Re: [videoblogging] New media -- new ways of seeing the political and social universe.
I know what you mean when you say : I'm interested in accessing examples of engagement with web video that suggests a new way of seeing the world of everyday political and social reality without necessarily being a skilled end product. but I would argue with the word 'skilled' - the first of your examples, David Kessler's Shadow World, is a very skilled end product. The camerawork and editing is very carefully done - particularly when shooting cutting the non-speaking sections - and plays with the idea of verité. Maybe 'slick' would be a better word than 'skilled' to describe what these are not. Some projects by people in this group that focus on subjects outside the personal in a low budget but skilled way: Human-Dog's American King: http://human-dog.com/category/american-king/ Ryan Is Hungry as a whole: http://ryanishungry.com Stan Hirson's Dairy Farm multi-clip film on Pine Plains Views: http://www.pineplainsviews.com/video-stories/the-dairy-farm Lo Fi Saint Louis appears to be a music vlog, but also covers local art street scenes - see his latest, for instance: http://lofistl.com/2009/09/21/240-street-boxers-at-lemp-and-arsenal/ Am sure there are more I've left out - these are those that came to mind before breakfast. And another project with more funding that reminds me of Shadow World in some ways is David Lynch's Interview Project: http://interviewproject.davidlynch.com/ Thanks for the link to albatv - sound great! Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 6-Oct-09, at 4:05 AM, ratbagradio wrote: I'm looking for online documentary recommendation but stuff that keeps within the 10 minute format.I'm not after news shows per se -- but POV internet video There are two internet video streams I really appreciate that are hallmarks for me: # Shadow World by David S. Kessler http://dskessler.com/shadowworld/ http://shadowworld.blip.tv/ which is an extraordinary exercise in cinema verite . Does anyone know sites as good as Kessler's that work a similar focus? Kessler writes:The process is fairly straightforward. I walk the streets under the El tracks, and tripod in hand, mostly concentrating on the play and power that the El structure has on the buildings and streets below. I stop at points where I feel that its impact is the strongest, allowing the trains and the tracks to be the one reoccurring character that forces itself into each moment. The people I talk to are all strangers. I try to let them steer the conversation. There isn't much (if any) prying to get them to tell me their stories. The intent is to appreciate that moment of interaction - whether something is revealed to me, a stranger, or not...The moments I capture are boiled down to three to four minute episodes. # Albatv http://albatv.blip.tv/ which is a product of the mass scale push in Venezuela to democratize the media.I like AlbaTV because its in mixes amongst it all and doesn't have 'journalistic' pretensions.It's very plebeian video -- in Spanish. AlbaTV shoots a lot of the activist stuff like I'm engaged with but it does it much better than I have done as it works much closer to its subjects whereas I'm hampered by journalese. As the Venezuelans say, it's Video communication without intermediaries:Alba TV plans to construct a different communication model, antagonistic to the dominant model of social communication, a task that can not be delegated but must be undertaken directly... because in this model of communication there can be no intermediaries. I'm interested in accessing examples of engagement with web video that suggests a new way of seeing the world of everyday political and social reality without necessarily being a skilled end product. There's a lot of videoblogging personalised stuff but I was interested in material that was more outward looking but wasn't just 'news'. I'm unaware of resources that monitor web video by genre and report on trends, review and make recommendations. The scale of the video universe is so large now you really need a guide book that can see beyond each online aggregator. However, the potential power of the short online video grab packaged in a series, as Kessler has done, seems very large indeed. There's a difference about shooting for the web -- which is not about trying to ape television or play film schools. dave riley [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: New media -- new ways of seeing the political and social universe.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: Some projects by people in this group that focus on subjects outside the personal in a low budget but skilled way: I always value your recommendations Rupert and often go through those video sites listed on your own.You are right about Shadow Lands -- it is highly skilled video production, but I guess I'm trying to arrive at the POV that today skilling up is much easier than of yore as the tools are on hand and so accessible without having to train up in a big way. I mean they're no longer the province of specialists. I come from audio work and video tools, at a base DIY level, are so darn easier in comparison, as is the means to share. But I'll surf your recommendations, Thanks. I'm having this running argument with people who are in print -- hard copy -- media and not web oriented much at all and they simply have no idea of the mammoth potential that digital video online offers us. And while the web apes the off line stuff, they aren't going to recognize what potential may exist. Even community television producers I know cannot see the web's possible future. dave riley
Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes
2009/10/5 Pete Prodoehl ras...@gmail.com I put my 20+ year old box of audio cassettes to good use... And you can see some of the results here: http://www.mkepunk.com/ That's really cool, Pete. Any idea on license terms for these MP3s, though? By implication they are free to listen, but is it OK to use them in derived works? Or commercial projects? Do you (or the original artists) want attribution? etc. Thanks, Frank.
Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes
That's a really nice site Pete, beautifully put together! I myself just moved my studio and turned up a bunch of tapes from when I ran shoutcast streams around the turn of the century, I've been steadily podcasting them at http://wwwhatsup.com/streamola/ after which they hit the dumper! joly On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Pete Prodoehl ras...@gmail.com wrote: I put my 20+ year old box of audio cassettes to good use... And you can see some of the results here: http://www.mkepunk.com/ I consider myself an archivist and documentarian which are fancy words for packrat and guy who doesn't throw things away... ever! Sometimes you can only see the value of things later. Sometimes much later. Pete -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
[videoblogging] Re: Google Wave the state of the net in general
Hello, Thanks very much for the info, and thanks to Jay too for his thoughts. Cheers Steve --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: Steve, On 1-Oct-09, at 5:19 PM, elbowsofdeath wrote: What significant developments have happened on the web in recent years, especially pertaining to vlogging? How have the video hosting services evolved, or have they just been treading water and trying to survive in recent times? Are there any interesting projects that people are throwing themselves into? Check out the Artists in the Cloud group: http://groups.google.com/group/artists-in-the-cloud/ where people are discussing this stuff and circling the kind of video projects they're considering throwing themselves into.
[videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes
adam, someone like me will LOVE the fact you kept them. maybe, in 80 years time, when i finally get around to finishing my phd, I'll ask you for them. it'll be a historical project worth doing i think :) trine On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote: That's a really nice site Pete, beautifully put together! I myself just moved my studio and turned up a bunch of tapes from when I ran shoutcast streams around the turn of the century, I've been steadily podcasting them at http://wwwhatsup.com/streamola/ after which they hit the dumper! joly On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Pete Prodoehl ras...@gmail.comraster%40gmail.com wrote: I put my 20+ year old box of audio cassettes to good use... And you can see some of the results here: http://www.mkepunk.com/ I consider myself an archivist and documentarian which are fancy words for packrat and guy who doesn't throw things away... ever! Sometimes you can only see the value of things later. Sometimes much later. Pete -- -- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com -- -- twitter.com/trine [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes
So glad that I still have all my home movies on VHS that I started shootin in 1983. Still look good moving them to DV now. JC --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Pete Prodoehl ras...@gmail.com wrote: From: Pete Prodoehl ras...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 12:01 PM I put my 20+ year old box of audio cassettes to good use... And you can see some of the results here: http://www.mkepunk. com/ I consider myself an archivist and documentarian which are fancy words for packrat and guy who doesn't throw things away... ever! Sometimes you can only see the value of things later. Sometimes much later. Pete Adam Quirk wrote: I'm in the middle of a move, and came across the box of mini-DV tapes I've accumulated over the years. I'm seriously considering chucking it all. Will I, or anyone, really ever want to watch two-hundred hours of random clips from my life and work? There's a part of me that wants to keep everything, every second that I shot. But there's another part of me that knows I already cut and uploaded and shared the best parts of these tapes. I'm not really sure what I'm asking here, but you guys would probably have the best insight into this sort of thing. AQ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes
Since you're too modest to post a link to your own videos, I will! Here's the 1980s category from jchtv.com, for those in the mood for some VHS nostalgia http://www.jchtv.com/?cat=292 On 6-Oct-09, at 1:29 PM, John Coffey wrote: So glad that I still have all my home movies on VHS that I started shootin in 1983. Still look good moving them to DV now. JC --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Pete Prodoehl ras...@gmail.com wrote: From: Pete Prodoehl ras...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 12:01 PM I put my 20+ year old box of audio cassettes to good use... And you can see some of the results here: http://www.mkepunk. com/ I consider myself an archivist and documentarian which are fancy words for packrat and guy who doesn't throw things away... ever! Sometimes you can only see the value of things later. Sometimes much later. Pete Adam Quirk wrote: I'm in the middle of a move, and came across the box of mini-DV tapes I've accumulated over the years. I'm seriously considering chucking it all. Will I, or anyone, really ever want to watch two-hundred hours of random clips from my life and work? There's a part of me that wants to keep everything, every second that I shot. But there's another part of me that knows I already cut and uploaded and shared the best parts of these tapes. I'm not really sure what I'm asking here, but you guys would probably have the best insight into this sort of thing. AQ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. You dont know the US very well. Criticism stands on complete anger that the government would regulate the web at all. --Who's going to keep track? Who pays for this supervision? More bureaucracy. --Bloggers especially feel it's an attempt to limit their ability to take on big power by entrapping them in legal limbo by silly lawsuits. --it starts by regulating disclosure. what will be next? It'll get to the point where an individual person needs so much paperwork and legal help to blog that only big companies can afford it...thus taking away why the web has been cool. --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then get Scotland Yard to arrest you? This a brief rundown of worries. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals under the guise of protecting people. markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
How is this even being discussed as an option in the USA? Surely this is rather decisively forbidden by the first amendment? On 6-Oct-09, at 2:51 PM, Markus Sandy wrote: On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals under the guise of protecting people. markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Well you are certainly correct that I am not from the US so my knowledge is somewhat limited, however I have witnessed enough ranting and drooling on the net about related issues in the past to have some vague idea about the kind of arguments that are made to support the special brand of capitalist freedom that many on that side of the pond seem to get excited about. Indignation about the idea that the government would regulate the web in any way does not get much sympathy from me when it is applied very broadly. Existing laws prevent people from doing all sorts of things on the web without the sky falling in. You cant stir up violence or call for murder or bloody revolution or sell quack devices or illegal drugs or indulge in complete fraud or child porn without falling foul of the law. The web has never been an unregulated new wild west, despite the hyperbole of some. I also dont buy into the idea that this will bury people in paperwork or legal fee's or whatever, these are guidelines which simply require people who indulge in commercial activity to consider disclosure and ethical issues properly instead of only being guided by their own moral compass. Good. The global nature of the web certainly complicates issues such as these but I doubt it will cause too many issues in this case. Certainly I feel that noble ideas about self-regulation, codes of conducts, the blogosphere policing itself because those who do not disclose will ultimately fall foul of public backlash and will soil their own brand are all well and good, but just as with wider notions of industry self-regulation, I raise my eyebrows and feel it is not enough. Anyways Im sure the last thing this group needs is for me to take us back to the bad old days where my loud opinionating and sometimes harsh tone lead to headaches and a giant waste of peoples time, so I shall zip my cakehole now. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. You dont know the US very well. Criticism stands on complete anger that the government would regulate the web at all. --Who's going to keep track? Who pays for this supervision? More bureaucracy. --Bloggers especially feel it's an attempt to limit their ability to take on big power by entrapping them in legal limbo by silly lawsuits. --it starts by regulating disclosure. what will be next? It'll get to the point where an individual person needs so much paperwork and legal help to blog that only big companies can afford it...thus taking away why the web has been cool. --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then get Scotland Yard to arrest you? This a brief rundown of worries. