Re: [videoblogging] Does anyone use .mac for their video podcast?
Erin, try this site here. http://web.mac.com/a_kaegi/iWeb/Site/my%20video%20blog/my%20video%20blog.html Adriana the producer was in one of my fave bands of all time! Kid Creole and the Coconuts John http://www.jchtv.com/ --- Erin Nealey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all! I could use an expert opinion here :) I have recently joined the video team at my church, which I am really excited about! My church is pretty high tech and they do all kinds of video projects that need editing, and things like that. They have a podcast, and are really interested in starting a video podcast now, which they are interested in having me help with! So this wednesday, I am going to be telling them all about my experience in videoblogging and how I can help them set up a video podcast of their church services. Anyway... I noticed that all their podcasts are published via iWeb from a .mac account. http://web.mac.com/shandonmedia/iWeb/Site/Podcast/Podcast.html There has been someone in charge of that, and I'm not sure if they want to continue using this method for their video podcast as well, but I have to think (and this is where I need an opinion) that using a .mac account for a video podcast wouldn't be the best option in this case. On one hand, it's not like they need to have commenting set up and things like that, but is there not also a space limit with .mac accounts? I'm sure they would not be opposed to using a free service for video hosting if it would be just as good with unlimited space. What I really want to do is tell them about blip.tv which has the added benefit of converting the videos to flash as well! So I guess I'm asking for thoughts on this. Does anyone on here use their .mac account / iDisk for their videos and what is your experience with this and is there an advantage. Thus far, I wouldn't know, since I have yet to pay for hosting. Go Blip! :) Erin Nealey Mom's Brag Vlog nealey.blogspot.com Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Cocktails and other good Craic!http://www.jchtv.com/ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: a contest for the vlogWomen
Good point! On 1/26/07, miglsd27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deirdré, as anyone told Madge about the contest? Winner post there, for sure. Miguel. FYI, this contest is still open and I'm told has relatively few video entries, so lots of chances to win. And you don't have to be a wife or even a woman to enter! http://karenquinn.net/wife-in-the-fast-lane-contest/ -- Forwarded message -- From: Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jan 16, 2007 5:48 PM Subject: a contest for the vlogWomen To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Another contest opportunity, this one for the vlogettes. I suspect some of you will enjoy this one - lord knows a lot of us are living in the fast lane! (And some, like me, about to get run over by a semi.) I can't participate myself because you have to be a US resident (yeah, I bitched about it, but I do understand the reasons - it's way too expensive to hire all the lawyers you would need to run something like this legally worldwide). But I look forward to seeing what y'all come up with! -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
Mike, As others have said, your work is very much appreciated. Besides the fact, that you are making an effort to encourage services to respond to the content creator's wishes, I also really appreciate the fact that you make it easy - you encourage - syndication to all sorts of OTHER video sites, besides blip - you facilitate the widest distribution you can to other (open) sites. The exact opposite of the walled-garden approach, such as the youtube approach. One minor question, about your post below. I don't see anything on my blip dash board about opt in/out to myheavy or magnify. Did you mean these will be available in the future, or am I missing anything? ... Richard On 1/25/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey guys, I just wanted to give everyone an update on where we stand with MyHeavy and Magnify, since I've met with the CEOs both companies in the last three days. Both of the meetings were for the same purpose -- they took place because people on this list complained about the way the companies were aggregating their videos. The meeting agenda was simple: to work with these companies to allow them to meet their business goals without infringing on the copy or other rights of original content creators. Both meetings went well. MyHeavy removed aggregated video content from its site immediately after we spoke on the phone. This was an easy thing for them to do, since for them aggregation is a feature of a larger business. In the case of Magnify it's much more difficult to do this because their entire business is based on aggregation. MyHeavy is planning to bring aggregation back, but to do so in a way that conforms with the best practices that have been (I believe) largely agreed upon and endorsed by this group. Specifically, they will not include advertising in the playback experience without express permission from original content creators; they will not watermark the video; they will give credit by prominently noting the original source of the video in the form of a link to the original content creator's Web site; and they will allow content creators to control aggregation through support for the MediaRSS restriction standard (whch will be controllable through a MyHeavy aggregation control panel in the blip.tv Dashboard). Magnify continues to aggregate blip.tv video to their destination sites, and they are currently including Google AdSense advertisements on pages that include video players from other sources, including blip.tv. We are currently working with Magnify's CEO to determine how best to address this issue, since Magnify's entire business model is based on the ability to monetize aggregators through advertising. Either way, Magnify has agreed to support the MediaRSS restriction standard in the same way as MyHeavy and others. You will be able to control aggregation to Magnify through a control panel in the blip.tv Dashboard. Because of Magnify's current position on advertising we are considering the possibility of making the default position for Magnify opt-out rather than opt-in (unlike providers who adhere closely to all points of the best practices). Content creators who are okay with player-adjacent AdSense advertisements because they want the extra traffic that Magnify may generate will easily be able to opt in. Please let me know if these are acceptable outcomes for you, and we'll proceed with implementation with both companies. --- Mike Hudack CEO, blip.tv Office: 917-546-6989 AIM: mikehudack Read the blip.tv blog: http://blog.blip.tv/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] The NY Video 2.0 Group January meetup
Blogged last night's NY Video 2.0 group meetup. There were some interesting presentations. http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/2007/01/the_ny_video_20_group.html -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
[videoblogging] Nokia N800 again, and UMPC
I was just looking at the latest software update for the N800 and was amused by this, in light of the iPhone hype... Improvements in finger usage Improvements in dialog selection when using the Nokia N800 Internet Tablet with fingers and not the stylus pen. I was also delighted to read this: The Nokia N800 Internet Tablet is based on Nokia's desktop Linux based Operating System. The Maemo development platform was launched in 2005 to provide Open Source developers with the tools and opportunities to create innovative applications for use on Nokia's Internet Tablets. Users of the Nokia N800 will be able to benefit from a wide range of third party applications. Now as the N800 isnt a mobile phone, its not totally comparable to the iPhone, but when it comes to open development they put Apple to shame. So far Ive only heard about the camera being used for live video chat, so I dont even know if you can record clips with it. So I suspect this device isnt going to be as vlog-friendly as perhaps some other N-series Nokia devices, but time will tell and hopefully Im totally wrong. The 800x480 screen sounds very nice. As I have some sort of portable device fixation Ive tried various other devices, and have a UMPC. In practice Ive found even the most rudimentary mobile computing to be a bit painful - its amazing how often a proper keyboard is missed, how often you want the screen to be much larger (but the device be smaller), how things being slow feels even more painful when done on the move, and how rubbish battery performance still is for many devices. Im hoping much progress is made, but Im unsure really how things will work out. Certainly well designed software could help, but Im not holding my breath. Unfortunately my UMPC is the samsung one without a camera, although I could plug a USB webcam into it. So if anybody happens to have any questions about the UMPC platform, feel freee to ask. The price and battery life are all wrong at the moment. Its certainly a better weight and size than a normal tablet PC, but isnt pocket-sized so can seem annoyingly bulky sometimes. I think its only really worthwhile for people with specific needs, who travel a lot. And the size of the device makes me unsure whether its really a good basis for using as a camera, when pointing at anything other than yourself. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright gives you different powers over taking, displaying, and profiting. It gives you great power over redistribution. In the case of displaying via an embed it gives you very little power (though over aspects of the law might help). In the case of profiting it gives you no power at all. If you want to use copyright to control displaying or profiting, that's an expansion of copyright. Isnt that contradicting what you said earlier about copying cds by the truckload being the same as playing a tune in public? An argument could be made that displaying something on the net is the equivalent of public performance of a work. The law can cover these areas already, for example entertainment venues pay an annual licence fee that gives them the right to play msuic to the public in their venues. This is handled by various bodies that work on behalf of compannies artists, and distribute the royalties that have been got from license fee's. Whilst profit may not be the central benchmark used to judge whether a copyright violation has taken place, it does affect things like how much damages are awarded. Though its often based on the potential financial losses of the copyright holder, rather than how much profit was actually made bby the violator. I do not feel that the issue is as clearcut as you make out. Otherwise I could embed the entire BBC site within a frame on my own site that has banner adverts. And why did google image search change so that you mostly only see small version of the image outside of its original context, and not the fullsize image as used to be the case? I think I understand where you are coming from as it relates to a fear that demanding too-strong rights for copyright holders can have negative effects on all sorts of stuff, but its a balance at the end of the day and wholesale embedding of all someones works within a site, often without proper attribution, is a bridge too far for most. And when it comes down to whether others are profiting from the work, I think thats a lot of what the creative commons 'non-commercial- clause is all about - are you not in favour of that element of creative commons? I think it is good that there are cc licenses that are less strict, that can give people far more rights, but it is up to the creator to give these rights away if they choose, surely, and thats why I like it. I would far prefer to live in a world where the whole concenpt of what is considered 'property' and associated rights and restrictions were completely different, but for me this would need to happen across the board in order to be fair. Its no good expecting the little creator who may not be making a single $ out of their work when they would like to make a few $, to accept the commercial exploitation of their work for profit by an entity that may be in a much better position to profit by virtue of scale etc. I would hope that videobloggers are actually likely to be far more enlightened on these matters than you suggest, and that its the fact that most vloggers havent worked out a way to make any money for themselves that makes other people profiting a bitter pill to swallow right now. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: The NY Video 2.0 Group January meetup
Cheers for the info, If anybody is wondering, yahoo groups had a big backlog of emails at some point in the last 5 years, which is why we will be seeing some messages coming through to the group out of order, and in some cases several days late (eg I only just got this message from Bill but the NY video meetup was days ago rather than last night). I want to ask whether anything new emerged from Jeff Pulver's presentation, in relation to either network2 or abbey corp, but as Ive been on their case it might seem like Im stalking or picking on them, so feel free to ignore this request. I jsut want to get beyond hyperbole! Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blogged last night's NY Video 2.0 group meetup. There were some interesting presentations. http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/2007/01/the_ny_video_20_group.html -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
[videoblogging] Re: Repost: Ask A Ninja signs with Federated Media and Amplifier
Congratulations. That's got to feel good. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kent Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sent this in on Friday... Hey Guys, I just wanted to let everyone know that we have signed with Federated Media to handle all of our advertising. We're really excited to be working with John Battelle and the crew over there. They've got a great track record and really seem to be author friendly. Most importantly we will still be able to advertise in a way that doesn't interfere with our show. I'd like to thank Mark McCrery at Podtrac and everyone at Revver.com. They are truly pioneers in the videoblogging space and they allowed us to pay our rent for the last six months. And they remain a great solution for those building an audience. On a separate note, we're also in the midst of a massive store redesign, thanks to our agreement with Amplifier.com. We'll finally be able to ship all of our merch internationally and be able to upgrade the quality and diversity of what we offer. Thank you to our fans, without you we'd be nothing. You constantly delight and surprise us with your questions, fan films and artwork. Thanks to the the videoblogging community, we've learned so much from you since our debut a year ago. And thanks to our agents at UTA for negotiating the deals, our manager John Elliott and our lawyer Rob Rader. -Kent, Douglas, and the Ninja
[videoblogging] Re: The NY Video 2.0 Group January meetup
Oops sorry I meant 5 days not 5 years ;) What was the balance of atendee's like at the meet - many creators there compared to companies offering services? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cheers for the info, If anybody is wondering, yahoo groups had a big backlog of emails at some point in the last 5 years, which is why we will be seeing some messages coming through to the group out of order, and in some cases several days late (eg I only just got this message from Bill but the NY video meetup was days ago rather than last night). I want to ask whether anything new emerged from Jeff Pulver's presentation, in relation to either network2 or abbey corp, but as Ive been on their case it might seem like Im stalking or picking on them, so feel free to ignore this request. I jsut want to get beyond hyperbole! Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: Blogged last night's NY Video 2.0 group meetup. There were some interesting presentations. http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/2007/01/the_ny_video_20_group.html -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
Re: [videoblogging] Does anyone use .mac for their video podcast?
I shy away from hosting sites that will disappear when I and my money disappear. Blip, OurMedia, and Archive.org win every time. Jan On 1/26/07, j coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erin, try this site here. http://web.mac.com/a_kaegi/iWeb/Site/my%20video%20blog/my%20video%20blog.html Adriana the producer was in one of my fave bands of all time! Kid Creole and the Coconuts John http://www.jchtv.com/ --- Erin Nealey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all! I could use an expert opinion here :) I have recently joined the video team at my church, which I am really excited about! My church is pretty high tech and they do all kinds of video projects that need editing, and things like that. They have a podcast, and are really interested in starting a video podcast now, which they are interested in having me help with! So this wednesday, I am going to be telling them all about my experience in videoblogging and how I can help them set up a video podcast of their church services. Anyway... I noticed that all their podcasts are published via iWeb from a .mac account. http://web.mac.com/shandonmedia/iWeb/Site/Podcast/Podcast.html There has been someone in charge of that, and I'm not sure if they want to continue using this method for their video podcast as well, but I have to think (and this is where I need an opinion) that using a .mac account for a video podcast wouldn't be the best option in this case. On one hand, it's not like they need to have commenting set up and things like that, but is there not also a space limit with .mac accounts? I'm sure they would not be opposed to using a free service for video hosting if it would be just as good with unlimited space. What I really want to do is tell them about blip.tv which has the added benefit of converting the videos to flash as well! So I guess I'm asking for thoughts on this. Does anyone on here use their .mac account / iDisk for their videos and what is your experience with this and is there an advantage. Thus far, I wouldn't know, since I have yet to pay for hosting. Go Blip! :) Erin Nealey Mom's Brag Vlog nealey.blogspot.com Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Cocktails and other good Craic!http://www.jchtv.com/ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] whoa!! Is this is a hack attack or a momentary lapse
Current has a crazy look today! I did a couple of quick searches to see what might be up. Now if this is a Hack, NOT funny. If it is a oversight, it has humor. If it is related to global warming Al has a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth Here is the screen shot of what Current, Currently looks like. http://tinyurl.com/32xlwm http://f3.yahoofs.com/users/41a4a074z4365ccea/5091re2/__sr_/b1a9re2.jpg?phwkfvFBEMAChv_m Goofed on the registration? Who.is returns: Domain Name: CURRENT.TV Registrar: ENOM, INC. Whois Server: whois.enom.com Referral URL: http://www.enom.com Name Server: DNS5.NAME-SERVICES.COM Name Server: DNS1.NAME-SERVICES.COM Name Server: DNS4.NAME-SERVICES.COM Name Server: DNS2.NAME-SERVICES.COM Name Server: DNS3.NAME-SERVICES.COM Status: CLIENT-XFER-PROHIBITED Updated Date: 28-jan-2007 Creation Date: 27-jan-2005 Expiration Date: 27-jan-2008 Check this on Robtex: http://www.robtex.com/dns/current.tv.html 5 hosts sharing ip
Re: [videoblogging] setting up a video upload page.
This is something I was about to look into with Blip, actually - but I haven't had time to read the TCs or contact them. I was wondering if it was OK or not with Blip to set up and give out an email address on a vlog to allow the general public to email videos to a Blip account and automatically cross-post to the vlog? Or would that attract massive spam for Blip - perhaps a better way would be with an upload form posting to the (hidden) Blip email address? Or is this bad practice? Any thoughts? Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org On 26 Jan 2007, at 04:34, Milt Lee wrote: HI folks, I wanted to see if anybody here has set up a page for people to upload videos. I'm trying to get a sense of what it would take to make an easy portal for folks to send me some video for a new site. It's not going to be a giant public portal, but the folks sending the stuff would not be your basic techno-heads either. Just folks that need an easy way to send some videos without any knowledge of FTP. Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Milt Lee [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: A look ahead at Google Video and YouTube
This comes as no surprise, I suppose. Inevitably the question arises, what's high quality content? One man's meat is another man's poison, after all. It will be interesting to see how Google cracks the search and discovery problem. We already know that automated methods of assisted discovery -- things like most viewed and highest viewer ratings -- are terribly flawed and human critics can't handle the volume. So how will Google confont the challenge? It's possible that they won't. Which will be ironic since they started and continue to be perceived as a search tool. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Google search to include YouTube and working with a wide set of content providers, grouping together high quality video content from providers with high quality ads and offering them as playlists which publishers can select from and display on their AdSense sites.: http://tinyurl.com/yrb73v or http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/look-ahead-at-google-video-and- youtube.html -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com
[videoblogging] Just two days ago...
