace profile. When I asked him why he was so determined to do this right then and there, he told me that he was tired of everyone knowing his business, people contacting him from years ago that he no longer wanted to speak to and getting strange friend requests from people he didn't know. He then said something interesting, he said he wanted to go back to being just him.

That statement as simple as it is maybe somewhat profound. Is it possible that in our rush to easily share our lives and network with others online, we have become something other then ourselves, that we have taken on new personas and let too much of our lives be public? I used to write rather frequently in a personal blog that a few of my friends would read from time to time. Then one day I woke up and realized that while I didn't mind these select people knowing my inner thoughts, it started to feel kind of strange that instead of speaking with me about the things that were going on in my life face to face or (in the case of my long distance friends) on the phone, they were reading about it online. It felt very disconnected and odd after a while. I'm not sure yet if I am going to stop writing in this blog completely, as I go through phases of being comfortable with sharing my personal ideas to being very private. But I think that after taking the plunge and putting myself everywhere, I am starting to feel the personal reprecussions.

In a strange twist, my friend so determined to cancel his myspace, just signed up for radar and uses flickr every so often. When I asked him what the difference was just to see his thoughts, he said that, especially radar, feels more private, that he can share his life with only a select few people and not be easily searchable by those he either doesn't know or doesn't want to know. Especially as it relates to developing freeformed, it seems that the concept of providing people with the possibility of anonimity is incredibly relevant for reasons far beyond the political implications in third world countries. I'm sure that not everyone feels like my friend, or even possibly like me, and not everyone has had bad experiences with being socially public. But at the same time, I am starting to believe that it is highly possible that a good number of people do not want to share with everyone, especially about certain things in their life. A cute picture of your dog may be irrelevant if you send it to flickr, but some things are not. The possibilities of being able to communicate with others you don't know about relevant topics using media and your own voice is endless and powerful, but, as I am now starting to realize, it can also be scary and weird. Food for thought.

Posted by Cat at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks again to Yonatan for pointing me to this interesting artcile.. It is no surprise that so many companies are trying to cash-in on this rapidly growing market. It will be interesting to see how their influence shapes the development of mobile networks.

Posted by Cat at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I originally found this on Smart Mobs, although you can read the original post at
IFTF's Future Now. The book is available free under a creative commons license. I skimmed the first couple chapters. Seems like an interesting reference on how communities without even dial-up access can create their own broadband internet connections for cheap. The book also emphazies how the use of this unlicensed technology can aid activist groups in getting their messages across. Interesting.
Download the PDF

Posted by Cat at 07:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This article from the BBC news is kind of interesting. Surveliance for the masses...scary.

Posted by Cat at 07:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)