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Sorry I am breaking my own claim that I would shutup already. I apologise as Ive blundered into a minefield without considering all of the issues properly before speaking. Apparently this stuff applies to twitter and other things too, so I really dont see the insured and licensed professionals things as a likely outcome of this sort of regulation. I dont buy slippery slope arguments easily, and certainly not in this case, though I would concede that it raises more issues than my initially dismissive musings suggest. Im sure some of the difficulties with balancing freedoms and rights is that one persons freedom may impinge on anothers rights. The term 'consumer protection' is used to argue for regulation, as a consumer dont I have the right to know if someone is blogging positively about a product because they are being paid or given freebies? Considering all is not squaeaky clean in the traditional media in this regard, and that one of the great hopes for blogging is that it would somewhat overcome the duplicity between the media and the entities they write about, why must we focus only on the negative freedom-destroying aspects of legislation when considering these things? Im not complaining about people discussing the freedom stuff and their concerns for the future, its simply that as there seems to be no shortage of people prepared to make such cases, I prefer to focus on any valid reasons that may exist for regulation. So trying to keep it to the narrow specifics of these particular FTC guidelines, is it really wrong that I should face a fine if I endorse products without disclosing that I am benefitting in some way? It doesnt seem like a large and murky minefield that would disuade many from blogging at all? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sa...@... wrote: On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals under the guise of protecting people. markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
On 07/10/2009, at 12:40 AM, Jay dedman wrote: You dont know the US very well. Criticism stands on complete anger that the government would regulate the web at all. well, a lot of existing media law applies already, certainly outside of the US where free speech provisions are not as strong. But a lot of this stuff seems quite confused. For example quite a few years ago an Australian businessman (with international reputation/profile) successfully sued a US publisher over their online service for defamation in Australia. Existing media law handled it, a) the service was actually subscription based b) they did sell it in Australia even though it it originated in the States so c) it was deemed to be published here and they certainly had a company here d) they did defame the individual. --Who's going to keep track? Who pays for this supervision? More bureaucracy. Perhaps other bloggers? Who ensures the press reveals such conflicts of interest? --Bloggers especially feel it's an attempt to limit their ability to take on big power by entrapping them in legal limbo by silly lawsuits. --it starts by regulating disclosure. what will be next? It'll get to the point where an individual person needs so much paperwork and legal help to blog that only big companies can afford it...thus taking away why the web has been cool. that is an argument that equates 'rules' and 'regulations' with not having to understand your obligations. try to get a gun licence in nearly any western democracy *except* the united states if you want to experience bureaucracy, but that is not a criticism of gun control, just that yes, there is a role for government in managing and overseeing and policing some things, and having a communications authority suggest that if you blog, and if you are being paid by a third party for your opinion but not revealing that, then there's a problem. Precisely because the web is a *publishing* environment. Any reputable paper will point out if a journo went on trip x as part of a junket, and clearly understands the difference between reportage, opinion and advertorial. I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then get Scotland Yard to arrest you? no, US law does not apply in Britain, and vice versa. This a brief rundown of worries. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a one- sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. On 6-Oct-09, at 4:03 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then get Scotland Yard to arrest you? no, US law does not apply in Britain, and vice versa. This a brief rundown of worries. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
ah yes, but presumably Blair at least left a court to determine this? in which case it is still reasonable to think that an English court is not going to extradite an English citizen for cash for comment in their blog :-) or can we expect extraordinary rendition for cash for comment bloggers? On 07/10/2009, at 2:19 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a one- sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.auwrote: I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) bigdogvi...@gmail.com www.irishhermit.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Im not even sure the US would request it, let alone the UK grant it. We are after all talking about the sort of legislation where fines are used to disuade companies and corporations from indulging in certain practices when it comes to advertising and marketing, not exactly hanging offenses. Anyway whilst the extradition act is flawed in some ways, the courts do have some say in the matter, as seen when a Pentagon hacker with aspergers challenged this extradition. The challenge failed, but UK courts were at least involved. Im just reading the full FTC guidelines now, it seems pretty good, and Ive also seen plenty of positive comments about it (as well as many negative ones) on Twitter, some from US citizens, so lets not pretend that there is a clear split to the sides of this debate based on cultural differences. (Note that I am not accusing Adrian of this for obvious reasons, just happen to be tacking this detail onto the end of this reply). Cheers Steve Elbows PS. Hoorah the guidelines also remove the stupid 'these results are not typical' safe harbour clause for TV print adverts, no more extreme weightloss examples seeming like the norm if you dont read the smallprint. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... wrote: ah yes, but presumably Blair at least left a court to determine this? in which case it is still reasonable to think that an English court is not going to extradite an English citizen for cash for comment in their blog :-) or can we expect extraordinary rendition for cash for comment bloggers? On 07/10/2009, at 2:19 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a one- sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tom Gosse bigdogvi...@... wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@...wrote: I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) Indeed, very well put. I miss the ethical debates here, which admittedly didnt get too deep as it pertains to videoblogging rather than text blogging, as I dont think there were too many examples of widespread non-disclosure at the time. I seem to recall we had a conversation about product placement in vlogs once or twice, has much changed in the intervening years, eg some dramatic examples of such things? Ho ho ho the new rules apply to celebrities too. Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