I got a email about the changes on Current.tv . Now I have a warped sense of humor but reading this and seeing what happened to the site, I wish a had a bunch of actors handy to recreate what might be happening over at Current. Audio: With a name like Current, there's a certain responsibility to be, well, current. To that end, we spend a lot of time eating MMs in conference rooms answering one very important question: what's next? Video: Current employees all crammed into a small smokey confrence room, lots of laughing, a huge bowl of MM's being passed around Audo: The latest version of next launched today. Video: Stock Footage of a ship launching Audio: If you've already visited Current's website - and you have because it's your homepage, right? - you might have noticed some changes. Let us count them in a handy numbered list: Video: Close up of the narrator, red eyed, crazed and wearing a ball cap with fish hooks and bait stuck around the brim. Audio: 1) The weekly leaderboard competition is now the anchor of our front page. The top five pods vying for a spot on the network will race each other to 5PM each Thursday with a live countdown clock, and the weekly winner will get seven whole days to bask in the spotlight unchallenged. Video: Fisherman in row boat throws a anchor into the water. Cut to underwater shot (pod of dolphins), a clock counts down in the corner of screen, dissolve to fisherman sprawled on a dock. Audio 2) We've launched a snazzy new featured called Current Question. At least once a day, we'll throw out a single, thought-provoking question to the community. We'll grab a pile of them to feature on the front page, but better yet, we'll put some of your answers on TV. In case you miss anything, we'll archive all the activity. Video: Fisherman in row boat baits hook with a tatsty worm, then casts his reel. Cut to inside of boat, pile of wet shoes, cans, rubber chicken, seaweed. Cut to fisherman reeling in a catch. Cut to surface of water as another unlikely find breaks through (a TV set or old tire?). Cut to close up of a cooler as the latest catch is dropped into the Archive. Audio 3) Speaking of ways to put people in the spotlight, we'll be rotating through the recent greenlighter, commenter, uploader, and producer picked for TV. Online, in real time. Video Close up of Current.tv domain name renewal notice on confrence room floor among MM wrappers, spilled chips, empty cans, feet, a sleeping computer geek and a rubber fish. Audio 4) We've made it simpler to browse video by rolling our pod families into more general categories: Action Adventure, Arts Entertainment, News, Sex Relationship, Human Interest, Spirituality Religion, Style Culture, Technology, Environment, Politics Opinion, and Work Money. Way easier than choosing between Mentor and Maverick, yes? If you're a producer, you'll enjoy the same simplifications when you upload. Video A couple of shots to show relationships. A Tuna and a Piano tuner. A bass (fish) and a Bass Guitar. a Carp and a Mouth Harp (harmonica), a shark and a picture of James Woods. a Croaker and a picture of Abe Vigoda (Abe Vigoda is alive but this is funny) Audio We've already bought the snacks for the next round of brainstorms - what? Snacks are IMPORTANT! - but until the next thing, we hope you'll enjoy what's new today. Video Stock footage of a tractor trailer on the highway maybe with a snack logo on the side. Cut to, wide shot of conference room as a Al Gore look alike steps in and everyone snaps into work mode. Best, Amanda
RE: [videoblogging] setting up a video upload page.
Rupert, Seems like we're crossing the line between videoblogging group conversation and e-mail that should be sent directly to blip (we'd like to try to keep blip support topics off the videoblogging group whenever possible). We actively discourage the sharing of login information (including e-mail addresses) with anyone, especially the public, so I don't think that would be a good solution. You may be better off asking people to establish their own blip accounts (which you can do, believe it or not, on your own site) and then asking them to upload a video using that account (again, you can do this on your site). Yours, Mike -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rupert Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:31 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] setting up a video upload page. This is something I was about to look into with Blip, actually - but I haven't had time to read the TCs or contact them. I was wondering if it was OK or not with Blip to set up and give out an email address on a vlog to allow the general public to email videos to a Blip account and automatically cross-post to the vlog? Or would that attract massive spam for Blip - perhaps a better way would be with an upload form posting to the (hidden) Blip email address? Or is this bad practice? Any thoughts? Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org On 26 Jan 2007, at 04:34, Milt Lee wrote: HI folks, I wanted to see if anybody here has set up a page for people to upload videos. I'm trying to get a sense of what it would take to make an easy portal for folks to send me some video for a new site. It's not going to be a giant public portal, but the folks sending the stuff would not be your basic techno-heads either. Just folks that need an easy way to send some videos without any knowledge of FTP. Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Milt Lee [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
Richard, Thanks! The MyHeavy and Magnify control panels aren't there yet, but will be soon. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard (Show) Hall Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:44 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general Mike, As others have said, your work is very much appreciated. Besides the fact, that you are making an effort to encourage services to respond to the content creator's wishes, I also really appreciate the fact that you make it easy - you encourage - syndication to all sorts of OTHER video sites, besides blip - you facilitate the widest distribution you can to other (open) sites. The exact opposite of the walled-garden approach, such as the youtube approach. One minor question, about your post below. I don't see anything on my blip dash board about opt in/out to myheavy or magnify. Did you mean these will be available in the future, or am I missing anything? ... Richard On 1/25/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey guys, I just wanted to give everyone an update on where we stand with MyHeavy and Magnify, since I've met with the CEOs both companies in the last three days. Both of the meetings were for the same purpose -- they took place because people on this list complained about the way the companies were aggregating their videos. The meeting agenda was simple: to work with these companies to allow them to meet their business goals without infringing on the copy or other rights of original content creators. Both meetings went well. MyHeavy removed aggregated video content from its site immediately after we spoke on the phone. This was an easy thing for them to do, since for them aggregation is a feature of a larger business. In the case of Magnify it's much more difficult to do this because their entire business is based on aggregation. MyHeavy is planning to bring aggregation back, but to do so in a way that conforms with the best practices that have been (I believe) largely agreed upon and endorsed by this group. Specifically, they will not include advertising in the playback experience without express permission from original content creators; they will not watermark the video; they will give credit by prominently noting the original source of the video in the form of a link to the original content creator's Web site; and they will allow content creators to control aggregation through support for the MediaRSS restriction standard (whch will be controllable through a MyHeavy aggregation control panel in the blip.tv Dashboard). Magnify continues to aggregate blip.tv video to their destination sites, and they are currently including Google AdSense advertisements on pages that include video players from other sources, including blip.tv. We are currently working with Magnify's CEO to determine how best to address this issue, since Magnify's entire business model is based on the ability to monetize aggregators through advertising. Either way, Magnify has agreed to support the MediaRSS restriction standard in the same way as MyHeavy and others. You will be able to control aggregation to Magnify through a control panel in the blip.tv Dashboard. Because of Magnify's current position on advertising we are considering the possibility of making the default position for Magnify opt-out rather than opt-in (unlike providers who adhere closely to all points of the best practices). Content creators who are okay with player-adjacent AdSense advertisements because they want the extra traffic that Magnify may generate will easily be able to opt in. Please let me know if these are acceptable outcomes for you, and we'll proceed with implementation with both companies. --- Mike Hudack CEO, blip.tv Office: 917-546-6989 AIM: mikehudack Read the blip.tv blog: http://blog.blip.tv/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
-Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lucas Gonze Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:59 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general Copyright gives you different powers over taking, displaying, and profiting. It gives you great power over redistribution. In the case of displaying via an embed it gives you very little power (though over aspects of the law might help). In the case of profiting it gives you no power at all. If you want to use copyright to control displaying or profiting, that's an expansion of copyright. Lucas, I totally and completely respect your position and agree with most of what you say, at least in spirit. Yet I find this one difficult to swallow. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't the nature of copyright, the purpose of copyright, to control the display of a work? I suppose we could split hairs over the definition of display, but isn't it illegal to take a $20 DVD and display it in a theater occupied by 150 people who each paid $12 to see the movie?
[videoblogging] Ask A Ninja signs with Federated Media
Hey Guys, I just wanted to let everyone know that we have signed with Federated Media to handle all of our advertising. We're really excited to be working with John Battelle and the crew over there. They've got a great track record and really seem to be author friendly. Most importantly we will still be able to advertise in a way that doesn't interfere with our show. I'd like to thank Mark McCrery at Podtrac and everyone at Revver.com. They are truly pioneers in the videoblogging space and they allowed us to pay our rent for the last six months. And they remain a great solution for those building an audience. On a separate note, we're also in the midst of a massive store redesign, thanks to our agreement with Amplifier.com. We'll finally be able to ship all of our merch internationally and be able to upgrade the quality and diversity of what we offer. Thank you to our fans, without you we'd be nothing. You constantly delight and surprise us with your questions, fan films and artwork. Thanks to the the videoblogging community, we've learned so much from you since our debut a year ago. And thanks to our agents at UTA for negotiating the deals, our manager John Elliott and our lawyer Rob Rader. (cross posted to AskANinja.com)
RE: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
-Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lucas Gonze Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:51 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is a big difference from playing a ditty at a wedding and selling CDs by the truckload. They are not like at all. Of course they were wrong to argue that. Under the law there is no difference between playing a ditty at a wedding and selling CDs by the truckload. If it's a reasonable claim against a giant corporation selling CDs by the truckload, it's a reasonable claim against an individual playing a ditty at a wedding. That's the entire reason I'm willing to expose myself to your anger in this conversation. The expansive rights that you and many other videobloggers are asking for would be a catastrophe in the hands of big corporations, and if you get them then they do to. Are you arguing that it is illegal for a company to attach usage restrictions to the sale of a piece of media? While I very much respect your position and the ideology that sits behind it, I can't help but think that the courts have disagreed with you at every turn. If your argument is indeed intended to empower the little guy against the big guy, why argue that the little guy shouldn't have access to the same tools and technologies used by the big guys to protect their media?
RE: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
On 1/26/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that defaulting to opt-out would make our negotiations harder, and I also think that a good number of people who wouldn't object to syndication to, say, AOL, would never opt in simply because it takes effort to do so. What do opting -in and -out mean, Mike? Search engines have robots.txt. Video aggregators have the MediaRSS restriction standard. What we're doing is asking aggregators to respect MediaRSS restrictions, and then giving users control over those restrictions. It's much like what you suggested in terms of mod_rewrite / some form of server-side access control, only done at a higher level and more scalable + easier to manage. All we're doing is taking a level of control which is already available for pure HTML pages and applying it to media. About the issue of advertising on player pages, that doesn't make sense to me in the case of aggregators which link to rather than re-host media files. I don't think the content creator has any claim over whether third parties do advertising unless the third party is hosting a copy of the media. And frankly, that's a good thing because being unable to advertise would decimate the aggregator business and the lack of aggregators would make decentralized citizen media a non-starter. Only centralized sites like YouTube and blip.tv would be able to survive. My goal here is to facilitate the creation of a world of carrier-neutral destination sites like Y! Video, MeeVee, Mefeedia and many others. As I pointed out in my summary of the meeting with Magnify, their business is heavily advertising-dependent, and we understand and respect that. Right now it looks like everyone is okay with them inserting copious advertising in the discovery experience, but not everyone is okay with advertising inserted in the consumption experience. This is the inverse of what they're doing right now. Given that, I'm not suggesting that we ban them from aggregating blip.tv video, but rather that we allow content creators to make the choice as to whether or not they'd like their content displayed in that environment. Surely this is a good thing? Keep in mind that in terms of centralization, blip.tv is behind YouTube. It's in our best interests to encourage a huge crop of carrier-neutral aggregators which, with content from hosting sites like blip, can take down YT. Our interests are aligned here. About respecting Media RSS claims and providing a link back, there's an implicit assumption that the aggregator discovered the media via some particular source. If the aggregator just has a bare URL, which often happens, these conditions aren't possible. In my experience it is often hard or impossible to connect a media URL to the original source page, and for a popular URL it is hard or impossible to figure out which of multiple sources was the original one. For example, Akamaized media can only rarely be traced back to the original source. I acknowledge that it can sometimes be difficult to track back metadata about a video if it's given to you as a bare URL or such. Agreed. The cases we're talking about here aren't WebJay, though. We're talking about Web-based aggregators that slurp giant RSS feeds. They're not offering the kind of functionality WebJay offers, they're instead building huge video repositories for search and discovery. I agree that a WebJay shouldn't be held to the same standard as a Y! Video or a Magnify. So you can (rightly) press me on what the difference is. I'd argue that the difference is actual human interaction on the level of a specific video. If a human being goes in and creates a playlist out of a bunch of different pieces of media then that's a different case than if a company scrapes up every media-laden RSS feed it can find and makes them available in a destination site surrounded by tons of branding, advertising and lacking any kind of credit to the original content creator. Digg shouldn't be held to robots.txt, but Google should be. Agreed? Companies the size of Yahoo are the only players who can even get into this game, so I suppose I should be happy to have barriers to entry, but I don't think it's right to keep startups out. I call bullshit on that. Peter did this with Mefeedia on zero budget. If I weren't so busy on blip.tv I would whip up a quick little aggregator in Ruby or PHP or perl or something in a few hours that respects MediaRSS exclusion just to prove my point. I'm betting that the very basic proof of concept could be done in under 25 lines. A quick HTTP GET, slurp the results directly into an XML parser, and then a little xpath. You'd just need maybe five lines of logic for determining whether or not you're actually allowed to redisplay the media. The logic itself is described perfectly well in the MediaRSS spec, found here: http://search.yahoo.com/mrss Yours, Mike
RE: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
I think we can all agree that the economy, whether on a global scale or on a smaller scale such as the one we're currently discussing, is not a zero-sum game. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:28 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general Lucas, I did not, nor did anyone participating in this discussion make the argument that a third party's profit is necessarily someone else's loss. No one said any such thing. What many people are saying is that they don't want others, with most of the emphasis on corporations, profiting from their work without their permission or some compensation. Metaphors and analogies about neighbors painting houses really don't change the basic formula, which is: you make it, you own it, you get to decide what to do with it and what gets done with it. Property rights are an axiom of western civilization. They are an axiom of our legal system and our economic system too. A thicket of what-if scenarios notwithstanding, that's the state of things right now. Here's the good news: if you want to share your work or give it away, you can do that too. The irony is that many of us coming on all William F. Buckley on this issue are really no such thing. But the confusion is rampant. Or is this all just a big argument for the sake of argument? If that's the case then I'm done. Cheers --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/27/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im not sure Id agree that a sense of victimization or righteous anger are the primary driving forces behind such things, but they are in the mix somewhere when it comes to reactions of music etc industry. When somebody makes the argument that the profit of a third party is necessarily their loss, they are arguing from victimization. Let's say you argue that aggregated creators deserve a share of the profits of an aggregator. That doesn't follow from economics. The economic point of view is that investors in the aggregator, its owners, are the ones who deserve a share of the profits, because they also stood to lose money if it lost money. When I buy a house for $X, I stand to lose $X and also stand to gain whatever I can sell it for above $X. If the value of my house goes up because my neighbor painted and fixed up their own place, my neighbor has no claim to my profit. There are people who read my blog in Bloglines, for example, but I make no claim to Bloglines' revenues. If Bloglines goes out of business I lose nothing, so why should I stand to gain if it makes money? Ditto videoblogs and video aggregrators. Ask yourself this: if MyHeavy goes out of business, what does it cost you? And how do you know whether they are even making a profit right now? (I doubt they are). The reality is that you don't know or care whether they exist, much less whether they are profitable. The only thing that matters to you is whether *you* are profitable. People in the music business made the same bogus argument over and over again in reaction to third parties who benefit from their work. If somebody sings my song at a birthday party and everybody has fun because of that, don't I deserve a few bucks? If my song accidentally ends up in the background of a scene in a documentary, don't I get paid? If an Elvis impersonator lands a good gig in Vegas, doesn't the Presley estate get a cut? So that's my case that the sense of righteous anger is misplaced. Now for the issue of victimization -- why do I say this anger flows from a misplaced sense of victimization? The value of my house goes up because my neighbor painted and fixed up their own place. Do they deserve a cut? Why shouldn't they get a share, since it was their work? Their improvements weren't cheap either! I mean, they slaved on their fixup every weekend, they put a ton of money into the painters, they took a day off from work to get a construction permit -- where do I get off making a fortune off them!? But hold on, there's another way of looking at it. My benefit is a positive externality. Per Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality, 'an externality is a cost or benefit from an economic transaction that parties external to the transaction receive.' Just so for remixers and aggregators and all the other third parties, whether street people or rich corporations, who benefit from the labor and investment of a videoblogger. What matters has nothing to do with the benefit of third parties. It has to do with the health of the videoblogger. If you got what you wanted out of your vlog, who cares whether
RE: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
