<CPOV> Welcome --> Conditions for the Possibility of CPOV?
paolo at gnuband.org
Mon Mar 15 13:21:52 CET 2010
I remember Wikipedia announced a partnership with Kaltura in 2008 for
making collaborative editing and upload of videos a reality.
Thinks were slower than desired and this recent article explains why.
Kaltura software is open source. For a demo of it see, for example
(wikieducator is not a wikimedia project but shares the same software,
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Florian Cramer <fcramer at pleintekst.nl> wrote:
> On Monday, March 15 2010, 10:14 (+0100), Geert Lovink wrote:
>> to be changed. We need better wiki software (a major update,
> In the course of the German Wikipedia controversy, Chaos Computer Club
> came up with some good suggestions in this regard. CCC members heavily
> criticized the Mediawiki software for being a user-unfriendly relic of
> the 1990s, and pointed to alternatives. Popular Open Source content
> management systems like WordPress should give the MediaWiki developers
> enough clues for improved usability.
>> better interfaces and more contemporary multimedia
> The latter is a can of worms. Wikipedia already supports audiovisual
> content. But providing "more contemporary multimedia content" on an
> openly licensed platform is easier said than done. Video is one big
> intellectual property minefield. First of all, there no
> patent-/license-free video codecs except Ogg Theora. As a matter of
> fact, Theora video can already be uploaded to Wikipedia and embedded in
> articles, but non-Open Source browsers including Internet Explorer and
> Safari do not play back the format, partly for political reasons. Apple
> was the most active force in vetoing Ogg Theora to become an official
> web standard for HTML5 web video, likely because it didn't want to
> endanger its own QuickTime standard and iTunes business model. It's yet
> another textbook example for the intrinsic interconnections between
> economics, politics, engineering and culture on the Web that critical
> media studies need to grasp.
> Secondly, all existing video content of mass/professional media origin
> is under copyright and likewise severe licensing restrictions, and
> cannot be provided under Wikipedia's Creative Commons license. (Google,
> for example, pays $240.9 million royalties per year to the media
> industry and collecting societies to bail out the user-uploaded content
> of YouTube.) This effectively limits video and multimedia content on
> Wikipedia to either vintage material whose copyright has expired, such
> as the videos from the Prelinger archive, or video that has been
> recorded and edited by Wikipedia contributors themselves. This rules out
> any found footage that isn't public domain or freely licensed. And even
> if a video is the sole creation of a Wikipedia contributor, there remain
> legal risks such as the violation of privacy rights of people who have
> been recorded without their knowing or consent, and who can be
> identified on the recording.
> If you combine all these factors, it's simply not feasible for Wikipedia
> to ever become an advanced multimedia dictionary - unless there will be
> a global legal reform to redefine fair use of audiovisual content.
> blog: http://en.pleintekst.nl
> homepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org
More information about the cpov