The only argument is if it was something done in the UK that was not a crime in UK law. But if it is, or if it was committed in the USA, then if the US decides something is worthy of extradition, it's a done deal. No court can overrule it, no argument can be made by the individual being extradited. So - you're better off going to any other EU country, all of whom refused to sign unless the US reciprocated. Which, of course, they refused to do. On 6-Oct-09, at 4:35 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: ah yes, but presumably Blair at least left a court to determine this? in which case it is still reasonable to think that an English court is not going to extradite an English citizen for cash for comment in their blog :-) or can we expect extraordinary rendition for cash for comment bloggers? On 07/10/2009, at 2:19 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a one- sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. Sure, they have some house standards, and they are self-regulating in cases of extreme breach. But mostly it's just muckraking, partisan politics and sensationalism in the name of trying to stay afloat and not lose advertisers. Look through your newspapers today and tell me that they're being transparent about their advertising. A journalist in this group told me only last month about how his editor killed a story he was writing about a huge corporate crime solely because the criminals were big advertisers. I think maybe the US has a stronger myth of the noble journalist and truth seeking press. However true that is, I don't know - certainly I don't see much in the way of truth seeking editors and proprietors. So I don't see why people writing or publishing online have to be regulated at all, beyond existing laws. There will always be conmen and suckers, politicians and voters, papers and readers. Regulations like this don't change any of that, they're just something for politicians and civil servants to do. And how will this be enforced - whose permits would be monitored and taken away, and how? Surely it's a joke - but a lucrative joke, if your Permit To Speak costs you money to buy. And, in the end, Permits to Speak will be abused by people who don't agree with what you say. On 6-Oct-09, at 4:48 PM, Tom Gosse wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au wrote: I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) bigdogvi...@gmail.com www.irishhermit.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
From what I have read of the FTCs guidelines and stance so far, it mostly boils down to whether people are being mislead, and the regard that consumers have for different messengers is taken into account . eg if people dont trust journalists very much in the first place, or expect them to be distorting things for commercial reasons, then this is taken into account when considering how likely people are to be mislead, ie the capacity to mislead is reduced if the messenger is not trusted in the first place. When individuals blog on the net, there are not likely to be so many preconceived ideas, people may be more inclined to take them at face value, hence the need to disclosure of commercial relationships and suchlike. permit to speak' is rhetoric that just makes me laugh, thats not what this is about at all. Nobody has to get a license to speak, its just that they dont have freedom to say whatever they like without potential consequences, which is fine by me. We are never free from the consequences of words, whether its me being unpopular for things I say, or someone risking a fine for trying to promote things in ways that are potentially misleading. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. Sure, they have some house standards, and they are self-regulating in cases of extreme breach. But mostly it's just muckraking, partisan politics and sensationalism in the name of trying to stay afloat and not lose advertisers. Look through your newspapers today and tell me that they're being transparent about their advertising. A journalist in this group told me only last month about how his editor killed a story he was writing about a huge corporate crime solely because the criminals were big advertisers. I think maybe the US has a stronger myth of the noble journalist and truth seeking press. However true that is, I don't know - certainly I don't see much in the way of truth seeking editors and proprietors. So I don't see why people writing or publishing online have to be regulated at all, beyond existing laws. There will always be conmen and suckers, politicians and voters, papers and readers. Regulations like this don't change any of that, they're just something for politicians and civil servants to do. And how will this be enforced - whose permits would be monitored and taken away, and how? Surely it's a joke - but a lucrative joke, if your Permit To Speak costs you money to buy. And, in the end, Permits to Speak will be abused by people who don't agree with what you say. On 6-Oct-09, at 4:48 PM, Tom Gosse wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... wrote: I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) bigdogvi...@... www.irishhermit.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Keeping tapes
I still have tapes from my Public Access TV days back in Hawaii from the mid 90's. Am surprised how handsome I was then! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes
I still have tapes from my Public Access TV days back in Hawaii from the mid 90's. Am surprised how handsome I was then! Perfect example for digitizing and archiving on a blog. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. Yep, good points. I originally laid out the fears/anger in the US over the FTC announcement. As we all know, people in US dont always base their arguments on facts. There is simply a knee-jerk reaction against the government getting involved in anything. Hell, poor rural americans would rather get eaten alive by cancer caused by processed food and pesticides than have the government offer healthcare. As Roxanne says, this rule is aimed at Commercial interactions online. If it stays like this, it'l be fine...just like the blogosphere is fine with laws against spam and child porn. It's good to show some muscle when the govt does anything. Makes them think twice. Now go buy some guns: http://www.auctionarms.com/ Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Jay - Yes, people may choose jobs with cancer over healthcare; without transparency tho we don't know what we are choosing. BTW, a fam trip means the trip was financed by the tourism company and the arrangements were made and the connections created also by the company. Not only is it cash on the table, but also access to people and places, which is some cases (just like politics) is more valuable than money. R On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. Yep, good points. I originally laid out the fears/anger in the US over the FTC announcement. As we all know, people in US dont always base their arguments on facts. There is simply a knee-jerk reaction against the government getting involved in anything. Hell, poor rural americans would rather get eaten alive by cancer caused by processed food and pesticides than have the government offer healthcare. As Roxanne says, this rule is aimed at Commercial interactions online. If it stays like this, it'l be fine...just like the blogosphere is fine with laws against spam and child porn. It's good to show some muscle when the govt does anything. Makes them think twice. Now go buy some guns: http://www.auctionarms.com/ Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Very much agree with Roxanne and what Jay just said. But for many of us blogger-types, it gets sorta murky. For large blogs with multiple staff, or for blogs like in Roxanne's example, where the blogger happens to be a travel blogger on a trip ... that seems fairly clear-cut to me. It's a business, you should disclose stuff. But not all blogs are that type of blog. My