I agree with Lucas on this one, sull, at least insomuch as I disagree with you. Businesses should be absolutely free to add value to the media landscape by aggregating media into single locations and thereby adding value that wasn't previously there. To my mind the issue is more about the level of control that content creators have over their own works when businesses come in and do that, not whether such things are good (I believe they are in fact good). -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sull Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 10:28 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general Your 'nothing lost, nothing gained' argument is an interesting injection here but i do feel it is besides the point of the issue that matters most within this discussion... which is about those who are the owners of intellectual/creative property that are licensed and made available non-commercially etc. No matter how you slice it, creators can't let business plans that are largely based on profitting from the vast amount of available works on the internet to be deemed legit and to let commercial entities abuse the licenses that were attached to these works without proper permission. Period. That has nothing to do with breaking the web or passive benefits/fair use of content... which is a related but seperate issue. sull On 1/28/07, Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/27/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] steve%40dvmachine.com wrote: Im not sure Id agree that a sense of victimization or righteous anger are the primary driving forces behind such things, but they are in the mix somewhere when it comes to reactions of music etc industry. When somebody makes the argument that the profit of a third party is necessarily their loss, they are arguing from victimization. Let's say you argue that aggregated creators deserve a share of the profits of an aggregator. That doesn't follow from economics. The economic point of view is that investors in the aggregator, its owners, are the ones who deserve a share of the profits, because they also stood to lose money if it lost money. When I buy a house for $X, I stand to lose $X and also stand to gain whatever I can sell it for above $X. If the value of my house goes up because my neighbor painted and fixed up their own place, my neighbor has no claim to my profit. There are people who read my blog in Bloglines, for example, but I make no claim to Bloglines' revenues. If Bloglines goes out of business I lose nothing, so why should I stand to gain if it makes money? Ditto videoblogs and video aggregrators. Ask yourself this: if MyHeavy goes out of business, what does it cost you? And how do you know whether they are even making a profit right now? (I doubt they are). The reality is that you don't know or care whether they exist, much less whether they are profitable. The only thing that matters to you is whether *you* are profitable. People in the music business made the same bogus argument over and over again in reaction to third parties who benefit from their work. If somebody sings my song at a birthday party and everybody has fun because of that, don't I deserve a few bucks? If my song accidentally ends up in the background of a scene in a documentary, don't I get paid? If an Elvis impersonator lands a good gig in Vegas, doesn't the Presley estate get a cut? So that's my case that the sense of righteous anger is misplaced. Now for the issue of victimization -- why do I say this anger flows from a misplaced sense of victimization? The value of my house goes up because my neighbor painted and fixed up their own place. Do they deserve a cut? Why shouldn't they get a share, since it was their work? Their improvements weren't cheap either! I mean, they slaved on their fixup every weekend, they put a ton of money into the painters, they took a day off from work to get a construction permit -- where do I get off making a fortune off them!? But hold on, there's another way of looking at it. My benefit is a positive externality. Per Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality, 'an externality is a cost or benefit from an economic transaction that parties external to the transaction receive.' Just so for remixers and aggregators and all the other third parties, whether street people or rich corporations, who benefit from the labor and investment of a videoblogger. What matters has nothing to do with the benefit of third parties. It has to do with the health of the videoblogger. If you got what you wanted out of your vlog, who cares whether other people benefitted too? Did you have fun? Did you make
[videoblogging] Re: Ask A Ninja signs with Federated Media
Congrats! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kent Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Guys, I just wanted to let everyone know that we have signed with Federated Media to handle all of our advertising.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of victimization and and righteous anger. Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the public. And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing up your video have just as much right to make art as you do. If what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why does your work trump theirs? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Videoblogging conferences
Does anyone know of any upcoming videoblogging conferences?
RE: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
It's the difference between personal aggregation and global aggregation. It's an extremely important distinction. I don't have a right to demand much of anything from the developers of Firefox in terms of how they display my Web pages. The location bar may be a standard part of the user interface, but that doesn't mean I can get angry at the Mozilla Foundation if they fail to include it in their next release and therefore fail to tell people the URL of my Web site. The burden on Web site creators who aren't building personal software (BlogLines is personal software, Y! Video is not) is different. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of victimization and and righteous anger. Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the public. And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing up your video have just as much right to make art as you do. If what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why does your work trump theirs? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
that's a good question.and it seems when you have asked it in the past the Apple folks are very quiet..I know I have the Creatvie Zen M and I get my content though Zencast and it is software I download but they provide link backs so it's not a matter of not being able to..very good question, indeed Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Of course by stating this I have probably pissed off the last few people who watch my vlog...but oh well ;) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser groups-yahoo- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of victimization and and righteous anger. Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the public. And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing up your video have just as much right to make art as you do. If what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why does your work trump theirs? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: New camera...suggestions?
I got a Panasonic DVC30 about 9 months ago. I love it. It's a pro camera, and it's great in all kinds of situations. It's really good in low light as well. I've shot with a lot of cameras, from XL2's and DVX100's and several consumer level cams and the DVC30 is one of my all time favorites. It's particularly well suited to a semi-pro video blogger. Here is a link to a review: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/panasonic-ag-dvc30-camcorder- review.htm Camcorderinfo.com is a great resource for camera shopping. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's becoming clear that Amy and I are getting increasingly serious about Freetime and the places we can take video production for the web. After a lot of thinking about it, I'm starting to think that it's time for me to roll my pennies and consider getting a new camera. I've been using a Panasonic GS-150 for the past year, and it's been a wonderful little camera, but I feel I'm starting to really butt my head against certain limitations. The most difficult of these has been its light response. I have a lighting kit we use when in studio that really helps, but when we're out in the field, I can't keep carrying 1250W of light with me. It'd be nice to own something that will cope with slightly cloudy days or with normal indoor lighting (even bar lighting) without becoming muddy and super-grainy. So, I'm asking for suggestions here. Of course, I need the usual features (manual control, external mic, etc), but I'd like to move up the camera food chain and get something that's going to be more versatile in more challenging environments. Any recommendations you guys could offer, possibly with a price range, would be useful in helping me plan how to burn my budget this year. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
[videoblogging] I think it is a shame
That YouTube is getting the attention when Blip/Mike should be getting press. Talk about the tail wagging the dog or some other mo-better saying. I like the direction I see things are taking. Compensating creators is overdue and should NOT have been a On second thought kind of policy. That crap about paying now as opposed to earlier ... SPIN. The screaming (ASCAP, BMI, MPAA) did on behalf of 'signed artists and the obvious mistake of looking/reacting the wrong way when the consumers became creators typical don't do as I do, do as I say in reverse. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... I sure hope this leads to a greater symbiotic relationship. Which then leads to a whole new way of advertising supporting entertainment. The no spin zone Blip gets better everyday as does my respect for you (Mike H). Fine line to walk. Keep up the highwire tightrope negotiations. I see that you are putting a lot of energy into this. Don't screw your pooch by putting your face on this if the majority of the community is not in support. In my opinion (for all that's worth) there are those that do and those that watch. Thanks for DOING IT for everyone's benefit.
Re: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
Keep in mind that in terms of centralization, blip.tv is behind YouTube. It's in our best interests to encourage a huge crop of carrier-neutral aggregators which, with content from hosting sites like blip, can take down YT. Our interests are aligned here. This is not about taking down YT either, mike. At this point, it is probably not even feasible... as google can let it live forever if they want. Are you suggesting the the carrier-neutral aggregators should exclude Youtube? That wouldnt be very neutral. Sull On 1/29/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/26/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] mike%40blip.tv wrote: I think that defaulting to opt-out would make our negotiations harder, and I also think that a good number of people who wouldn't object to syndication to, say, AOL, would never opt in simply because it takes effort to do so. What do opting -in and -out mean, Mike? Search engines have robots.txt. Video aggregators have the MediaRSS restriction standard. What we're doing is asking aggregators to respect MediaRSS restrictions, and then giving users control over those restrictions. It's much like what you suggested in terms of mod_rewrite / some form of server-side access control, only done at a higher level and more scalable + easier to manage. All we're doing is taking a level of control which is already available for pure HTML pages and applying it to media. About the issue of advertising on player pages, that doesn't make sense to me in the case of aggregators which link to rather than re-host media files. I don't think the content creator has any claim over whether third parties do advertising unless the third party is hosting a copy of the media. And frankly, that's a good thing because being unable to advertise would decimate the aggregator business and the lack of aggregators would make decentralized citizen media a non-starter. Only centralized sites like YouTube and blip.tv would be able to survive. My goal here is to facilitate the creation of a world of carrier-neutral destination sites like Y! Video, MeeVee, Mefeedia and many others. As I pointed out in my summary of the meeting with Magnify, their business is heavily advertising-dependent, and we understand and respect that. Right now it looks like everyone is okay with them inserting copious advertising in the discovery experience, but not everyone is okay with advertising inserted in the consumption experience. This is the inverse of what they're doing right now. Given that, I'm not suggesting that we ban them from aggregating blip.tv video, but rather that we allow content creators to make the choice as to whether or not they'd like their content displayed in that environment. Surely this is a good thing? Keep in mind that in terms of centralization, blip.tv is behind YouTube. It's in our best interests to encourage a huge crop of carrier-neutral aggregators which, with content from hosting sites like blip, can take down YT. Our interests are aligned here. About respecting Media RSS claims and providing a link back, there's an implicit assumption that the aggregator discovered the media via some particular source. If the aggregator just has a bare URL, which often happens, these conditions aren't possible. In my experience it is often hard or impossible to connect a media URL to the original source page, and for a popular URL it is hard or impossible to figure out which of multiple sources was the original one. For example, Akamaized media can only rarely be traced back to the original source. I acknowledge that it can sometimes be difficult to track back metadata about a video if it's given to you as a bare URL or such. Agreed. The cases we're talking about here aren't WebJay, though. We're talking about Web-based aggregators that slurp giant RSS feeds. They're not offering the kind of functionality WebJay offers, they're instead building huge video repositories for search and discovery. I agree that a WebJay shouldn't be held to the same standard as a Y! Video or a Magnify. So you can (rightly) press me on what the difference is. I'd argue that the difference is actual human interaction on the level of a specific video. If a human being goes in and creates a playlist out of a bunch of different pieces of media then that's a different case than if a company scrapes up every media-laden RSS feed it can find and makes them available in a destination site surrounded by tons of branding, advertising and lacking any kind of credit to the original content creator. Digg shouldn't be held to robots.txt, but Google should be. Agreed? Companies the size of Yahoo are the only players who can even get into this game, so I suppose I should be happy to have barriers to entry, but I don't think it's right to keep startups out. I call bullshit on that. Peter did this with Mefeedia on zero budget. If I
[videoblogging] Re: I think it is a shame
My guess is that youtube made getting huge numbers of viewers and uploaders their top priority, and to just try to avoid thinking too much about the copyrighted material, quality of homemade footage, paying creators or advertising issues, until after their main goal to get huge traffic was sorted. Now that theyve long since reached that critical mass, they start putting emphasis on all these other areas. Id sure love to know just how big they will be in future if they do clean up all the copyrighted stuff. There's no doubt they now have a lot of people creating their own stuff, even if it is mostly talking to webcam stuff, but Id still love to see how much of their traffic relies on all the mainstream media copyrighted stuff that lurks on there. After all the deals they did I cant even tell what of that stuff is allowed to be there now. Mainstream media just loves to talk about other things that are mainstream, quantity not quality, and so its youtubes traffic and the amount htey sold for, along with lazy journalism, that makes them the main focus. It is a shame, blip.tv and others are often mentioned in passing but no detail. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That YouTube is getting the attention when Blip/Mike should be getting press. Talk about the tail wagging the dog or some other mo-better saying. I like the direction I see things are taking. Compensating creators is overdue and should NOT have been a On second thought kind of policy. That crap about paying now as opposed to earlier ... SPIN. The screaming (ASCAP, BMI, MPAA) did on behalf of 'signed artists and the obvious mistake of looking/reacting the wrong way when the consumers became creators typical don't do as I do, do as I say in reverse. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... I sure hope this leads to a greater symbiotic relationship. Which then leads to a whole new way of advertising supporting entertainment. The no spin zone Blip gets better everyday as does my respect for you (Mike H). Fine line to walk. Keep up the highwire tightrope negotiations. I see that you are putting a lot of energy into this. Don't screw your pooch by putting your face on this if the majority of the community is not in support. In my opinion (for all that's worth) there are those that do and those that watch. Thanks for DOING IT for everyone's benefit.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
If the software is both for personal and global aggregation, which iTunes, fireant, democracy and any desktop aggregator that includes a directory, whether or not that directory is available on the web external of its desktop wrapper, then the issue that Mike Meiser is stating is indeed legit and concerning to me. The location bar may be a standard part of the user interface, but that doesn't mean I can get angry at the Mozilla Foundation if they fail to include it in their next release and therefore fail to tell people the URL of my Web site. Speak for yourself ;) sull On 1/29/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's the difference between personal aggregation and global aggregation. It's an extremely important distinction. I don't have a right to demand much of anything from the developers of Firefox in terms of how they display my Web pages. The location bar may be a standard part of the user interface, but that doesn't mean I can get angry at the Mozilla Foundation if they fail to include it in their next release and therefore fail to tell people the URL of my Web site. The burden on Web site creators who aren't building personal software (BlogLines is personal software, Y! Video is not) is different. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED]david%40captainhumphreys.com wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of victimization and and righteous anger. Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the public. And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing up your video have
[videoblogging] Re: I think it is a shame
I keep a couple of clichés around for this. I know clichés are clichés, but sometimes they help. First off, this is a marathon. There is a lot more to be said about how viral, commercial, personal, citizen journalism, vlog, online media will develop. My youthful idealism says that virtue will win out in the end. At least that is what I am banking on. Second, this isn't a zero sum game. If you tube and blip and everyone else keep the same market share in the online video space for the next few years, everybody on this list will have access to a comfortable lifestyle. Of course, none of this is guaranteed. So keep working hard, but stay focused on the goal and don't get distracted. and I agree, it is a shame ;) Jim V --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That YouTube is getting the attention when Blip/Mike should be getting press. Talk about the tail wagging the dog or some other mo-better saying. I like the direction I see things are taking. Compensating creators is overdue and should NOT have been a On second thought kind of policy. That crap about paying now as opposed to earlier ... SPIN. The screaming (ASCAP, BMI, MPAA) did on behalf of 'signed artists and the obvious mistake of looking/reacting the wrong way when the consumers became creators typical don't do as I do, do as I say in reverse. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... I sure hope this leads to a greater symbiotic relationship. Which then leads to a whole new way of advertising supporting entertainment. The no spin zone Blip gets better everyday as does my respect for you (Mike H). Fine line to walk. Keep up the highwire tightrope negotiations. I see that you are putting a lot of energy into this. Don't screw your pooch by putting your face on this if the majority of the community is not in support. In my opinion (for all that's worth) there are those that do and those that watch. Thanks for DOING IT for everyone's benefit.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
you have misinterpreted, mike. possibly my fault as my writing may not have been clear in its seperation of acceptable business practice. of course aggregation services are good. i wouldnt have created a videoblog directory if i thought otherwise. i believe you probably were disagreeing with my second paragraph. i removed and to let and replaced with 'IF SUCH'. which is my point... not to let companies benefit from violating a creators intentions when they ignore a the media's usage license. nomatter how you slice it, creators can't let business plans that are largely based on profitting from the vast amount of available works on the internet to be deemed legit IF SUCH commercial entities abuse the licenses that were attached to these works without proper permission. sull On 1/29/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Lucas on this one, sull, at least insomuch as I disagree with you. Businesses should be absolutely free to add value to the media landscape by aggregating media into single locations and thereby adding value that wasn't previously there. To my mind the issue is more about the level of control that content creators have over their own works when businesses come in and do that, not whether such things are good (I believe they are in fact good). -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sull Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 10:28 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general Your 'nothing lost, nothing gained' argument is an interesting injection here but i do feel it is besides the point of the issue that matters most within this discussion... which is about those who are the owners of intellectual/creative property that are licensed and made available non-commercially etc. No matter how you slice it, creators can't let business plans that are largely based on profitting from the vast amount of available works on the internet to be deemed legit and to let commercial entities abuse the licenses that were attached to these works without proper permission. Period. That has nothing to do with breaking the web or passive benefits/fair use of content... which is a related but seperate issue. sull On 1/28/07, Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED] lucas.gonze%40gmail.com wrote: On 1/27/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] steve%40dvmachine.com steve%40dvmachine.com wrote: Im not sure Id agree that a sense of victimization or righteous anger are the primary driving forces behind such things, but they are in the mix somewhere when it comes to reactions of music etc industry. When somebody makes the argument that the profit of a third party is necessarily their loss, they are arguing from victimization. Let's say you argue that aggregated creators deserve a share of the profits of an aggregator. That doesn't follow from economics. The economic point of view is that investors in the aggregator, its owners, are the ones who deserve a share of the profits, because they also stood to lose money if it lost money. When I buy a house for $X, I stand to lose $X and also stand to gain whatever I can sell it for above $X. If the value of my house goes up because my neighbor painted and fixed up their own place, my neighbor has no claim to my profit. There are people who read my blog in Bloglines, for example, but I make no claim to Bloglines' revenues. If Bloglines goes out of business I lose nothing, so why should I stand to gain if it makes money? Ditto videoblogs and video aggregrators. Ask yourself this: if MyHeavy goes out of business, what does it cost you? And how do you know whether they are even making a profit right now? (I doubt they are). The reality is that you don't know or care whether they exist, much less whether they are profitable. The only thing that matters to you is whether *you* are profitable. People in the music business made the same bogus argument over and over again in reaction to third parties who benefit from their work. If somebody sings my song at a birthday party and everybody has fun because of that, don't I deserve a few bucks? If my song accidentally ends up in the background of a scene in a documentary, don't I get paid? If an Elvis impersonator lands a good gig in Vegas, doesn't the Presley estate get a cut? So that's my case that the sense of righteous anger is misplaced. Now for the issue of victimization -- why do I say this anger flows from a misplaced sense of victimization? The value of my house goes up because my neighbor painted and fixed up their own place. Do they deserve a cut?
