I recently prototyped a Youtube annotation interface. It's based around the Hypothesis annotation service. Let's you annotate youtube transcripts (approx 95% coverage from what I can tell) inline w/ the video itself. Super early sketch in code. Controls to play the video and sync it to the transcript. Full transcript search for keywords, etc. It was a fun project. Code is at https://github.com/dwhly-proj/droppdf, major kudos to Paul Genho, who did the lifting. This is part of the overall document conversion, hosting and annotation service at docdrop.org-- which we'll incorporate natively into Hypothes.is.
didn't know about docdrop, I thought it was similar to Annotate.tv but I got: "Our video annotation capability works for YouTube videos that have either human or machine-generated transcripts.". That's not a requisite on Annotate.
You need to choose a YT video that has a auto-generated transcript. About 80%+ videos do I think. Choose another one. Docdrop+Hypothesis only works on transcripts-- it's not a timecode video annotator.
This statement that "If you want to build a commons, first you have to have something to share" doesn't relate in any way to a need to own this concept. Trademarking "Internet of Agreements" doesn't somehow give you more of "something to share", rather it gives you less. Whatever your reasons for capturing your IP, so that you can monetize and control it, generosity isn't among them IMHO.
What you're trying to do is define a space so that you can capture an outsized share of the attention and therefore the financial value from it. Plenty of people name spaces without needing that capture.
I think you'll find that most conferences have their name trademarked. We would get trampled by IBM, Microsoft and the rest if we didn't hold the trademark: in this instance, IP law protects the little guy, and that's how it should work.
I have FOSS'd very, very significant IP in my time - most notably the Hexayurt Project - and it has been incredibly hard to get things done. In this instance, we need the protection in order to have our vision - rather than that of one of the big Stack companies - shape the future a little.
I disagree. Dealing with large volumes of annotations is a UX challenge, but a very solvable one. Certainly current implementations don't handle pages w/ 10s of thousands or millions of annotations (think: the bible), but neither do traditional comment widgets.
Happy to have a more thoughtful discussion if you're interested.
The key difference is that proxy servers don't copy content. They reflect it. You can put any URL on the internet behind a proxy server-- that does not mean that the proxy server has already copied the entire internet. Nor does it mean that once a URL has been proxied by a proxy server does the content remain cached or copied-- since in our case at Hypothesis, and we presume at Genius, it does not.
This is a key distinction that separates proxies from caches and archives.
This does more than proxy, the genius proxy alters not just the underlying code that makes the content, it alters the way the content is intended to be consumed.
Also, it may not be readily apparent, but Hypothesis is a non-profit, particularly because we think this technology if ever widely deployed and integrated should be done in a way that aligns with the interests of citizens over the long term.
Hypothesis supports private "only me" annotations, as well as the ability to create ad-hoc private groups. Only about 24% of annotations made through our service are public.