main blog, for example - I started out blogging about stuff I found interesting that was connected with my job, more to remember the cool stuff I found than anything. It's morphed into sort of a part-time job. I get speaking engagements because I blog. Publishers sometimes send me techie books to look at. Etc. I get it - it's a small business, and I make sure to say hey, they sent me a book or whatever. But it's been a lng trip between now and when I started. I know a lot of bloggers that mix business and pleasure, professional interests and family, and well - they're still in that murky middle area where policies like the FTC is going after ... wouldn't even dawn on them. That, plus the fact that there are like a gazillion blogs out there, makes this a hard thing to enforce, I think :-) David Lee King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog twitter | skype: davidleeking On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. Yep, good points. I originally laid out the fears/anger in the US over the FTC announcement. As we all know, people in US dont always base their arguments on facts. There is simply a knee-jerk reaction against the government getting involved in anything. Hell, poor rural americans would rather get eaten alive by cancer caused by processed food and pesticides than have the government offer healthcare. As Roxanne says, this rule is aimed at Commercial interactions online. If it stays like this, it'l be fine...just like the blogosphere is fine with laws against spam and child porn. It's good to show some muscle when the govt does anything. Makes them think twice. Now go buy some guns: http://www.auctionarms.com/ Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Spot on, especially the point in your blog about us being even more vulnerable to such things, not less. I think the same is also true of politics, the seductive trappings of power may overwhelm and corrupt those who have risen from the lower planes of disenfranchisement even more than those who are brought up, educated and indoctrinated to be managers/rulers. It can be easy to sneer at journalistic codes of conduct given the reality of that industry, but at least there is some idea of standards and a clear barometer by which failings can be measured, and those who have been educated to enter that field at least know some detail about the ethical minefield and so dont make the kind of jaw-dropping statements that some in the blogosphere have made when defending themselves against accusations of selling out. I dont want to mention names as that will only open open old wounds, but I can think of a couple of instances where such things emerged on this list years ago, although I think there was also an example of political non-disclosure which never got aired here in detail, boom boom Senator Edwards. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling oke...@... wrote: Well I hate to disagree with some of you however I just blogged about this (again) this morning:It's Official: Bloggers Are Recognized by the FTChttp://www.barefeetstudios.com/2009/10/06/its-official-bloggers-are-recognized-by-the-ftc/ http://www.barefeetstudios.com/2009/10/06/its-official-bloggers-are-recognized-by-the-ftc/I see it from another side. If bloggers want respect, we have to stop acting like we are above ethics and can somehow police ourselves when no other group of humanity has demonstrated that ability. Do you not all see the payola that is everywhere in the blogosphere? Does that not bother you as the pure of heart I know so many of you to be? True Case in point: Well-know travel blogger writes on her blog that she was fired from her job. She bemoans the situation, says she didn't like it anyway, and os going to take a trip to Hawaii to clear her head. Her loyal and empathic readers give her the blog equivalent of you go girl! we support you taking you care of yourself. She then proceeds to blog lyrically about the cool places where she stays on multiple islands and the amazing (business) people she meets on her trip. No where does she disclose that her trip was a fam trip. A practice long ago abandoned by reputable travel writers. No where does she use the nofollow tag on all her links to so-called friends she met and products/services she used/bought on her trip. I think that is misleading and abuse of privilege. I also think it is unnecessary. Loyal readers will be happy she got the earned trip and will ignore themselves the built-in advantage one gives to gifts in cash or in kind. We don't like this practice when lobbyists take our congress people on vacations and we don't like it when said congress people claim not to be influenced. What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. Done. Aloha, Roxanne On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:56 AM, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: From what I have read of the FTCs guidelines and stance so far, it mostly boils down to whether people are being mislead, and the regard that consumers have for different messengers is taken into account . eg if people dont trust journalists very much in the first place, or expect them to be distorting things for commercial reasons, then this is taken into account when considering how likely people are to be mislead, ie the capacity to mislead is reduced if the messenger is not trusted in the first place. When individuals blog on the net, there are not likely to be so many preconceived ideas, people may be more inclined to take them at face value, hence the need to disclosure of commercial relationships and suchlike. permit to speak' is rhetoric that just makes me laugh, thats not what this is about at all. Nobody has to get a license to speak, its just that they dont have freedom to say whatever they like without potential consequences, which is fine by me. We are never free from the consequences of words, whether its me being unpopular for things I say, or someone risking a fine for trying to promote things in ways that are potentially misleading. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rupert@ wrote: Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. Sure, they have some house standards, and they are self-regulating in cases of extreme
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Its their own fault if it doesnt even dawn on them, let this be a long overdue wakeup call. The FTC look at all this stuff on a case-by-case basis anyway, they arent going to attempt to police this stuff down to the last blog or twitter, indeed a large point of updating the guidelines is to get most people to self-police because they wont have the excuse that they never even considered this stuff or that the guidelines didnt mention them. And for those who persistently mislead or just ignore the issue, well occasionally the book will get thrown at them, further raising awareness for everyone else. Im sure that a few genuinely murky areas may emerge where people may be justified in not knowing how to handle things, or where there seems to bean injustice, but overall after reading the guidelines I think quite a lot of sensible thinking has gone into them and for the majority of cases its quite straightforward. If I have understood the guidelines properly, one area that may spell trouble for certain corners of the blogosphere is that companies can be held to account if bloggers that they pay or give freebies to, make misleading claims about the products. Companies are advised to shield themselves from this stuff by taking some steps to limit this where possible, such as monitoring the bloggers they seduce, and not giving any more freebies to bloggers who make spurious claims about their products. The celebrity stuff brought a grin to my face as celebs can no longer rely on a 'I was just reading a script/sticking to my contract' defense if they are bullshitting about a product in certain specific ways. I consider all of this as fairly inevitable considering the changed nature of the distribution of these messages. Endorsers messages are no longer published only by the company who make the products, do the endorsers themselves are deemed responsible and will sometimes be held to account. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David King davidleek...@... wrote: I know a lot of bloggers that mix business and pleasure, professional interests and family, and well - they're still in that murky middle area where policies like the FTC is going after ... wouldn't even dawn on them. That, plus the fact that there are like a gazillion blogs out there, makes this a hard thing to enforce, I think :-)