Re: [videoblogging] Re: micropayments / MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
i'd prefer to make payments over viewing ads often too but when I surveyed my audience the answer was overwhelming: we'll take ads, we don't want to pay; it's too good it should be free so anyone can see it. i didn't offer the choice of two feeds (free with ads or no ads for fee) I went ahead and enabled $2 a month optional subscriptions (we do a show every single day so that is less than 7 cents an episode. We have 2 paid subscribers out of several thousand downloads a day. And a very loyal audience. So now we are going after ads. i think it's time now for us - as producers - to figure out how to use aggregation to our benefit, not just to the offical aggregators' benefit. r On 1/28/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking only as a viewer, Id like to be able to make micropayments without thinking about it when watching content. Its hard to get people to pay if there is a lot of simialr stuff out there for free, but my personal hatred of adverts means Id gladly pay to avoid them. Say for example once Youtube goes ahead with pre-roll adverts, Id rather give youtube $10 which would buy me 100 tubepoints, which are then used every time I watch a video ad-free. From a creators point of view, its easy to get into a trap where the 'problem' becomes seen as being other creators giving stuff away for free and therefore devaluing the wages of other creators. Some VJs on a forum I help run get a bit angry with other VJs who work for free to get started, because they believe it gives the clubs a large base of people willing to work for free, and so less likely to pay them. How small does a payment need to be to be classed as a micropayment? Ive got an XBOX360 which has a marketplace that works on the basis of buying points with a credit card, and then these points are used for buying various things online through the 360, but the amounts in money terms arent that low. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For sure, the internet has trained *consumers* not to pay for much of anything online. However, what we are discussing here is a business to business transaction, and perhaps there is tipping point potential. Business is used to paying for products and services. Many of the original content producers in the video space do not have the huge audience size to garner a seat at the table. But there is micro-value in the aggregation. A micropayment system for b2b begins to make more sense in the marketplace. It is the responsibility of we the producers though to train the marketplace to pay us, rather than expect payment if we keep delivering for free. r On 1/28/07, Melissa Gira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And in the last few weeks, the one micropayment service I actually used and got something good out of, Bitpass, closed shop with little notice. Bitpass ran the payment end for Mperia.com, which I had used in late 2004/early 2005 to sell spoken word mp3s, which served as a sort of gateway drug into podcasting. When I could get a much larger audience out of podcasting, I stopped putting new work up at Mperia -- which had as much to do about the community coming up around podcasting as it did the shortcomings of Mperia. Melissa Melissa Gira Sexerati: Smart Sex The Future of Sex: Video Podcast sexerati.com On Jan 28, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Mike Hudack wrote: Ah, micropayments, that favorite topic of mine! Way back when, long before blip, I tried to build a micropayments service with a few of the folks now at blip. The challenges we saw then are the same challenges we see now: in order to do micropayments effectively you need a system to pool transactions, and to do this you need a compelling collection of content from a compelling collection of providers. At the end of the day building a real micropayments system is really about network building. No one's managed to do this well. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Watson Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general I was just thinking of micro-payments. Any info out there on the topic, or can we have a conversation. Cheers, Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Jan 27, 2007, at 11:26 AM, johnleeke wrote: It is fascinating to
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Vloggies last year, Youtubeies this year?
I absolutely agree, which is why I want to meet them. Then I'm going to drink with them. Then we will be drunk together and I'll film them throwing up in the gutter for evilvlog! Then I'll be famous by having popular YouTubers on my site! Oh wait, they'll never know about my video because youtube doesn't have trackbacks... *zing!* Schlomo On 1/28/07, jonny goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YouTube has an incredibly large and vibrant community. It's that critical mass that makes it so compelling for so many creators. YouTube may have it's downsides, but the interaction going on there is amazeing. I think it's a great idea to connect w/the YouTubers face to face, just to tap into some of that energy.
[videoblogging] Network2 Meetups
Hey all-- If you hadn't already seen via a direct email, I just wanted to invite you to mixers in both LA and SF on Feb 7th and 8th. Los Angeles Upcoming.org link http://upcoming.org/event/145959/ Little Radio Warehouse 1218 Long Beach Ave Los Angeles, CA 90021 (213) 622-2401 littleradio.com http://littleradio.com/ San Francisco Upcoming.org link http://upcoming.org/event/145963 House of Shields 9 New Montgomery St San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 495-5436 - close call houseofshields.com http://houseofshields.com/ Swing by http://pulver.com/party/rsvp.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
I am often disgusted by Apple... Is there even once example of Apple implementing user feedback? Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback especially when it comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been ongoing for 3-4 years. It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be similarly scrutinized for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist to serve MSM first and foremost. But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when they are displaying independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What Control Freaks they are! And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take the UI of their hardware devices and apply it to their software apps. sull On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED]david%40captainhumphreys.com wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of victimization and and righteous anger. Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the public. And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing up your video have just as much right to make art as you do. If what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why does your work trump theirs? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Videoblogging conferences
I'm biased, but PodCamp Toronto and PodCamp NYC and several other PodCamps are coming up. : ) http://podcamp.org --Chris... --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jason Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know of any upcoming videoblogging conferences?
Re: [videoblogging] whoa!! Is this is a hack attack or a momentary lapse
Wow, they let it expire... It sucks when this happens. I thought that registrars protect their clients from this kind of thing. -Lan www.LanBui.com On Jan 29, 2007, at 5:31 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd wrote: Current has a crazy look today! I did a couple of quick searches to see what might be up. Now if this is a Hack, NOT funny. If it is a oversight, it has humor. If it is related to global warming Al has a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth Here is the screen shot of what Current, Currently looks like. http://tinyurl.com/32xlwm http://f3.yahoofs.com/users/41a4a074z4365ccea/5091re2/__sr_/ b1a9re2.jpg?phwkfvFBEMAChv_m Goofed on the registration? Who.is returns: Domain Name: CURRENT.TV Registrar: ENOM, INC. Whois Server: whois.enom.com Referral URL: http://www.enom.com Name Server: DNS5.NAME-SERVICES.COM Name Server: DNS1.NAME-SERVICES.COM Name Server: DNS4.NAME-SERVICES.COM Name Server: DNS2.NAME-SERVICES.COM Name Server: DNS3.NAME-SERVICES.COM Status: CLIENT-XFER-PROHIBITED Updated Date: 28-jan-2007 Creation Date: 27-jan-2005 Expiration Date: 27-jan-2008 Check this on Robtex: http://www.robtex.com/dns/current.tv.html 5 hosts sharing ip [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] how to make a mashup with a youtube video
I would say TOTAL VIDEO CONVERTER does a good work try it ...it is nice sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: virtualhub is actually quite good, i agree. On 1/27/07, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been using Virtual Hub to convert flv to .mov It even batch converts, if you are mashing up a bunch of videos, its a nice feature. http://www.techspansion.com/visualhub/ hope that helps Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net http://evilvlog.com On 1/26/07, Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED] lucas.gonze%40gmail.com wrote: Ok, so let's say I get the FLV. I think that I'd need to convert it to Quicktime to be able to combine my new video with it -- have you ever seen a free tool for converting FLV to QT? -L -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. - Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: micropayments
TUBE POINTS! That's exactly what I was thinking, although i did not have that point system concept. That's pretty slick. Is there any value add that we could offer as content creators for making a point system attractive for viewers? I kind of like the sans-advertising concept, but I'm not sure I want to advertise any large companies on my work. There is a very short list of businesses I would consider allowing to sponsor us, and most of them are very small scale and have little advertising budget. I hope we can continue this conversation, and although I am a bit concerned that Mike was unable to come up with a workable solution, perhaps we could build off of this TUBE POINTS concept and put our collective heads together. So cool, Steve! ron On Jan 28, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: Speaking only as a viewer, Id like to be able to make micropayments without thinking about it when watching content. Its hard to get people to pay if there is a lot of simialr stuff out there for free, but my personal hatred of adverts means Id gladly pay to avoid them. Say for example once Youtube goes ahead with pre-roll adverts, Id rather give youtube $10 which would buy me 100 tubepoints, which are then used every time I watch a video ad-free. From a creators point of view, its easy to get into a trap where the 'problem' becomes seen as being other creators giving stuff away for free and therefore devaluing the wages of other creators. Some VJs on a forum I help run get a bit angry with other VJs who work for free to get started, because they believe it gives the clubs a large base of people willing to work for free, and so less likely to pay them. How small does a payment need to be to be classed as a micropayment? Ive got an XBOX360 which has a marketplace that works on the basis of buying points with a credit card, and then these points are used for buying various things online through the 360, but the amounts in money terms arent that low. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For sure, the internet has trained *consumers* not to pay for much of anything online. However, what we are discussing here is a business to business transaction, and perhaps there is tipping point potential. Business is used to paying for products and services. Many of the original content producers in the video space do not have the huge audience size to garner a seat at the table. But there is micro-value in the aggregation. A micropayment system for b2b begins to make more sense in the marketplace. It is the responsibility of we the producers though to train the marketplace to pay us, rather than expect payment if we keep delivering for free. r On 1/28/07, Melissa Gira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And in the last few weeks, the one micropayment service I actually used and got something good out of, Bitpass, closed shop with little notice. Bitpass ran the payment end for Mperia.com, which I had used in late 2004/early 2005 to sell spoken word mp3s, which served as a sort of gateway drug into podcasting. When I could get a much larger audience out of podcasting, I stopped putting new work up at Mperia -- which had as much to do about the community coming up around podcasting as it did the shortcomings of Mperia. Melissa Melissa Gira Sexerati: Smart Sex The Future of Sex: Video Podcast sexerati.com On Jan 28, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Mike Hudack wrote: Ah, micropayments, that favorite topic of mine! Way back when, long before blip, I tried to build a micropayments service with a few of the folks now at blip. The challenges we saw then are the same challenges we see now: in order to do micropayments effectively you need a system to pool transactions, and to do this you need a compelling collection of content from a compelling collection of providers. At the end of the day building a real micropayments system is really about network building. No one's managed to do this well. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Watson Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general I was just thinking of micro-payments. Any info out there on the topic, or can we have a conversation. Cheers, Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Jan 27, 2007, at 11:26 AM, johnleeke wrote: It is fascinating to read
[videoblogging] Mefeedia take on Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
I've been listening on the sidelines here and wanted to (finally) chime in. It concerns me when aggregators don't provide permalinks to creators' site (iTunes) or can create and own derivatives of your work (YouTube). Mefeedia has and will continue to link back to the creators site and cross-promote other works of the creator. The community is first - meaning you. Assisting and promoting videobloggers, both by helping videobloggers themselves and by providing viewers/users tools to better find and organize their media so that they can regularly be in touch with their favorite content creators. The media experience is becoming more and more personal - both on the content creation and content distribution sides, and a walled garden approach isn't going to work in this type of environment. More and more, people won't want their media experiences to be controlled - they want to watch what they want, when they want, and where they want. Mefeedia is all about giving content creators and content viewers the tools and place / community to help create this type of open, personal experience. -Frank Frank Sinton CEO, Mefeedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Y: fsinton Skype: fsinton http://www.mefeedia.com - 10,000s of great videoblogs and podcasts. Our blog: http://mefeedia.com/blog --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am often disgusted by Apple... Is there even once example of Apple implementing user feedback? Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback especially when it comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been ongoing for 3-4 years. It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be similarly scrutinized for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist to serve MSM first and foremost. But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when they are displaying independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What Control Freaks they are! And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take the UI of their hardware devices and apply it to their software apps. sull On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED]david%40captainhumphreys.com wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
BTW, iTunes UI sucks so bad for video because it was made for playing mp3's, non-visual media. On the other hand give me video aggregation in iPhoto and I'd be in seventh heaven. iPhoto is made for visual media. iTunes needs less lists, more thumbnails and more play in place video. iRonically iPhoto does do video, it just doesn't aggregate video. Oh, and another thing. Neither iTunes nor iPhoto was made to handle conversational media. Specifically they have little to no place for rich texts or body copy. Of course a permalink would go a long way towards resolving this. -Mike On 1/29/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am often disgusted by Apple... Is there even once example of Apple implementing user feedback? Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback especially when it comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been ongoing for 3-4 years. It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be similarly scrutinized for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist to serve MSM first and foremost. But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when they are displaying independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What Control Freaks they are! And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take the UI of their hardware devices and apply it to their software apps. sull On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] david%40captainhumphreys.com wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of victimization and and righteous anger. Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the public. And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing up your video have just as much right to make art as you do. If what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why does your work trump theirs? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Congratulations to Kent and Doug!
