Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law
True. Laws do change, but copyright laws seem to be changing in favor of the copyright holders, due most likely to powerful media lobbies that are recognizing how technology is making pirating simple. Look at what's going on with DRM. There's a lot of money at stake. yep. you help show why the laws are becoming corrupt. Elected officials are modifying Copyright laws for powerful media compnaies without the people in mind. the cash cows are dying...new streams of income need to be found becasue the modes of distribution are changing. I wasn't defending powerful lobbies influencing legislation, just stating the facts. Though, honestly, I do believe in order to give creators the incentive to create there needs to be strong protections. The other end of that is that the strong protections are also there to defend our economy. people are trading my music/movies illegally. i can do 2 things: punish people and make them buy CD's the old fashioned way...or make it easy to buy good quality media online. which is smarter? unfortunately media compnaies are dragging their feet so that decision is made for them every single online second. I think the smart plan is to do both, and many companies do: they put out CDs and offer songs for downloading on iTunes. But that has not stopped pirating. Same for software. do you believe the RIAA suing 12 year old girls is effective or a sign of desperation? Both. Again, what choice do they have? If an increasing number of people are costing you millions because they are illegally stealing your product, what do you do? If you have a home and it has a termite infestation, wouldn't you call an exterminator? Not really, we can look at everything from traffic tickets to spankings to public executions to honor killings and many other horrible activities meant to serve as a deterrent to crime. Similar concept. Really, what other choice do they have to protect their rights? i guess you agree that current copyright laws are good..so yes, they must find extremely harsh punishments to protect current laws. I believe to some extent that everyone should do what they want. In a sense things are only illegal if you get caught. However, if you are caught you should be willing to pay the price. If you don't wanna do the time, don't do the crime. Some people do drugs, some people pirate music, some people speed when they drive. To me, that is each individual's choice. But those things are illegal; if you get caught you have no one but yourself to blame for the punishment you receive. You knew the rules and you made a choice to defy them. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But until it changes that is our reality. To pretend otherwise is at one's own expense. I guess it makes sense to stone homosexuals in Afghanistan becasue thats the law. people continue to be gay in Afghanistan. This is two different points. 1) To me it does not make sense to stone homosexuals (or punish them in any way). 2) If you are gay in Afghanistan and that is the punishment, I would advise moving. If you stay and are caught in homosexual activities then it shouldn't surprise you if you are stoned to death. I don't agree with the law, but it is the law. Work to change it or move. Same with America. Disagreeing with a law offers no protection from it. i feel like im in HS debate class. David, lets bring this down to videoblogging. i have my personal fun videolbog where i keep my friends and family in touch with how i live. I edit a montage of my trip to amsterdam to the music of Bon Jovi'sDead or Alive. I post a video of my worklife...adding in a small soundbite from Glengary Glen Ross to illustrate that my boss is such a hardass. you're saying Im a pirate and that I should feel lucky that the MPAA and RIAA do not choose to make me an example in the US federal court system? Short answer: yes. They would probably be within their rights to do so. Do I think they would go after you for that? Not at all. It would be difficult to show much damage in your example, especially with so many other worse offenders out there. But they could decide at any moment to go after every single violation. They could be compiling a database right now. So, you would be using that material at your own risk. Password protect the site to limit your vulnerability, though, again, I would think you'd be so far under their radar it wouldn't matter much. FWIW: Do I think you should be punished because of it? Not really, but the law, I believe, would require permission. No, I think I understood you. You are talking about a requirement to allow people to use your creation against your will in a way which could impact your profits. I would suggest that the current system is sane to the copyright holder, but restrictive to the end user. I personally think the creator deserves more protection than the user. so we disagree on Fair Use laws. the creator has
Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law