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Anyway enough of my opinions, here are 3 examples from the guidelines that apply to blogging etc, as opposed to adverts, and hopefully clarify just what we are talking about here. They are taken from a few different sections near the end of this document: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser's products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion's ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made through the blogger's endorsement. The blogger also is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services. Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or blog where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge. The manufacturer should advise him at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance. Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer's product. Knowledge of this poster's employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board. Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
David - true it is sometimes murky and I myself am on the lookout as I am being paid at them moment by SOcial Media CLub (a nonprofit educational organization) to produce a series of conversations across the USA and Sydney about the current state of video. The campaign has a sponsor but the work is not about the product; it is about video. Nonetheless, it is a form of market research for the sponsor, RealPlayer SP. I append my tweets with [client] and now I actually feel bad for not telling this list about the events - your voices would be great ones to add to the conversation. There are 7 more events still to happen tho so I will start a new thread on that. With disclosures. :-) Steve - policies are helpful. Edelman, the PR firm that got blasted for sending two staffers across the USA in an RV to stay overnite for free in Walmart parking lots - as it was positioned as user generated content when i fact it was an early experimental social media campaign paid for by Walmart. They now require their bloggers to disclose the relationship between themselves and sponsoring brands. R On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:26 AM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: Its their own fault if it doesnt even dawn on them, let this be a long overdue wakeup call. The FTC look at all this stuff on a case-by-case basis anyway, they arent going to attempt to police this stuff down to the last blog or twitter, indeed a large point of updating the guidelines is to get most people to self-police because they wont have the excuse that they never even considered this stuff or that the guidelines didnt mention them. And for those who persistently mislead or just ignore the issue, well occasionally the book will get thrown at them, further raising awareness for everyone else. Im sure that a few genuinely murky areas may emerge where people may be justified in not knowing how to handle things, or where there seems to bean injustice, but overall after reading the guidelines I think quite a lot of sensible thinking has gone into them and for the majority of cases its quite straightforward. If I have understood the guidelines properly, one area that may spell trouble for certain corners of the blogosphere is that companies can be held to account if bloggers that they pay or give freebies to, make misleading claims about the products. Companies are advised to shield themselves from this stuff by taking some steps to limit this where possible, such as monitoring the bloggers they seduce, and not giving any more freebies to bloggers who make spurious claims about their products. The celebrity stuff brought a grin to my face as celebs can no longer rely on a 'I was just reading a script/sticking to my contract' defense if they are bullshitting about a product in certain specific ways. I consider all of this as fairly inevitable considering the changed nature of the distribution of these messages. Endorsers messages are no longer published only by the company who make the products, do the endorsers themselves are deemed responsible and will sometimes be held to account. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, David King davidleek...@... wrote: I know a lot of bloggers that mix business and pleasure, professional interests and family, and well - they're still in that murky middle area where policies like the FTC is going after ... wouldn't even dawn on them. That, plus the fact that there are like a gazillion blogs out there, makes this a hard thing to enforce, I think :-) -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Yeah, I was killing time before leaving work and amping up the bad media / freedom of speech thing to give you an argument - take with salt :) But still... I don't buy the regulation here. Maybe my experience of bloggers is different from most, but I certainly don't trust them more or less than journalists. And what you talk about, Steve, with the inbuilt suspicion of journalists reducing the capacity to mislead, is equally true of bloggers, if not more. I don't detect a great surge of trust and love among other people I know for bloggers I look at probably 1000 new sites a week for my work, and most of the blogs I come across are spammy adsense-driven nonsense, running on freebies and linkbait. Needless to say, I pay them no attention. As for fams and freebies - they are the lifeblood of the PR industry - which acts as intermediary between manufacturer/advertiser and press. And they provide an astonishing amount of content for the press. An intelligent PR company understands that by demanding a tone from the journalist, you are undermining the piece that results. We're all smart enough to know the difference between a proper review and something that's either advertiser-driven or filler content. You don't need regulation for that. As for travel - Rox mentioned one blogger who didn't declare her Fam trip to Hawaii - media Fams are still going as strong as ever in the travel industry press. But there's an understanding between PRs and journalists in most of these cases - the PR needs the journalist to trust them to build a relationship, the journalist or especially the columnist needs their readers to trust them. Same is true for travel agents who get fam trips - see this: http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/blogs/2009/08/on-fam-trips-and-honesty.html If you trust bloggers and print writers, it's because you develop a relationship with them. If they gush about something and don't declare an interest, someone in the comments will call them on it. Their livelihood is harmed by having their reputation questioned - so they tend to pre-empt that, by declaring interests. If one of them abused trust by doing any of the things that Roxanne listed from the FTC site, they'd be risking more than just contravention of regulations. And anyway, in any of those examples - short of a blogger recommending that someone else do something that harmed them, on the basis of a paid post - I don't see how someone could be realistically prosecuted. And surely unenforcable law is bad law - apart from the fact that it creates a false sense of security. If you think people need to be protected from being stupid and believing everything they read, I'm not sure regulating blog content is the way to change that. In the end, you trust bloggers who are honest about the bad aspects of the free stuff they're sent, or free trips they get. I know plenty of bloggers who get sent oodles of gadgets for free - just like tech journalists for print publications. The proof of their worth is in their balanced reviews. Again, regulation isn't going to change that. Surely all this kind of regulation would do is make money for lawyers and lawmakers? I don't know - I guess I'm missing what's getting you all so excited about this. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 6-Oct-09, at 5:56 PM, elbowsofdeath wrote: From what I have read of the FTCs guidelines and stance so far, it mostly boils down to whether people are being mislead, and the regard that consumers have for different messengers is taken into account . eg if people dont trust journalists very much in the first place, or expect them to be distorting things for commercial reasons, then this is taken into account when considering how likely people are to be mislead, ie the capacity to mislead is reduced if the messenger is not trusted in the first place. When individuals blog on the net, there are not likely to be so many preconceived ideas, people may be more inclined to take them at face value, hence the need to disclosure of commercial relationships and suchlike. permit to speak' is rhetoric that just makes me laugh, thats not what this is about at all. Nobody has to get a license to speak, its just that they dont have freedom to say whatever they like without potential consequences, which is fine by me. We are never free from the consequences of words, whether its me being unpopular for things I say, or someone risking a fine for trying to promote things in ways that are potentially misleading. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. Sure, they have some house standards, and they are
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Well I think I understand what you are saying, and agree with some of it, except the idea that this stuff is not enforcable, not sure what makes you think that? The FTC has teeth, companies are prosecuted under previous rules so why should the new rules be any different? I mean they arent going to go after every single violation, but I dont think they will have too much trouble making charges stick in most cases they do go after. And as I already mentioned, I think that a lot of people companies will now be proactive and avoid violating the rules in future, which is a result. I seem to recall one company that got a bit carried away on this list and elsewhere with its hype, and when I did a google blog search I turned up evidence that they had been posting on various forums in misleading ways. Well just as anti-spam regulation has hardly eliminated spam, some will continue such practices, but I suspect that companies that want to appear legit will now think extra hard before trying those sorts of stunts in future. Im not defeatist about the merits of regulation just because it is not completely effective. Advertising in general still has plenty of bull involved, but regulation has tamed some of the worst excesses and is surely better than nothing. And when the FTC is trying to shield the consumer from certain practices, they do not assume that everyone is sophisticated in their understanding of who to trust. And just because there are some gaping holes in attitudes towards policing traditional media, thats no excuse for leaving new media wide open to abuse. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: Yeah, I was killing time before leaving work and amping up the bad media / freedom of speech thing to give you an argument - take with salt :) But still... I don't buy the regulation here. Maybe my experience of bloggers is different from most, but I certainly don't trust them more or less than journalists. And what you talk about, Steve, with the inbuilt suspicion of journalists reducing the capacity to mislead, is equally true of bloggers, if not more. I don't detect a great surge of trust and love among other people I know for bloggers I look at probably 1000 new sites a week for my work, and most of the blogs I come across are spammy adsense-driven nonsense, running on freebies and linkbait. Needless to say, I pay them no attention. As for fams and freebies - they are the lifeblood of the PR industry - which acts as intermediary between manufacturer/advertiser and press. And they provide an astonishing amount of content for the press. An intelligent PR company understands that by demanding a tone from the journalist, you are undermining the piece that results. We're all smart enough to know the difference between a proper review and something that's either advertiser-driven or filler content. You don't need regulation for that. As for travel - Rox mentioned one blogger who didn't declare her Fam trip to Hawaii - media Fams are still going as strong as ever in the travel industry press. But there's an understanding between PRs and journalists in most of these cases - the PR needs the journalist to trust them to build a relationship, the journalist or especially the columnist needs their readers to trust them. Same is true for travel agents who get fam trips - see this: http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/blogs/2009/08/on-fam-trips-and-honesty.html If you trust bloggers and print writers, it's because you develop a relationship with them. If they gush about something and don't declare an interest, someone in the comments will call them on it. Their livelihood is harmed by having their reputation questioned - so they tend to pre-empt that, by declaring interests. If one of them abused trust by doing any of the things that Roxanne listed from the FTC site, they'd be risking more than just contravention of regulations. And anyway, in any of those examples - short of a blogger recommending that someone else do something that harmed them, on the basis of a paid post - I don't see how someone could be realistically prosecuted. And surely unenforcable law is bad law - apart from the fact that it creates a false sense of security. If you think people need to be protected from being stupid and believing everything they read, I'm not sure regulating blog content is the way to change that. In the end, you trust bloggers who are honest about the bad aspects of the free stuff they're sent, or free trips they get. I know plenty of bloggers who get sent oodles of gadgets for free - just like tech journalists for print publications. The proof of their worth is in their balanced reviews. Again, regulation isn't going to change that. Surely all this kind of regulation would do is make money for lawyers
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:38 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. Sure but it doesn't have to be regulated against by law. That's about as silly as having a Ministry of Silly Walks. Just like here in Australia with the government trying to introduce a draconian (and useless) mandatory internet filter. As a blogger I just got offered my first freebie products from a company. I took them of course, and I'll disclose because that's the sensible thing to do. Actually, I have a warning on my blog that says you are free to send me stuff for review if you can handle hearing that your product sucks if it does actually suck! Dave.