From Businessweek: The folks at Ask a Ninja are pretty excited. I spoke with Kent Nichols today and he says that he and Douglas Sarine, the other madmen behind the year-old video blog, just signed a deal with blog network Federated Media that guarantees them a contract for sales in the low seven figures this year. Full article: http://tinyurl.com/2gp2q9 Amazing! You guys deserve it!
Re: [videoblogging] Re: micropayments
see indiekarma.com for similar approach related to viewing a blog. i had talked to indiakarma about doing an integration with fundavlog.comback in August. it's an interesting approach to micro-payments than can be further developed for media. On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TUBE POINTS! That's exactly what I was thinking, although i did not have that point system concept. That's pretty slick. Is there any value add that we could offer as content creators for making a point system attractive for viewers? I kind of like the sans-advertising concept, but I'm not sure I want to advertise any large companies on my work. There is a very short list of businesses I would consider allowing to sponsor us, and most of them are very small scale and have little advertising budget. I hope we can continue this conversation, and although I am a bit concerned that Mike was unable to come up with a workable solution, perhaps we could build off of this TUBE POINTS concept and put our collective heads together. So cool, Steve! ron On Jan 28, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: Speaking only as a viewer, Id like to be able to make micropayments without thinking about it when watching content. Its hard to get people to pay if there is a lot of simialr stuff out there for free, but my personal hatred of adverts means Id gladly pay to avoid them. Say for example once Youtube goes ahead with pre-roll adverts, Id rather give youtube $10 which would buy me 100 tubepoints, which are then used every time I watch a video ad-free. From a creators point of view, its easy to get into a trap where the 'problem' becomes seen as being other creators giving stuff away for free and therefore devaluing the wages of other creators. Some VJs on a forum I help run get a bit angry with other VJs who work for free to get started, because they believe it gives the clubs a large base of people willing to work for free, and so less likely to pay them. How small does a payment need to be to be classed as a micropayment? Ive got an XBOX360 which has a marketplace that works on the basis of buying points with a credit card, and then these points are used for buying various things online through the 360, but the amounts in money terms arent that low. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For sure, the internet has trained *consumers* not to pay for much of anything online. However, what we are discussing here is a business to business transaction, and perhaps there is tipping point potential. Business is used to paying for products and services. Many of the original content producers in the video space do not have the huge audience size to garner a seat at the table. But there is micro-value in the aggregation. A micropayment system for b2b begins to make more sense in the marketplace. It is the responsibility of we the producers though to train the marketplace to pay us, rather than expect payment if we keep delivering for free. r On 1/28/07, Melissa Gira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And in the last few weeks, the one micropayment service I actually used and got something good out of, Bitpass, closed shop with little notice. Bitpass ran the payment end for Mperia.com, which I had used in late 2004/early 2005 to sell spoken word mp3s, which served as a sort of gateway drug into podcasting. When I could get a much larger audience out of podcasting, I stopped putting new work up at Mperia -- which had as much to do about the community coming up around podcasting as it did the shortcomings of Mperia. Melissa Melissa Gira Sexerati: Smart Sex The Future of Sex: Video Podcast sexerati.com On Jan 28, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Mike Hudack wrote: Ah, micropayments, that favorite topic of mine! Way back when, long before blip, I tried to build a micropayments service with a few of the folks now at blip. The challenges we saw then are the same challenges we see now: in order to do micropayments effectively you need a system to pool transactions, and to do this you need a compelling collection of content from a compelling collection of providers. At the end of the day building a real micropayments system is really about network building. No one's managed to do this well. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Watson Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and
[videoblogging] Re: Vloggies last year, Youtubeies this year?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Irina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: where is the sf youtube meetup? i'm going to ask them about the haters :) From the LA meet-up post (which you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqN-3A9_QwA Another YouTube meet is being held on San Francisco's Pier 39 Saturday, Feb 17th at 12 noon. There'll be a VIDEO SCAVENGER HUNT and more, so don't forget your camera! Haters are requested to arrive 30 minutes early and be prepared to critique attendees on the basis of apperance, lameness, sexual preferences, dress-sense, waste-of-time-y-ness, wish I could have my three minutes back-iness, non-hater-iness, absence of mental faculties, and all round suckiness. Olympic ice-skating score-cards welcome. Videobloggers are invited to partipate in an RSS Feeds/Terms of Service scavenger hunt. The question what is/is not a videoblog? to be resolved by a who can chug a pint of peppermint shnapps the fastest contest. Best of three/first one to barf rules apply. I'll be the bald Scottish guy pretending to have nothing to do with any of this Cheers Mark http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy http://www.myspace.com/markday [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Saturday Videoblogging FlashMeeting
This coming Saturday, 1/27/06, FlashMeeting is set. The time for entry is 10am - noon PST USA, 1pm - 3pm EST USA, 18:00-20:00 GMT. Enter through this link: http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/4d32c7-7150 You may also check the Videoblogger Videoconferences page at voxmedia for future and past Videoblogging FlashMeetings at: http://www.voxmedia.org/wiki/Videoblogger_Videoconferences Let me know if there's any topics you'd like to discuss on Saturday. -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com
Re: [videoblogging] history
I posted a brief and personal history of videoblogging: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ These memories are perfect. i encourage anyone to add your experiences to this group's wiki: http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/The%20History%20of%20the%20Videoblogging%20Group?edit=1 Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
[videoblogging] Re: Automated Product Placement
For a funny example, Chuck always talks about Schlitz beer in Vlog Santa. I swear, if he's not getting money or booze from promoting that, I will kick his ginger-bread ass. Anyway, to play around with him, I posted a quick video for his Ask Vlog Santa segments. Full Disclaimer (The stats are not real, as most of you have probably moved onto the hard stuff like Scope.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf7I3m8nBOw --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other night, I finally got my wife to sit down and watch an episode of Battlestar Galactica. Since we have such crazy schedules, BSG is recorded using my Comcast DVR. I like great commercials, but I love great stories even better. As I fast-forward through all of the Sci-fi channel's revenue stream, it dawned on me that I never saw one product placement in the show. Considering it takes place in the future, in a galaxy far...far...away (wrong show, I know), it would be practically impossible to put any logo driven products into this scripted show. No Starbuck sipping on a Pepsi, Baltar sporting D G eyeglasses, or an Ikea eyepatch for Colonel Tigh. It also dawned on me that I was also a person that never clicked on post-roll, or pre-roll ads in web video. Frankly, the advertisements usually never have anything to do with the video you just watched, and I'm gone before they have a chance to transition into view. Then I started thinking about all the free advertising a lot of you do for these companies. Josh Leo's HR Block video, might has well been sponsored and paid for by Mar's, Inc. I did some searching for companies working on automated product placement tools, and found Nextmedium.com. They pair the studios and advertisers of scripted TV shows through their software. They also give back analytics to the advertiser on the shows viewership, impression views, etc... Would this be something producers of popular video blogs would like, instead of hoping to get someone to click on an post or pre-roll ad?
Re: [videoblogging] whoa!! Is this is a hack attack or a momentary lapse
Current has a crazy look today! I did a couple of quick searches to see what might be up. Now if this is a Hack, NOT funny. If it is a oversight, it has humor. If it is related to global warming Al has a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth Here is the screen shot of what Current, Currently looks like. http://tinyurl.com/32xlwm is anyone from Current Tv from this list? http://www.currenttv.com/ works...but current.tv goes to a squatter. i'd love to hear the story. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
Re: [videoblogging] history
Mike pointed that out to me last night so i also posted some related memories. http://spreadthemedia.org/node/2707 On 1/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I enjoyed your post peter. My response. http://mmeiser.com/blog/2007/01/brief-and-personal-history-of.html Sort of a stream of concious 70wpm rant... maybe a mess. Hopefully I didn't embarass myself to badly. I didn't ave time to proof read it. :) -Mike On 1/27/07, Peter Van Dijck [EMAIL PROTECTED]petervandijck%40gmail.com wrote: I posted a brief and personal history of videoblogging: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ Now let's see yours Peter -- Find 1s of videoblogs and podcasts at http://mefeedia.com my blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ my job: http://petervandijck.net Yahoo! Groups Links -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Mefeedia take on Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
The media experience is becoming more and more personal - both on the content creation and content distribution sides, and a walled garden approach isn't going to work in this type of environment. More and more, people won't want their media experiences to be controlled - they want to watch what they want, when they want, and where they want. Mefeedia is all about giving content creators and content viewers the tools and place / community to help create this type of open, personal experience. This is really good to hear Frank. all I want as a creator is attribution and linkback. thats what makes the web what it is. jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
[videoblogging] Current.tv is back up
Wow. That was painful. Almost 12 hours down. This was the last graphic I made http://tinyurl.com/yovfw9 Not sure why the yahoo link broke. Dave
Re: [videoblogging] history
Mike pointed that out to me last night so i also posted some related memories. http://spreadthemedia.org/node/2707 add it to the wiki or all will be forgotten! http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/The%20History%20of%20the%20Videoblogging%20Group jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
RE: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
Keep in mind that in terms of centralization, blip.tv is behind YouTube. It's in our best interests to encourage a huge crop of carrier-neutral aggregators which, with content from hosting sites like blip, can take down YT. Our interests are aligned here. This is not about taking down YT either, mike. At this point, it is probably not even feasible... as google can let it live forever if they want. Are you suggesting the the carrier-neutral aggregators should exclude Youtube? That wouldnt be very neutral. I'm suggesting no such thing, Sull. They should include everyone and be truly neutral. I think you misunderstand me. I'm agreeing with Lucas that aggregators are incredibly important so that content creators can get their content in front of lots of eyeballs without having to go through a major player, whether that be YT or blip or someone else.
Re: [videoblogging] Is Creative Commons just bullshit?
I think it's both. Right now it feels more like an experiement, but it could be something grand. It's almost like all of us work in a big factory and are trying to start a union. Maybe we need a Jimmy Hoffa on our side to bust some corporate heads into submission (though that doesnt always work...) Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net http://evilvlog.com On 1/29/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is Creative Commons a noble experiment, or is it a real tool to help create a healthy online ecology?
[videoblogging] Re: Automated Product Placement
I know that I, for one, would MUCH rather feature creative and fun product placement to pre-roll ads... in fact, this week we put a whole BUNCH of free product placements in our show (http://www.galacticast.com/2007/01/29/possessive/). We think it's hilarious... and if you look at our comments, people are really excited about our Sprite and Playboy placements... Casey --- http://caseymckinnon.com/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other night, I finally got my wife to sit down and watch an episode of Battlestar Galactica. Since we have such crazy schedules, BSG is recorded using my Comcast DVR. I like great commercials, but I love great stories even better. As I fast-forward through all of the Sci-fi channel's revenue stream, it dawned on me that I never saw one product placement in the show. Considering it takes place in the future, in a galaxy far...far...away (wrong show, I know), it would be practically impossible to put any logo driven products into this scripted show. No Starbuck sipping on a Pepsi, Baltar sporting D G eyeglasses, or an Ikea eyepatch for Colonel Tigh. It also dawned on me that I was also a person that never clicked on post-roll, or pre-roll ads in web video. Frankly, the advertisements usually never have anything to do with the video you just watched, and I'm gone before they have a chance to transition into view. Then I started thinking about all the free advertising a lot of you do for these companies. Josh Leo's HR Block video, might has well been sponsored and paid for by Mar's, Inc. I did some searching for companies working on automated product placement tools, and found Nextmedium.com. They pair the studios and advertisers of scripted TV shows through their software. They also give back analytics to the advertiser on the shows viewership, impression views, etc... Would this be something producers of popular video blogs would like, instead of hoping to get someone to click on an post or pre-roll ad?
[videoblogging] Farsitube: you tube for Iranians
this is very cool: http://www.farsitube.com/ im trying to find out the story behind it. goes a long way to my personal dream of seeing videos from people/places we usually dont see. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
[videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?
Talking purely in terms of creative commons as opposed what we think is fair: Firstly attribution does not mean they have to provide a linkback, unless you specify that this is how you want to be attributed (as the cc licenses say You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.). So they can plead ignorance on that if you dont spell it out for them. Creative commons is an experiment but it is also real and useful. It gives us a common starting point at the very least, and some real legalspeak so we dont have to draw up our own individual documents. If you expect creative commons to somehow enforce the terms they make accessible, then you could see them as bullshit I suppose, but I dont think its at all reasonable for them to do the enforcing, such things are always down to the victim their representatives the courts to proceed with. If you want to see if theres enough creative commons creators with enough resources to pool together and setup a watchdog to go after offenders then go for it, I just dont see why anybody should expect this to be the creative commons organisations role, anymore than they should be responsible for helping me put titles on videos. Anything they can do to help is a bonus but is not absolutely essential to making creative commons licenses have a practical purpose. Even if many organisations continued to flout cc terms after being made aware of their violation, I still think creative commons has been very useful. Concepts such as being given the right to redistribute, perform build on the work of others, badly needed a framework. The internet made it possible for all this stuff to be done, but unless you want a complete free-for-all, some middle ground needed to be laid out, and cc certainly did that. AS for motives of those who ignore things like attribution and linkbacks, their motives seem pretty clearcut to me. Its not meaningless ignorance or maliciousness, its a desire that people watch all your videos through their site so that they can turn those eyeballs into dollars. Many will try this if they can get away with it, and the backlash from creators along with legal clarity in the form of cc terms, is what makes most of them correct themselves once they realise they wont get away with it. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CreativeCommons.org is this just a noble experiment? Most videos I have are CC-Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/). Its very clear that anyone can put this on their site, remix, even use commerically. but they must link back to me. period. If I have an attribution-noncommerical license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), then any site should respect this accordingly and not put ads around my video. None of this is difficult to understand. the question is...will these aggregators sites respect or not. Lucas, I know you did a lot of work for CCmixter.org. its an awesome place where people can put up music for sharing. To use any of these songs, all most artists require is attribution. But if I make a site, list of these songs and act like I wrote themwhat kind of ecology are we creating? Instead of people wanting to share their work, it'll just make people feel ripped off. the only issue I have with Youtube.com and other similar sites is that they do not allow creators to put a CC license on point of upload. They help break the ecology. Nothing is clear. Confusion is ripe. A lawyers dream. So Lucas, I am not crying. i want anyone to link to my videos, just give me a linkback. Its so easy to do technically. The difficulty here is sorting out people's motives and awareness. If a funded company is building a business by grabbing content without attribution, its simply ignorance, maliciousness, or laziness. I would love for the Videoblogging Group to at least be able to educate so we eradicate the Ignorance. Then its up to each site to choose where they stand with the community. is Creative Commons a noble experiment, or is it a real tool to help create a healthy online ecology? jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
[videoblogging] Re: Congratulations to Kent and Doug!
Here here! I'm just surprised that it took as long as it did. Bill --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yeah, just awesome guys! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Woolf swoolf@ wrote: From Businessweek: The folks at Ask a Ninja are pretty excited. I spoke with Kent Nichols today and he says that he and Douglas Sarine, the other madmen behind the year-old video blog, just signed a deal with blog network Federated Media that guarantees them a contract for sales in the low seven figures this year. Full article: http://tinyurl.com/2gp2q9 Amazing! You guys deserve it!