Fair Use is a broad guideline open to interpretation. If you don't have legal representation that can beat a team of lawyers for a major media conglomerate, I would definitely advise thinking twice before using any copyrighted material. I agree that that is a fair assessment of the current climate. However, how fucked up is it that it's that way? Pretty damed fucked up if you ask me! The problem is that moneyed interests use our elected officials as tools for creating the laws that serve their bottom line. Unfortunate or otherwise, money and clout are power. That has always been the way the political game has been played. One of the things they'd like to prevent through self- censorship is people like me making things like this: URL: http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/09/16/hail-to-the-thief/ I am sure the vagueness of fair use causes a lot of self-censorship. And not just propaganda stuff either like your piece. The threat of expensive litigation has, I am sure, kept many from expressing themselves as they might like. On Sep 21, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Yirchott wrote: Creativity is helped when there is a return on investment. Also, if you can't steal other people's stuff you'll have to create your own -- which spurs creativity. I would suggest that reusing content chills creativity more. See above example as proof that this argument holds no weight. I am not sure that the above example proves the argument holds no weight. I never said reusing content cannot be creative, just that reusing content chills creativity more than having to invent stuff on one's own. Verdi URL: http://michaelverdi.com/ URL: http://freevlog.org/ URL: http://node101.org/ -David Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * 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/
Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law
From: Brett Gaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] The other end of that is that the strong protections are also there to defend our economy. When they make sense. And they are also softened in various cases to encourage growth. It doesn't seem to me that strong protections are doing the music industry much good right now. They ought to take another approach. Strong protections are just starting to do the music industry good. The protections are allowing litigation to successfully proceed against people who pirate their property. What other aproach would you suggest? Some people do drugs, some people pirate music, some people speed when they drive. To me, that is each individual's choice. But those things are illegal; But if an entire generation thinks that the laws are ridiculous and ignore them, what kind of effect is this having on society? Probably more people are getting arrested/ticketed. Shouldn't the laws be changed? Not necessarily. There is a history of laws aimed at bettering the lives of female and minority populations that were not exactly welcomed or followed at the time they pased, for example. I can't think of any law an entire generation is ignoring, but why is that generation's opinion of law more important to members of society from other generations? Anyway, if a group feels strongly about something they should work together to influence change. ---this debate can go on for a long time Very true. :) - Brett Gaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.etherworks.ca -David Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * 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/
Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law
From: Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't wanna do the time, don't do the crime. I'm sorry that line is a trademark of Universal Studios. D'oh! (oh, crap! Now FOX is after me too!) -David Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * 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/
Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law
Would Fidel have a case? http://canf.org/es/chistes/FUNNY-AS-HELL-Strohs-NEED-SPEAKERS.mpeg A case of Strohs? :) That's pretty funny, I hadn't seen it before. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I would hazard a yes. I could not imagine dubbing over Brittney Spears' voice to have her unintentionally pitch a product. In fact, I believe lawsuits have been brought by the estates of dead actors whose computer generated images were used to pitch products. Perhaps this qualifies as satire, or maybe the creators benefitted from strained relations with Cuba. Or maybe this just came out when everyone was a bit less litigious. It is funny, though :) -David Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * 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/
Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law
in this discussion, i will take the side against present copyright law. it's like following the laws of the Old testament. they were written for a different time in human consciousness. brothers and sisters. I bring you the New testament. these are just laws. they can be rewritten as we change. (look at how we're having this conversation--we're changing) True. Laws do change, but copyright laws seem to be changing in favor of the copyright holders, due most likely to powerful media lobbies that are recognizing how technology is making pirating simple. Look at what's going on with DRM. There's a lot of money at stake. As for violations, they cannot sue every violator, which is why at some point they are going to have to start making examples of people like the RIAA has/is. They may not sue everyone, but who wants to be one of the ones sued? huh, weird way to go about it. so much fear. Not really, we can look at everything from traffic tickets to spankings to public executions to honor killings and many other horrible activities meant to serve as a deterrent to crime. Similar concept. Really, what other choice do they have to protect their rights? Because someone spent blood, tears, and money to create it. If it belongs to them, why should you be alowed to take it without permission? because its part of the culture. TV/music/movies is all around us. its in our memory and in our language. I speak about the things i see and hear around the water cooler... how can you say i cannot use it in my voice which is also audio and video on a blog? You can use your voice and image in a vlog because you have permission. It is like taking a camcorder into a movie theatre -- just because you see it doesn't mean you can record it and it certainly doesn't mean you can distribute it. But you are welcome to talk about it all you want. But just because something is in your memory doesn't mean you own it, you only own the