[videoblogging] Re: iPod Nano shoots video
If anyone is interested in seeing how the iPod Nano video quality is... A motovlogger friend of mine recently got one and tested it out in his car while driving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS2Zd4bHUX4 To say the least, I'm impressed. I use a Kodak Zx1 velcro'd in my motorcycle helmet when I'm out riding about. It's fairly small and it does shoot HD video (complete overkill) but no where near as small as the iPod Nano. Sample Kodak Zx1 footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FBRnqzWtRc The danger of riding around on a motorcycle with a camera in the helmet does concern a fair amount of us motovloggers. One crash and that camera now becomes a dangerous brick bouncing around in the helmet. With the iPod Nano being so small and being able to shoot great video, I'm thinking that this might be my new camera of choice. Your mileage may vary :) David http://www.youtube.com/davidhowellca --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser groups-yahoo-...@... wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: It's strange to me that Nokia is open and Apple is closed, but developers have created many more applications for Apple than Nokia. Being a big fan of Open Source, it's just an example that usability will always win. I'd like to second that sentiment. Usability is everything. I love that it's central to apple's brand / marketing / advertising. In other words people buy the iphone because they know from past experience that they'll be able to use it. Meanwhile the number of people who've bought other smartphones that don't use but one or two features on a regular basis is extremely high. (Particularly important because while in the top ten of features video is just not impost people's central three or four features.) To put it another way It's just to tedious to learn how to set the clock on the old vcr. We need features that are easy to use the first time... or even once a year if that's all we need to use them. We don't have time to relearn them when news is happening right under our noses. Problem is when most people write a hard to use feature out of their workflow on a smart phone it's usually permanent and they never go back to it. However, don't count open source out. It's primary accomplishments are it's ability to aggregate market share like crazy... i.e. Android is already becoming the primary tool in the fight of EVERYONE else vs. Apple. ... and in it's ability to extremely quickly integrate the innovations (read usability) of leading software... including innovations maybe NOT made by apple. This last is key because Apple is constantly shooting itself in the foot playing market share games. The latest I heard was apple has bought up a map company and thus will likely be cutting google out of it's core mapping features. But more common examples are the obvious denial of applications from the apple store that compete with Apple. Also the fact that it's completely incompatible with every other piece of hardware. Apple has gotten better but they still do have a habit of winning battles and then loosing the war. To reiterate, don't count open source out. Rome wasn't created in a day and it's still relatively young on mobile seen and will be picking up more and more developer, corporate and consumer marketshare as mobile computing becomes the primary computing platform by which the other 99% of the world experiences the technology and the web. And when I say other 99% you might be saying heh more then 1% of the world has computers, but I say 15 years from now kids in high school will laugh at the idea that we use to have computers that sat permanently on desks. It's not just the developing world I'm talking about it's the next generation too. There's tremendous opportunity for growth of the mobile computing market as a whole (darn near infinite) and thus tremendous hope for Android to quickly change the game. I'd bend over backward to use it, but right now it doesn't have easy to use video, photo, etc. Just not quite there and the iphone is already there. Counterpoint... Open source is there on the netbook front... whereas apple is flailing there. -Mike As far as the camera on the iPhone 3GS, it's not something right home about. The image is pretty poor. Little control. Bad mic. BUT BUT BUT it is extremely easy to take a video and post it online. So easy. Hopefully, Apple with all their developers and design sense will just set the expectation for how all phones should be, open source included. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Keeping tapes
A few years back I tried really hard to get all the old bands I could find to release their work under an open license, Creative Commons, etc. but most of the people didn't understand that. So now I'm mostly feeding files to another guy, who is locating band members (Facebook is useful for this) to get permission. In many cases band give permission because they don't even have digital copies! The guy who hosts the site is ready and willing to pull down any files if an old band member decides he doesn't want the stuff published. Luckily, we're all pretty much a bunch of friends and cohorts who lost touch with each other, so we're hoping it won't be an issue. Anything I've been involved with I get permission from others to apply a proper license. Pete Frank Carver wrote: 2009/10/5 Pete Prodoehl ras...@gmail.com I put my 20+ year old box of audio cassettes to good use... And you can see some of the results here: http://www.mkepunk.com/ That's really cool, Pete. Any idea on license terms for these MP3s, though? By implication they are free to listen, but is it OK to use them in derived works? Or commercial projects? Do you (or the original artists) want attribution? etc. Thanks, Frank. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] blog payola
of relevance: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/mummy-bloggers-spit-the-dummy-over-nestles-spoilt-milk-20091007-gmcd.html cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: blog payola
Here are my thoughts on this issue: FTC Wrong to Regulate Deceitful Bloggers http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-wrong-to-regulate-deceitfu\ l.html --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... wrote: of relevance: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/mummy-bloggers-spit-\ the-dummy-over-nestles-spoilt-milk-20091007-gmcd.html cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] The Zombie Today Show
This is truly a labor of love. We show 12 shows in 3 days! The commercial is here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DKYJtQG208 You can see the first episode and one of the fake commercials here- http://www.readersentertainment.tv/zombietoday/ It is about 50% scripted and 50% improv which was something I wanted to experiment with. I was able to secure a sponsor for all 12 episodes which was fantastic! The last web series I did I paid for myself just to see if I could do it. The last series did very well so I'm hoping this new one will do better in order to get additional sponsorship for another season. Each Friday a new episode will air as well as a fake commercial. This week it is some zombie toothpaste, but we have Diagra (yeah, zombie male enhancement pills) and DatingDead.com Where rot is hot! as well as some others that I hope people will find funny. We also fit in some real products that get a Zombie Approved stamp and go on the website. Would love feedback if you get a chance! Cheers!
[videoblogging] Re: The Zombie Today Show
Oops. I meant to write We shot 12 episodes in 3 days! Sheesh! I need to go to bed. lol --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sheila E sheila_clo...@... wrote: This is truly a labor of love. We show 12 shows in 3 days! The commercial is here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DKYJtQG208 You can see the first episode and one of the fake commercials here- http://www.readersentertainment.tv/zombietoday/ It is about 50% scripted and 50% improv which was something I wanted to experiment with. I was able to secure a sponsor for all 12 episodes which was fantastic! The last web series I did I paid for myself just to see if I could do it. The last series did very well so I'm hoping this new one will do better in order to get additional sponsorship for another season. Each Friday a new episode will air as well as a fake commercial. This week it is some zombie toothpaste, but we have Diagra (yeah, zombie male enhancement pills) and DatingDead.com Where rot is hot! as well as some others that I hope people will find funny. We also fit in some real products that get a Zombie Approved stamp and go on the website. Would love feedback if you get a chance! Cheers!