Re: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
ok, can take down YT did confuse me. still does. but ok. On 1/29/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep in mind that in terms of centralization, blip.tv is behind YouTube. It's in our best interests to encourage a huge crop of carrier-neutral aggregators which, with content from hosting sites like blip, can take down YT. Our interests are aligned here. This is not about taking down YT either, mike. At this point, it is probably not even feasible... as google can let it live forever if they want. Are you suggesting the the carrier-neutral aggregators should exclude Youtube? That wouldnt be very neutral. I'm suggesting no such thing, Sull. They should include everyone and be truly neutral. I think you misunderstand me. I'm agreeing with Lucas that aggregators are incredibly important so that content creators can get their content in front of lots of eyeballs without having to go through a major player, whether that be YT or blip or someone else. -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Automated Product Placement
I'm with Casey, I prefer creative product placement as well. In our second episode (http://www.goodcommitment.tv/2007/01/29/up-the- ante/), we featured a favorite beer of ours from a local brewery (http://lazymagnolia.com/) and made a silly joke out of it. I sent the brewery a link and the owner just contacted me about doing some video ad work for them. We're pretty excited about that. The Power of Sprite compels you. I think Sprite should buy that from you. Hilarious. -kr On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Casey McKinnon wrote: I know that I, for one, would MUCH rather feature creative and fun product placement to pre-roll ads... in fact, this week we put a whole BUNCH of free product placements in our show (http://www.galacticast.com/2007/01/29/possessive/). We think it's hilarious... and if you look at our comments, people are really excited about our Sprite and Playboy placements... Casey --- http://caseymckinnon.com/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other night, I finally got my wife to sit down and watch an episode of Battlestar Galactica. Since we have such crazy schedules, BSG is recorded using my Comcast DVR. I like great commercials, but I love great stories even better. As I fast-forward through all of the Sci-fi channel's revenue stream, it dawned on me that I never saw one product placement in the show. Considering it takes place in the future, in a galaxy far...far...away (wrong show, I know), it would be practically impossible to put any logo driven products into this scripted show. No Starbuck sipping on a Pepsi, Baltar sporting D G eyeglasses, or an Ikea eyepatch for Colonel Tigh. It also dawned on me that I was also a person that never clicked on post-roll, or pre-roll ads in web video. Frankly, the advertisements usually never have anything to do with the video you just watched, and I'm gone before they have a chance to transition into view. Then I started thinking about all the free advertising a lot of you do for these companies. Josh Leo's HR Block video, might has well been sponsored and paid for by Mar's, Inc. I did some searching for companies working on automated product placement tools, and found Nextmedium.com. They pair the studios and advertisers of scripted TV shows through their software. They also give back analytics to the advertiser on the shows viewership, impression views, etc... Would this be something producers of popular video blogs would like, instead of hoping to get someone to click on an post or pre-roll ad? -- Kary Rogers http://goodcommitment.tv
Re: [videoblogging] history
I definitely agree with Jay. It's sometimes hard to believe it's already 2007 and so much has happened in just the past couple of years. It's great to record our memories while they are still relatively fresh. Regarding videoblogging history posts, I wanted to link to Peter's earlier and more comprehensive videoblogging history post from December 2005. This would be great to add to the wiki and to start actively linking to the various people/event Peter researched then: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/12/04/2944/videoblogging-history I feel lucky to be able to have been a small part of this recent videoblogging history. I can't imagine where everything will be in 5-10 years (or even 12 months from now). Amazing how long ago 2004 seems... Best, Josh On 1/29/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike pointed that out to me last night so i also posted some related memories. http://spreadthemedia.org/node/2707 add it to the wiki or all will be forgotten! http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/The%20History%20of%20the%20Videoblogging%20Group jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
I'm thinking just in terms of fragmented viewing attention across a number of carrier-neutral sites equalling and exceeding the traffic to YT. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sull Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:13 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general ok, can take down YT did confuse me. still does. but ok. On 1/29/07, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep in mind that in terms of centralization, blip.tv is behind YouTube. It's in our best interests to encourage a huge crop of carrier-neutral aggregators which, with content from hosting sites like blip, can take down YT. Our interests are aligned here. This is not about taking down YT either, mike. At this point, it is probably not even feasible... as google can let it live forever if they want. Are you suggesting the the carrier-neutral aggregators should exclude Youtube? That wouldnt be very neutral. I'm suggesting no such thing, Sull. They should include everyone and be truly neutral. I think you misunderstand me. I'm agreeing with Lucas that aggregators are incredibly important so that content creators can get their content in front of lots of eyeballs without having to go through a major player, whether that be YT or blip or someone else. -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] LIGHTS OUT! Turn off all electrical equipment on Feb 1st...
I should be struggling with the bourgeois agony of my tax return, but I've just received an email about an event on Thursday and I thought it'd make for quite a cool simultaneous vlog project. Apologies if it's already been mentioned, but I haven't seen it until now. There's a French group called L'Alliance pour la Planete who are asking everyone to extinguish lights and turn off electrical equipment on standby for 5 minutes from 7.55pm to 8pm this Thursday, Feb 1st, ahead of the report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday, Feb 2nd. They're calling it 5 minutes respite for the planet, and their aim is to show solidarity and concern. Their website is www.lalliance.fr (it's in French). I thought it could pose a particularly interesting creative challenge to film your own participation in this... No lights, no electrical equipment... (actually, they only specify no electrical equpt *on standby*, but still...) They don't specify a time zone - just 19.55 to 20.00 on Thursday Feb 1st. You can choose to do it in your own Time, or in France's - which is Central European Time, 6 hours ahead of New York - translates to 10.55am PST; 11.55am MST; 12.55 pm CST; 1.55pm EST. Anyone interested? If so, we could post entries on Blip and tag them 5 minutes for the planet. I will try and figure out something to post, anyway. If I'm not on my way to jail for not filing my tax on time. Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio
[videoblogging] iPhone flash youtube comments from Steve Jobs
I didnt exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling when I read these words... Markoff: Flash? Jobs: Well, you might see that. Markoff: What about YouTube Jobs: Yeah, YouTubeof course. But you don't need to have Flash to show YouTube. All you need to do is deal with YouTube. And plus, we could get `em to up their video resolution at the same time, by using h.264 instead of the old codec. http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs-list-part-2/# A million miles away from the spirit of open mobile devices, as far as Im concerned. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: The NY Video 2.0 Group January meetup
About 2/3rds of the people there didn't mention who they were, since they only have the people that are new to the meeting do it. Out of the people that said what they did, just about none of them were content creators. The meeting seemed to be about groups or individuals that are interested in creating businesses, applications or widgets _surrounding_ content creation. I recognized certain people involved with content creation in the room, like Drew and Randolfe and Ronen, but for the most part, it seemed to be about networking amongst startups and assessing the current state of the market. I shot all the presentations @ that meeting, so you can check them out if you're interested. (http://network2.tv/search/?q=nyvideo20groupx=13y=12m=tag or http://tinyurl.com/326sy8) I've only been to one meeting of that group though, so I can't say what their focus is other than the meeting I attended. Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oops sorry I meant 5 days not 5 years ;) What was the balance of atendee's like at the meet - many creators there compared to companies offering services? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Cheers for the info, If anybody is wondering, yahoo groups had a big backlog of emails at some point in the last 5 years, which is why we will be seeing some messages coming through to the group out of order, and in some cases several days late (eg I only just got this message from Bill but the NY video meetup was days ago rather than last night). I want to ask whether anything new emerged from Jeff Pulver's presentation, in relation to either network2 or abbey corp, but as Ive been on their case it might seem like Im stalking or picking on them, so feel free to ignore this request. I jsut want to get beyond hyperbole! Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: Blogged last night's NY Video 2.0 group meetup. There were some interesting presentations. http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/2007/01/the_ny_video_20_group.html -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
Re: [videoblogging] iPhone flash youtube comments from Steve Jobs
Steve Jobs is a captain of industry in a monopolistically competetive market. True to form, he is plying his own flavor of monopoly, no different than Microsoft. Apple deals in a monopolistic package and it always has. It's just been such a cute monopoly with such a good line of marketing BS about its openness that its adherents don't care. Don't expect him to play nice unless it suits his current strategy. YouTube is antagonistic to Apple's strategy, so of course they won't play nice. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Steve Watkins wrote: I didnt exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling when I read these words... Markoff: Flash? Jobs: Well, you might see that. Markoff: What about YouTube– Jobs: Yeah, YouTube—of course. But you don't need to have Flash to show YouTube. All you need to do is deal with YouTube. And plus, we could get `em to up their video resolution at the same time, by using h.264 instead of the old codec. http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs-list-part-2/# A million miles away from the spirit of open mobile devices, as far as Im concerned. Cheers Steve Elbows Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] videoronk our cc licences
did you know videoronk? it's a video searcher/aggregator. very nice interface but once again they don't link to our original posts/vlogs. what now? http://www.videoronk.com -- salón pepa: http://salon.pepa.googlepages.com/home [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] full-screen
hey, i noticed blip now has a full-screen option for Quicktime movies that pops up BIG. Nice! Peter -- Find 1s of videoblogs and podcasts at http://mefeedia.com my blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ my job: http://petervandijck.net
[videoblogging] Re: iPhone flash youtube comments from Steve Jobs
Hi Steve, You should check out the FIC Neo email list for the H264 discussions that have occurred in the last week. If you don't know about openmoko check out http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/fic-gta001.html Regards, Dean --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didnt exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling when I read these words... Markoff: Flash? Jobs: Well, you might see that. Markoff: What about YouTube Jobs: Yeah, YouTubeof course. But you don't need to have Flash to show YouTube. All you need to do is deal with YouTube. And plus, we could get `em to up their video resolution at the same time, by using h.264 instead of the old codec. http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs-list- part-2/# A million miles away from the spirit of open mobile devices, as far as Im concerned. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: New camera...suggestions?
I agree with Bill - the DVC30 is a great camera - but it's still 1900 bucks or so. If you need to watch your pennies, and want something small that really is fun, and excellent too- check out the Panasonic PV-GS500. I got mine for under $ 650 from Abe's of Maine. Here's what I really like. It has manual control for both iris, and audio level. Which means that I can really control the lighting, and also that I can use the Rodemic on top. It's very small, but the images are excellent. I also really like the use of the joystick on the back for playback and for jumping around the menus. It's a real joy. I also have used a lot of cameras from the old Sony hi-8's to the HVX200 and back, and I gotta say - this is the fun I've had with a camera in a long time. One thing - Abe's of Maine got it to my right away - sent me everything I was supposed to get, but they do have a really sneaky thing they do. After I placed the order on line, I got an email saying there was a problem with my order. I freaked - thought my credit card bombed - who knows. But in reality, the only problem was that I hadn't ordered enough stuff. They wanted to get me on line to up-sell me. Need a bigger camera battery? They told me the one I was getting was the tiny one that only lasts for like 20 minutes. But it was absolutely untrue. When you look at the manual that comes with it, it clearly points out that of the 4 available batteries, it ships with the 3rd largest. It lasts 2 to 3 hrs, and is great. Milt Lee
Re: [videoblogging] full-screen
Blip just pwns. I've been researching all sorts of video hosting options for work, and there's nothing out there that even comes close. On 1/29/07, Peter Van Dijck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hey, i noticed blip now has a full-screen option for Quicktime movies that pops up BIG. Nice! Peter -- Find 1s of videoblogs and podcasts at http://mefeedia.com my blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ my job: http://petervandijck.net -- Geek Goddess TV -- www.geekgoddess.tv Geek Goddess Blog -- blog.geekgoddess.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: LIGHTS OUT! Turn off all electrical equipment on Feb 1st...
It's already been done. 2 weeks ago a group turned out the lights on Monday the 15th of Jan between 6.30-7pm in local time zones globally. Lots of information about this when I was in Australia and I read about it in some European online articles before I went to Australia but basically nothing in the press here in the USA (or in Tahiti where I was on the 15th). Regards, Dean --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I should be struggling with the bourgeois agony of my tax return, but I've just received an email about an event on Thursday and I thought it'd make for quite a cool simultaneous vlog project. Apologies if it's already been mentioned, but I haven't seen it until now. There's a French group called L'Alliance pour la Planete who are asking everyone to extinguish lights and turn off electrical equipment on standby for 5 minutes from 7.55pm to 8pm this Thursday, Feb 1st, ahead of the report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday, Feb 2nd. They're calling it 5 minutes respite for the planet, and their aim is to show solidarity and concern. Their website is www.lalliance.fr (it's in French). I thought it could pose a particularly interesting creative challenge to film your own participation in this... No lights, no electrical equipment... (actually, they only specify no electrical equpt *on standby*, but still...) They don't specify a time zone - just 19.55 to 20.00 on Thursday Feb 1st. You can choose to do it in your own Time, or in France's - which is Central European Time, 6 hours ahead of New York - translates to 10.55am PST; 11.55am MST; 12.55 pm CST; 1.55pm EST. Anyone interested? If so, we could post entries on Blip and tag them 5 minutes for the planet. I will try and figure out something to post, anyway. If I'm not on my way to jail for not filing my tax on time. Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio
[videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
I havent checked out these latest offenders yet but if its getting to the point where some people want to close off their content, then I start to panic and look to the past discussions to see if there is an alternative way to deal with this stuff. Maybe we could look again at the idea of having linkbacks, creative commons licenses and other forms of attribution, actually be attached to the videos themselves in some meaningful way that works jsut as well as a weblink elsewhere on a page, so that it doesnt matter so much if all these leeches dont do the right think on their pages? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *sigh* Here we go again. They are pulling all my videos from a Blip feed. I'm at the point where I am about to remove all my videos from external sites and host them on my own server requiring people to login to view them. This sucks. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, pepa puritito.tomate@ wrote: did you know videoronk? it's a video searcher/aggregator. very nice interface but once again they don't link to our original posts/vlogs. what now? http://www.videoronk.com -- salón pepa: http://salon.pepa.googlepages.com/home [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: videoronk our cc licences
That sucks! Not to make light of the situation David, but I hear Superman has cheap hosting rates and a great server array at the Fortress of Solitude, up de'r in Bemidji. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *sigh* Here we go again. They are pulling all my videos from a Blip feed. I'm at the point where I am about to remove all my videos from external sites and host them on my own server requiring people to login to view them. This sucks. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, pepa puritito.tomate@ wrote: did you know videoronk? it's a video searcher/aggregator. very nice interface but once again they don't link to our original posts/vlogs. what now? http://www.videoronk.com -- salón pepa: http://salon.pepa.googlepages.com/home [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Is Creative Commons just bullshit?
To push the union metaphor to where it'll probably break, where are the YouTube videobloggers when it comes to CC, then, if they don't have a way to opt-in built-in? That scene is more like '68 style Situationist student uprising than any worker's factory floor. There's room for coooperation there, though, in facing the corporate heads. (Or maybe I just need a drink, Schlomo.) Melissa On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:38 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: I think it's both. Right now it feels more like an experiement, but it could be something grand. It's almost like all of us work in a big factory and are trying to start a union. Maybe we need a Jimmy Hoffa on our side to bust some corporate heads into submission (though that doesnt always work...) Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net http://evilvlog.com On 1/29/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is Creative Commons a noble experiment, or is it a real tool to help create a healthy online ecology? Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Is Creative Commons just bullshit?
Nothing stopping YouTubers from putting a cc license in and around their works. We don't NEED to have point-of-upload cc options to claim 'em. Do we? Naw. Jan On 1/29/07, Melissa Gira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To push the union metaphor to where it'll probably break, where are the YouTube videobloggers when it comes to CC, then, if they don't have a way to opt-in built-in? That scene is more like '68 style Situationist student uprising than any worker's factory floor. There's room for coooperation there, though, in facing the corporate heads. (Or maybe I just need a drink, Schlomo.) Melissa On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:38 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: I think it's both. Right now it feels more like an experiement, but it could be something grand. It's almost like all of us work in a big factory and are trying to start a union. Maybe we need a Jimmy Hoffa on our side to bust some corporate heads into submission (though that doesnt always work...) Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net http://evilvlog.com On 1/29/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is Creative Commons a noble experiment, or is it a real tool to help create a healthy online ecology? Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?
