On Jan 18, 2008 3:52 PM, <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote: If they don't want to free their website that shouldn't be an issue. So the "you may not copy the user contributed media for commercial purposes" fits hand-in-hand with the CC-*-NC license Kaltura was using until Wikimedia asked them to use CC-By-SA instead (I hear that this was due to Brianna pointing out the baddness of pushing NC on everyone? If so thanks!). There are a number of places where NCisms still exist on their site. Probably some or most of these should be cleaned up, although "We can use your stuff, people can download it personally, but a competitor can't mirror our site" is a primary attraction of -NC licenses on Web2.0 user-exploitive content sites, and is probably something to keep and eye on and make sure is completely resolved. I'll leave boggling whole notion of them unilaterally changing the licensing of all their pre-existing user contributed content (apparently without notice) as an exercise for the reader. The DRMish clause is nasty. Right now Kaltura creations are inexorably tied into their software (no export, it's rendered on the fly by flash on the client), so it's already a pretty effective DRM. This could easily be arguably be expressly against the CC-by-sa license grant which forbids the use of technological measures for the purpose of restricting the content, however, another TOS clause you failed to copy dispenses with that concern: "By submitting the User Submitted Media to Kaltura, you hereby grant Kaltura and any of its affiliates a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to (i) host, cache, store, archive, index, crawl, create algorithms based on, modify or transcode the User Submitted Media to appropriate media formats, standards or mediums as part of the Kaltura Website; (ii) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, modify, remix, excerpt, adapt or transcode the User Submitted Media to appropriate media formats, standards or mediums as part of the Kaltura Website and perform the User Submitted Media in connection with the Kaltura Website and Kaltura's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Kaltura Website (and derivative works thereof), or in connection with any distribution or syndication arrangement thereof with third parties or third-party sites, in any media formats and through any media channels; (iii) to use User Submitted Media for and in connection with advertising, promotional or commercial purposes, including without limitation, the right to publicly display, perform, reproduce and distribute the User Submitted Media in any media format or medium and through any media channels; (iv) Kaltura reserves and has the right to sell, license and/or display any advertising, attribution, links, promotional and/or distribution rights in connection with User Submitted Media, and Kaltura will be entitled to retain any and all revenue [snip]" While an expansive "we get a special right to exploit your content above and beyond any licensing you've granted the world, just because you were enough of a sucker to upload it here" may be common place on Web2.0 sites, I don't think it's ethical, I don't think it's beneficial to the world of free content, and I don't think it's the sort of behavior Wikimedia should have anything to do with. It's quite possible that Kaltura will gladly fix these issues, since I understand they were responsive to requests prior to the release going out ... So while unfortunate there may not currently be any cause for alarm.