Is April fools day the best time to discuss that stuff? :p A further problem with youtube is an incompatibility with a very important element of creative commons - that you arent supposed to use restrictive technologies to stop people copying and redistributing your work. I talked about this on the list in recent months because some had forgotten that a large point of creative commons is that it is OK for people to fully redistribute your work, so long as you stick to the other terms. Youtube dont want people to download videos from them, and watch them offline or rehost them elsewhere. Clearly there are ways round this, but thats not the central point. This issue probably makes creative commons far more incompatible with many business models that big sites want to use to get revenue from exploiting online video, far more than may seem apparent at firsst glance. Other hosting services may fall foul of this too, I havent checked, I know I looked at blip when I talked about this before, and as they include links to non-flash, easily downloadable versions of the videos, they are ok. If advertising becomes the norm in future then this issue could potentially reach breaking point. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nothing stopping YouTubers from putting a cc license in and around their works. We don't NEED to have point-of-upload cc options to claim 'em. Do we? Naw. you are absolutely correct. it would of course be easier if yoiutube et al helped educate people by offering the choice in their process. But anyone could insert a video post-roll of the CC license. we have a plan to have a videoblogging/CC event on April 1st. https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com For the SF node, we hope to make custom CC trailers to share...and even short interviews with each other about why Creative Commons is important. These clips could be uploaded to Youtube to spread the word. Anyone else want to have a party? https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
[videoblogging] Congratulations Kent Doug! (re-post)
(posted this late last night but it never went up) From Heather Green in Businessweek: The folks at Ask a Ninja are pretty excited. I spoke with Kent Nichols today and he says that he and Douglas Sarine, the other madmen behind the year-old video blog, just signed a deal with blog network Federated Media that guarantees them a contract for sales in the low seven figures this year. http://tinyurl.com/2gp2q9 Congratulations guys! KICK ASS.
[videoblogging] Re: Congratulations Kent Doug! (re-post)
Sorry folks, this is old news. Originally posted the note Thursday night, but Yahoo held it up in their messed up queue. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Woolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (posted this late last night but it never went up) From Heather Green in Businessweek: The folks at Ask a Ninja are pretty excited. I spoke with Kent Nichols today and he says that he and Douglas Sarine, the other madmen behind the year-old video blog, just signed a deal with blog network Federated Media that guarantees them a contract for sales in the low seven figures this year. http://tinyurl.com/2gp2q9 Congratulations guys! KICK ASS.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: micropayments / MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
I like this idea too, Sull. Perhaps all of my free stuff could be part of the whole that would need to be tied into the paid version to have the real nuts in bolts. Make 'em pay for the punchline, or the trick to the trick. You could get the flavor, but not the meal, so to speak. I also like the idea of the tube points concept. We are talking about small chunks of money. Like buying a piece of candy, or a candy bar. The problem seems to be the lack of a give a penny, take a penny tray and change purse. How can we enable an internet media changepurse for viewers and a change tray for content creators? I guess a videoblogger's guild or union could do something like that. We surely have the talent pool within the population to make that happen. What fringe benefits could be added to entice viewers to pay for some content? Maybe it's sulls 'super episodes' or the 'punchlines' for free. Could that be something that would get viewers to invest in internet media? I don't know. There have got to be a ton of things we could come up with. Anyone else here know the concept of 'Po'? Cheers, Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:41 PM, sull wrote: I am also a believer in mixing both paid and free content. For example, every month you out a video that requires a payment... maybe it's $5. It obviously helps if this video is somewhat different than your regular shows. What the difference is would be up to you, the producers. But it could be a good way to ask for financial support while still giving the audience most of your content for free. With some marketing finesse, you could work to increase the amount of purchases over time ;-) If re-distribution of this paid content hinders, you could use DRM or other techniques to defend against it. Hey, it's only one video so you wouldnt be evil :) i think it's time now for us - as producers - to figure out how to use aggregation to our benefit, not just to the offical aggregators' benefit. Yes, please let's keep the discussion going... here or on the other list... anywhere. I just want to keep the topic moving forward. sull On 1/29/07, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'd prefer to make payments over viewing ads often too but when I surveyed my audience the answer was overwhelming: we'll take ads, we don't want to pay; it's too good it should be free so anyone can see it. i didn't offer the choice of two feeds (free with ads or no ads for fee) I went ahead and enabled $2 a month optional subscriptions (we do a show every single day so that is less than 7 cents an episode. We have 2 paid subscribers out of several thousand downloads a day. And a very loyal audience. So now we are going after ads. i think it's time now for us - as producers - to figure out how to use aggregation to our benefit, not just to the offical aggregators' benefit. r On 1/28/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] steve% 40dvmachine.com wrote: Speaking only as a viewer, Id like to be able to make micropayments without thinking about it when watching content. Its hard to get people to pay if there is a lot of simialr stuff out there for free, but my personal hatred of adverts means Id gladly pay to avoid them. Say for example once Youtube goes ahead with pre-roll adverts, Id rather give youtube $10 which would buy me 100 tubepoints, which are then used every time I watch a video ad-free. From a creators point of view, its easy to get into a trap where the 'problem' becomes seen as being other creators giving stuff away for free and therefore devaluing the wages of other creators. Some VJs on a forum I help run get a bit angry with other VJs who work for free to get started, because they believe it gives the clubs a large base of people willing to work for free, and so less likely to pay them. How small does a payment need to be to be classed as a micropayment? Ive got an XBOX360 which has a marketplace that works on the basis of buying points with a credit card, and then these points are used for buying various things online through the 360, but the amounts in money terms arent that low. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For sure, the internet has trained *consumers* not to pay for much of anything online. However, what we are discussing here is a business to business transaction, and perhaps there is tipping point potential. Business is used to paying for products and services. Many of
[videoblogging]
What about Camera Production sponsorship/ads? Perhaps this could tie into that product placement concept someone offered a little while ago. That would certainly enable us to cut costs, and gain some advertising that is valuable for the equipment companies. It would also help camera companies and production folk get the word out on their equipment. Has anyone explored that avenue? Just riffin' here... ron On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:39 PM, sull wrote: Mike pointed that out to me last night so i also posted some related memories. http://spreadthemedia.org/node/2707 On 1/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] groups-yahoo- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I enjoyed your post peter. My response. http://mmeiser.com/blog/2007/01/brief-and-personal-history-of.html Sort of a stream of concious 70wpm rant... maybe a mess. Hopefully I didn't embarass myself to badly. I didn't ave time to proof read it. :) -Mike On 1/27/07, Peter Van Dijck [EMAIL PROTECTED]petervandijck %40gmail.com wrote: I posted a brief and personal history of videoblogging: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ Now let's see yours Peter -- Find 1s of videoblogs and podcasts at http://mefeedia.com my blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ my job: http://petervandijck.net Yahoo! Groups Links -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the iTunes Store and we get lots of traffic from them. If it wasn't for Apple we wouldn't have the advertisers that we have today. We also have lots of comments on our Apple page from people who love us and hate us. So there is a place for user feedback. Apple has been very good to the community. Keep in mind they generate no direct revenue from podcasting, and there's no way to quantify any indirect revenue on their site at this time. I guess you could set up an affiliate account and make some money sending people to iTunes but they send way more people to us than we send to them. I look forward to other big players following Apple's lead and stepping up to the plate and creating a UI that is as good as or better than Apple iTunes. Competition is a good thing. Tim Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV The Viral Video of How Tos by French Maids http://frenchmaidtv.com Subscribe for FREE on ahref=http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes; target=_blankiTunes/a On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, sull wrote: I am often disgusted by Apple... Is there even once example of Apple implementing user feedback? Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback especially when it comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been ongoing for 3-4 years. It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be similarly scrutinized for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist to serve MSM first and foremost. But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when they are displaying independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What Control Freaks they are! And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take the UI of their hardware devices and apply it to their software apps. sull On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED]david% 40captainhumphreys.com wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of victimization and and righteous anger. Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way which is important. If creators
[videoblogging] CNET video incubator
http://newteevee.com/2007/01/26/cnet-video-incubator-getting-started/ Looks like Schlomo is working on a pretty cool project. see, I like it when money is available for people wanting to make good work. this project make sense. Up to twenty thousand dollars will be made available to production teams, along with professional advice and the promise of whatever resources they can wrangle from CNET. Creators will own their own content — what Project Spotlight is asking for is exclusivity for some period of time after the content debuts Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Re: iPhone flash youtube comments from Steve Jobs
Thanks very much for this - I never heard of the openmoko platform before so this is great news. Unfortunately I believe the h.264 conversation over there was a bit wrong on 2 fronts, the patent issue isnt that simple because its multiple different companies who claim their patents make h264 possible, and so the mpeg licensing body handles all this stuff as a one stop shop for getting license to use h264 stuff. Wheras the news seemed to relate only to one particular companies technology patent being ruled invalid. And the thinking about the FIC hardware being capable of h264 decoding, by comparing its CPU to the CPU speed of ipods, may also be wrong as I believe the ipod video has a seperate decoder chip to handle that stuff. So anyways its great to hear that an open linux phone is about to exist (although I wouldnt be surprised if there were a few more delays). The apparent lack of wifi or 3G dampens my enthusiasm more than a little, but its still a ray of hope in a closed mobile world. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Dean Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Steve, You should check out the FIC Neo email list for the H264 discussions that have occurred in the last week. If you don't know about openmoko check out http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/fic-gta001.html Regards, Dean --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: I didnt exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling when I read these words... Markoff: Flash? Jobs: Well, you might see that. Markoff: What about YouTube Jobs: Yeah, YouTubeof course. But you don't need to have Flash to show YouTube. All you need to do is deal with YouTube. And plus, we could get `em to up their video resolution at the same time, by using h.264 instead of the old codec. http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs-list- part-2/# A million miles away from the spirit of open mobile devices, as far as Im concerned. Cheers Steve Elbows
RE: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
Here here, Tim. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:43 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the iTunes Store and we get lots of traffic from them. If it wasn't for Apple we wouldn't have the advertisers that we have today. We also have lots of comments on our Apple page from people who love us and hate us. So there is a place for user feedback. Apple has been very good to the community. Keep in mind they generate no direct revenue from podcasting, and there's no way to quantify any indirect revenue on their site at this time. I guess you could set up an affiliate account and make some money sending people to iTunes but they send way more people to us than we send to them. I look forward to other big players following Apple's lead and stepping up to the plate and creating a UI that is as good as or better than Apple iTunes. Competition is a good thing. Tim Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV The Viral Video of How To's by French Maids http://frenchmaidtv.com Subscribe for FREE on ahref=http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes; target=_blankiTunes/a On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, sull wrote: I am often disgusted by Apple... Is there even once example of Apple implementing user feedback? Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback especially when it comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been ongoing for 3-4 years. It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be similarly scrutinized for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist to serve MSM first and foremost. But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when they are displaying independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What Control Freaks they are! And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take the UI of their hardware devices and apply it to their software apps. sull On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED]david% 40captainhumphreys.com wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that
[videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
Does iTunes aggregate? I believe the last time this came up, the response was that people in the iTunes podcast directory ASKED to be in it. In fact, I had to _apply_ and then wait three days before my podacast was 'approved'. This is different from someone grabbing your feed and acting like you sent your material in to them. If iTunes is now grabbing people's feeds now and acting like they applied, then I agree with you. Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com
[videoblogging] Re: iPhone flash youtube comments from Steve Jobs
If you didn't know about FIC Neo you might also like to check out the Asterisk.org mailing list as well (check out www.cognation.net/asterisk for background info) Basically Asterisk is an opensource software application that turns any pc into an ip pbx but it also has video phone call capability (I'm waiting for someone to turn it into a mobile phone video blogging server upload application). They were also discussing the H264 ramifications. BTW if you think Asterisk is cool and you have a website check out www.Mexuar.com or www.cognation.net/mexuar Cheers, Dean p.s. see you at the woodstock of our generation www.barcampusa.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks very much for this - I never heard of the openmoko platform before so this is great news. Unfortunately I believe the h.264 conversation over there was a bit wrong on 2 fronts, the patent issue isnt that simple because its multiple different companies who claim their patents make h264 possible, and so the mpeg licensing body handles all this stuff as a one stop shop for getting license to use h264 stuff. Wheras the news seemed to relate only to one particular companies technology patent being ruled invalid. And the thinking about the FIC hardware being capable of h264 decoding, by comparing its CPU to the CPU speed of ipods, may also be wrong as I believe the ipod video has a seperate decoder chip to handle that stuff. So anyways its great to hear that an open linux phone is about to exist (although I wouldnt be surprised if there were a few more delays). The apparent lack of wifi or 3G dampens my enthusiasm more than a little, but its still a ray of hope in a closed mobile world. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Dean Collins mailinglist1@ wrote: Hi Steve, You should check out the FIC Neo email list for the H264 discussions that have occurred in the last week. If you don't know about openmoko check out http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/fic-gta001.html Regards, Dean --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: I didnt exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling when I read these words... Markoff: Flash? Jobs: Well, you might see that. Markoff: What about YouTube Jobs: Yeah, YouTubeof course. But you don't need to have Flash to show YouTube. All you need to do is deal with YouTube. And plus, we could get `em to up their video resolution at the same time, by using h.264 instead of the old codec. http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs- list- part-2/# A million miles away from the spirit of open mobile devices, as far as Im concerned. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: Camcorder Recommendations
Hi, Does anyone have any experience with a Canon Zr 500? Rodli --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Same camera as the one my wife and daughter bought for me this Christmas. It's a very nice camera. I added a Rode VideoMic to it to finish it all off nicely. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, dinarebecca dinarebecca@ wrote: Thanks, Bill...I do like Panasonic in general, and I like that there is a plug for an external mic, so I will look at this...thanks! D. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, billshackelford bshackelford@ wrote: I have a Panasonic PV-GS300. It is a 3CCD with Optical Image Stabilization and 16:9 mode for around $500. I have had it for 6 months with no problems. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tony Pelliccio kd1s@ wrote: I really, really love my Sanyo Xacti C40 - it's NTSC not HD but to be honest, it's going to be a few years before HD is the standard and NTSC is finally phased out. But the new HD sets can also display NTSC so I'm not worried. And it uses SD cards which are cheap as dirt. Picked up my Xacti at Radio Shack of all places and it only cost me $199. Tony Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the iTunes Store apparently they are. last i checked i didnt see linkbacks. has this been the case for a while now? i dont use itunes much so I was taking mike meiser's word for it. good to know :) On 1/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the iTunes Store and we get lots of traffic from them. If it wasn't for Apple we wouldn't have the advertisers that we have today. We also have lots of comments on our Apple page from people who love us and hate us. So there is a place for user feedback. Apple has been very good to the community. Keep in mind they generate no direct revenue from podcasting, and there's no way to quantify any indirect revenue on their site at this time. I guess you could set up an affiliate account and make some money sending people to iTunes but they send way more people to us than we send to them. I look forward to other big players following Apple's lead and stepping up to the plate and creating a UI that is as good as or better than Apple iTunes. Competition is a good thing. Tim Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV The Viral Video of How To's by French Maids http://frenchmaidtv.com Subscribe for FREE on ahref=http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes; target=_blankiTunes/a On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, sull wrote: I am often disgusted by Apple... Is there even once example of Apple implementing user feedback? Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback especially when it comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been ongoing for 3-4 years. It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be similarly scrutinized for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist to serve MSM first and foremost. But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when they are displaying independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What Control Freaks they are! And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take the UI of their hardware devices and apply it to their software apps. sull On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with their iTunes. They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more ipods and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so after I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can click back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of that crap. Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or because of some steve jobs reality distortion field. Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads directly on your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're alienating you from your users. So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an one... but simply ignore apple? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 1/28/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com wrote: The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and movie companies. That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong. I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free as soon as I post it on blip. I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me some kind of consideration as a content creator. If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller entities are gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct link on it for cryin' out loud. To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing reality on its head. It is the myheavys and magnifys that are acting like old school record companies; robbing artists of their hard work and creativity; screw the talent! Ron On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: On 1/27/07, David [EMAIL PROTECTED]david% 40captainhumphreys.com wrote: Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to be sacrosanct. The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same
[videoblogging] Re: Permalinks and download tracking? How do I do that?
Alright.. I made the following php file to do permalinks to my videos:
?php
// get the file
$serverrequesturi= $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'];
$serverphpself= $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'];
$find[] = $serverphpself.'/';
$replace[] = '';
$requestfilename = str_replace($find, $replace, $serverrequesturi);
// here is where I could gather stats or redirect to mirrors
header(Location: http://billshackelford.com/video/$requestfilename;);
?
I saved it as getmedia.php5 on my server and my links to videos in my podcast
will look
like this:
http://billshackelford.com/getmedia/linuxppc.m4v
Does anyone see anything that I have done that will not work with iTunes/iPod
or anything
else?
Thanks!
- Bill Shackelford
http://billshackelford.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, billshackelford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Great.. I will try to plug this into my site. :)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
solitude@
wrote:
You're right of course. I got things messed up in my head (thinking of the
case where you'd pipe a file through readfile()). That'll teach me to act
smart. :o)
- Andreas
Den 23.01.2007 kl. 15:49 skrev Mike Hudack mike@:
Andreas, you don't need to set Content-type to video/mpg, in fact I
believe that doing so is destructive.
The actual content returned in the redirect response is either
text/plain or text/html, and NOT video/mpg. When the browser follows
the redirect and requests the actual video file it will receive the
proper content-type from the server, presumably video/mpg. If you set
your redirect response to video/mpg and send it to a browser that
doesn't support redirects for some odd reason the user is going to get a
really weird looking page, maybe even a video player without a video.
So don't set the content type explicitly. PHP or Apache will handle
this for you, returning either text/html or text/plain depending on the
format of the The file you have requested has temporarily moved to...
message.
Yours,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas
Haugstrup Pedersen
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:10 AM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Permalinks and download
tracking? How do I do that?
Your syntax is spot on. It's only lacking one crucial thing.
Per default PHP is sent as text/html so along with the
Location header you need to send the correct content-type
header (to build on your example):
header('Content-type: video/mpg');
header('Location: '.$videos[$_GET['video']]);
And since Mike was writing pseudocode you also need to add
your own input checking (e.g. throw a 404 if the video isn't
found) and so on.
As Mike demonstrated the difficult bit is not sending the
headers. It's deciding what kind of stats you want to save
and then building the database scripts to deal with it.
- Andreas
Den 23.01.2007 kl. 14:47 skrev Mike Hudack mike@:
Hey Bill,
This is indeed pretty easy to do. We do it for a number of
reasons,
from collecting statistical information to finding the most
appropriate server to deliver the video from, which means that our
code for doing this is pretty complicated. Your code can
probably be much simpler.
I'm not really a php programmer (I'm more of a perl guy), but this
kind of form should work for you assuming you have a call style like
http://mywebsite.com/video.php?video=bar.mpg:
?php
$videos['foo.mpg'] = 'http://bar.baz/foo.mpg';
$videos['bar.mpg'] = 'http://foo.baz/bar.mpg';
// Do what you want to collect data, et cetera
header('Location: ' . $videos[$_GET['video']]; ?
You should probably consider this pseudo code and not actual code,
since my recollection of php syntax and variable instantiation is
pretty rusty. One thing to keep in mind is that you cannot output
anything from your php script prior to calling the header()
function
-- if it isn't the first thing you call that produces output your
script will break with an ugly HTML Web page with a big bold error
message in the middle of it.
Yours,
Mike
Co-founder CEO, blip.tv
-Original Message-
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of billshackelford
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:39 AM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Permalinks and download tracking?
How do I do that?
Blip.tv has permalinks like this:
http://blip.tv/file/get/Bshack-PopPopPop659.m4v
When you click on it, it will redirect to the actual file
location.
When it redirects it also gathers information about you for stats.
The above link will work in
[videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?
Jan wrote: Nothing stopping YouTubers from putting a cc license in and around their works. We don't NEED to have point-of-upload cc options to claim 'em. Do we? Naw. And Jay wrote: you are absolutely correct. it would of course be easier if yoiutube et al helped educate people by offering the choice in their process. But anyone could insert a video post-roll of the CC license. While I agree with the sentiment -- and indeed, that's exactly what I've done, uploaded my videos to YouTube with CC post-rolls -- I think we should all keep in mind that by uploading to YouTube, you're agreeing to their Terms of Service, which supersedes any conditions you may or may not include as part of your video. In other words, if you include a Creative Commons noncommercial license when you upload to YouTube, YouTube still has the right to license your video to its business partners to show off on their sites. As attorney Colette Vogele told me in a different context: Creative Commons licenses are essentially nonoperational on Yahoo! Video. Same goes for YouTube. (TOS comparison: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/283309) Perhaps the members of this list, together with Creative Commons, should launch a petition campaign to persuade YouTube to include CC licenses as an option when we upload to YouTube. jd lasica ourmedia.org socialmedia.biz
[videoblogging] Re: A look ahead at Google Video and YouTube
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This comes as no surprise, I suppose. Inevitably the question arises, what's high quality content? One man's meat is another man's poison, after all. They have a link to your answer on that very page: http://adsense.blogspot.com/2007/01/this-is-test-video-content-on-adsense.html This is a test: Video content on AdSense There are many things in life that go hand in hand -- peanut butter jelly, wine cheese, milk cookies -- and for publishers, AdSense great content sites. We hope that the next perfect pairing will be great video content your audience. Over the next few weeks we'll be testing AdSense video distribution and sponsorship with a small group of publishers. You may remember us doing a similar trial last year with MTV Networks, where we distributed ad-supported MTV video content to publishers who displayed the content on their sites. This time, we'll be working with a larger set of content providers, grouping together video content from providers such as Warner Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment together with quality ads and offering them as playlists which publishers can select from and display on their AdSense sites. Participating publishers range from small to large, and cut across many different types of content. While we're unable to invite additional publishers into this test, we still want to share some of the exciting things we're working on in AdSense. We know our publishers are passionate about developing quality content and providing the best experience possible for their users. With this test, we hope to offer you new forms of engaging, relevant content to meet these goals. So there you have it. High Quality Content in this case = High Production Values + a great probability that advertisers will be willing to pay for ads on their videos. Period. No meat or poison. This isn't videoblogging... This is business. No falling off of skateboards and no sitting in front of an iSight talking about how unfair life is. The question here is clearly how to transfer MSM influence to the internet and the feasibility of advertising and marketing schemes in situations where they _should_ be able to get money because these same groups make money on television and in print ads. -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
[videoblogging] Re: CNET video incubator
Fascinating. Good luck to the project. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://newteevee.com/2007/01/26/cnet-video-incubator-getting-started/ Looks like Schlomo is working on a pretty cool project. see, I like it when money is available for people wanting to make good work. this project make sense. Up to twenty thousand dollars will be made available to production teams, along with professional advice and the promise of whatever resources they can wrangle from CNET. Creators will own their own content what Project Spotlight is asking for is exclusivity for some period of time after the content debuts Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
[videoblogging] Re: CNET video incubator
The more ways folks come up with to make the space viable, the more fun we might be able to have. Here's hoping, and good luck, Schlomo. We'll have an extra toast on the 8th. : ) --Chris...
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Camcorder Recommendations
the canon ZR 500 ROCKS! it's super cheap and has an external mic jack. shoots in 4:3 and 16:9 and it could almost fit in your pocket i think it's like 230$ on amazon. verdi and chris ritke both have it. http://astore.amazon.com/freevlog-20/detail/B000DZH4CO/104-9828449-9809565 On 1/29/07, RODLI PEDERSON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any experience with a Canon Zr 500? Rodli --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Same camera as the one my wife and daughter bought for me this Christmas. It's a very nice camera. I added a Rode VideoMic to it to finish it all off nicely. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, dinarebecca dinarebecca@ wrote: Thanks, Bill...I do like Panasonic in general, and I like that there is a plug for an external mic, so I will look at this...thanks! D. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, billshackelford bshackelford@ wrote: I have a Panasonic PV-GS300. It is a 3CCD with Optical Image Stabilization and 16:9 mode for around $500. I have had it for 6 months with no problems. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Tony Pelliccio kd1s@ wrote: I really, really love my Sanyo Xacti C40 - it's NTSC not HD but to be honest, it's going to be a few years before HD is the standard and NTSC is finally phased out. But the new HD sets can also display NTSC so I'm not worried. And it uses SD cards which are cheap as dirt. Picked up my Xacti at Radio Shack of all places and it only cost me $199. Tony __ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Author of Secrets of Videoblogging http://tinyurl.com/me4vs Me http://RyanEdit.com, http://RyanIsHungry.com Educate http://FreeVlog.org, http://Node101.org Community Capitalism http://HaveMoneyWillVlog.com iChat/AIM VideoRodeo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: micropayments / MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
I looked briefly at indiekarma and like what they are attempting. I personally want to give people a choice - free is great at inviting people in to have a look-see and stay as long as they like. Enabling people to pay is a longer term part of changing the consciousness of buyers. It's for the loyal few, not to be expected from the many passers by. I like to give back when I find somethign of value. But how many people actually come back to click on the Donate button after using a piece of freeware? From the people I have met, very few. So that means for now, the occasional micropayment (feels good and maintains a positive energy flow) combined with sponsorships where there is relevance bwtween the sponsor and the show content. I'd like to see PayPal implement a feature/Firefox plugin that would allow you to login in the morning, and then click an Instant Payment button to make micropayments throughout the day, literally one-click. Maybe someone from PayPal is listening here. Their tools get better and better; this seems a natural progression. Rox On 1/29/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like this idea too, Sull. Perhaps all of my free stuff could be part of the whole that would need to be tied into the paid version to have the real nuts in bolts. Make 'em pay for the punchline, or the trick to the trick. You could get the flavor, but not the meal, so to speak. I also like the idea of the tube points concept. We are talking about small chunks of money. Like buying a piece of candy, or a candy bar. The problem seems to be the lack of a give a penny, take a penny tray and change purse. How can we enable an internet media changepurse for viewers and a change tray for content creators? I guess a videoblogger's guild or union could do something like that. We surely have the talent pool within the population to make that happen. What fringe benefits could be added to entice viewers to pay for some content? Maybe it's sulls 'super episodes' or the 'punchlines' for free. Could that be something that would get viewers to invest in internet media? I don't know. There have got to be a ton of things we could come up with. Anyone else here know the concept of 'Po'? Cheers, Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:41 PM, sull wrote: I am also a believer in mixing both paid and free content. For example, every month you out a video that requires a payment... maybe it's $5. It obviously helps if this video is somewhat different than your regular shows. What the difference is would be up to you, the producers. But it could be a good way to ask for financial support while still giving the audience most of your content for free. With some marketing finesse, you could work to increase the amount of purchases over time ;-) If re-distribution of this paid content hinders, you could use DRM or other techniques to defend against it. Hey, it's only one video so you wouldnt be evil :) i think it's time now for us - as producers - to figure out how to use aggregation to our benefit, not just to the offical aggregators' benefit. Yes, please let's keep the discussion going... here or on the other list... anywhere. I just want to keep the topic moving forward. sull On 1/29/07, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'd prefer to make payments over viewing ads often too but when I surveyed my audience the answer was overwhelming: we'll take ads, we don't want to pay; it's too good it should be free so anyone can see it. i didn't offer the choice of two feeds (free with ads or no ads for fee) I went ahead and enabled $2 a month optional subscriptions (we do a show every single day so that is less than 7 cents an episode. We have 2 paid subscribers out of several thousand downloads a day. And a very loyal audience. So now we are going after ads. i think it's time now for us - as producers - to figure out how to use aggregation to our benefit, not just to the offical aggregators' benefit. r On 1/28/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] steve% 40dvmachine.com wrote: Speaking only as a viewer, Id like to be able to make micropayments without thinking about it when watching content. Its hard to get people to pay if there is a lot of simialr stuff out there for free, but my personal hatred of adverts means Id gladly pay to avoid them. Say for example once Youtube goes ahead with pre-roll adverts, Id rather give youtube $10 which would buy me 100 tubepoints, which are
Re: [videoblogging] Re: micropayments / MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general
http://www.cambrianhouse.com/idea-explorer/idea-promoter/ideas-id/8riBvU5/ :) On 1/30/07, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I looked briefly at indiekarma and like what they are attempting. I personally want to give people a choice - free is great at inviting people in to have a look-see and stay as long as they like. Enabling people to pay is a longer term part of changing the consciousness of buyers. It's for the loyal few, not to be expected from the many passers by. I like to give back when I find somethign of value. But how many people actually come back to click on the Donate button after using a piece of freeware? From the people I have met, very few. So that means for now, the occasional micropayment (feels good and maintains a positive energy flow) combined with sponsorships where there is relevance bwtween the sponsor and the show content. I'd like to see PayPal implement a feature/Firefox plugin that would allow you to login in the morning, and then click an Instant Payment button to make micropayments throughout the day, literally one-click. Maybe someone from PayPal is listening here. Their tools get better and better; this seems a natural progression. Rox On 1/29/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com wrote: I like this idea too, Sull. Perhaps all of my free stuff could be part of the whole that would need to be tied into the paid version to have the real nuts in bolts. Make 'em pay for the punchline, or the trick to the trick. You could get the flavor, but not the meal, so to speak. I also like the idea of the tube points concept. We are talking about small chunks of money. Like buying a piece of candy, or a candy bar. The problem seems to be the lack of a give a penny, take a penny tray and change purse. How can we enable an internet media changepurse for viewers and a change tray for content creators? I guess a videoblogger's guild or union could do something like that. We surely have the talent pool within the population to make that happen. What fringe benefits could be added to entice viewers to pay for some content? Maybe it's sulls 'super episodes' or the 'punchlines' for free. Could that be something that would get viewers to invest in internet media? I don't know. There have got to be a ton of things we could come up with. Anyone else here know the concept of 'Po'? Cheers, Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] k9disc%40mac.com On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:41 PM, sull wrote: I am also a believer in mixing both paid and free content. For example, every month you out a video that requires a payment... maybe it's $5. It obviously helps if this video is somewhat different than your regular shows. What the difference is would be up to you, the producers. But it could be a good way to ask for financial support while still giving the audience most of your content for free. With some marketing finesse, you could work to increase the amount of purchases over time ;-) If re-distribution of this paid content hinders, you could use DRM or other techniques to defend against it. Hey, it's only one video so you wouldnt be evil :) i think it's time now for us - as producers - to figure out how to use aggregation to our benefit, not just to the offical aggregators' benefit. Yes, please let's keep the discussion going... here or on the other list... anywhere. I just want to keep the topic moving forward. sull On 1/29/07, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] okekai%40gmail.com wrote: i'd prefer to make payments over viewing ads often too but when I surveyed my audience the answer was overwhelming: we'll take ads, we don't want to pay; it's too good it should be free so anyone can see it. i didn't offer the choice of two feeds (free with ads or no ads for fee) I went ahead and enabled $2 a month optional subscriptions (we do a show every single day so that is less than 7 cents an episode. We have 2 paid subscribers out of several thousand downloads a day. And a very loyal audience. So now we are going after ads. i think it's time now for us - as producers - to figure out how to use aggregation to our benefit, not just to the offical aggregators' benefit. r On 1/28/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]steve%40dvmachine.comsteve% 40dvmachine.com wrote: Speaking only as a viewer, Id like to be able to make micropayments without thinking about it when watching content. Its hard to get people to pay if there is a lot of simialr stuff out