memory of it. Should I be able to kick the people out of my childhood home? Creative Commons is a licensing agreement determined by the creator not by the user. What you are describing seems to take control away from the person who invented/created something. youve misunderstood me. and the point is that creators(big and small) need to move from traditional, ineffective copyright law to a more flexible and sane system. as the creator, you can own the work...but you let people use it under certain conditions. for example, youll let me play with your work for fun...but if i want to make money...you get a piece of the action. why is this important? you ever try contacting a major media company to use a video/audio clip? its a no go. bascially any commercial content will always be off-limits to regular people. is this sane? like andrew said, dont drive 56 mph. No, I think I understood you. You are talking about a requirement to allow people to use your creation against your will in a way which could impact your profits. I would suggest that the current system is sane to the copyright holder, but restrictive to the end user. I personally think the creator deserves more protection than the user. You mention using copyrighted material for fun, but giving a cut of profit if money is involved. If I stream a movie/show/song for free I make no profit, but the users don't have to go buy the material. So, even though I made no money the copyright holder lost money. That's the beauty of the Creative Commons license, if someone wants to give away more rights they can, if they don't they don't have to. Ah, but money is the driving force behind many creations. Not everyone creates to get more play. If someone quits their job and slaves for three months to write a great novel and then I come along and print the text out and give it to every person in the country is that fair? Hey, just because the author isn't making money and isn't on the bestseller list I am helping him out because now more people can read his book? That doesn't sound like a great deal to me. lets think this through. what i would most likely be playing with is pop-culture...becasue its part of our language. so its already popular and getting lots of money. Coke wants me to wear their t-shirts all the time...coke, never forget. if i play with a work of an obscure artist...then im giving him/her exposure. and by giving exposure...commercial attention will follow. Coke want you to wear their shirts, but they -- like most companies -- are very protective of their brand and may not appreciate the t-shirt you make. Maybe the font is off or the color isn't right or the context isn't how they would present their image. Also the t-shirt maker would lose a lot of business if everyone could make their own shirts -- shirts he paid Coca-Cola for the exclusive rights to make. So now, because we've loosened rights: coke loses money they could have made selling rights to print
RE: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
Charles, I was rather hoping you'd respond to: I'll come back to the specific case of blog after I've proven that most definitions are fuzzy and prototypical. Isn't that what this discussion is really about? The definition -- or lack thereof -- of a blog. Why wait? If we are in agreement that there is no definition of blog, how can there be requirements to be a blog? As I said in a previous post: I do find it interesting that at the same time you claim there can not be a definition, you are adamant that it has to have RSS and trackbacks. This isn't about majority. This is about definition. Words are defined by their usage. Usage is determined by observation of human beings; it is inescapably statistical. Some would say words are defined by the dictionary ;) And their usage is defined by their definition and the communicator's intent, but let's get back on point: what is unique and exclusive to a blog that makes it by definition different than a website? The exception disproves the rule. If any blogs do not have RSS, then blog by definition cannot [snip] It is like saying that the Toyota Camry is the most prevalent car, therefore a car by definition is required to be a Toyota Camry. Again, statistical superiority does not equal a requirement for definition. In fact, any factor that varies cannot be part of a set definition (unless the part is saying that the variable exists), unless you are defining a more specific item: If more Toyota Camrys are sold than any car and more red Toyota Camrys are sold than any other color, that does not mean that a car is only defined as a red Toyota Camry or that all Toyota Camrys are red. If I rip the rear view mirror off a car, it's still a car. But how many parts can I remove until it ceases to be a car? One: the engine ;) What is being lost here is that definitions are not as fuzzy as you would like us to believe. Definitions -- by definition -- define something in specific terms. What is a car? We could define it as a vehicle with a metal frame, wheels, and a steering mechanism. But that could also describe a bicycle, so it isn't a useful definition. We need something that specifically describes a car so that we can differentiate it from a Radio Flyer wagon, or a van, or a tank. And that is what I haven't yet seen: a definition of blog. What is unique about it that makes it a blog? If there isn't anything definitive, then perhaps it is just another name for website. Is there a well-defined threshold? If it were well-defined, wouldn't all people who know what a car is have to agree on it? Rather, as you remove pieces, it gradually becomes less and less of a car. There is no precise threshold, and there are states at which reasonable people would disagree. Same with Techno, and adolescent dogs, and websites with some blog-like features. That's great, but you're talking deconstruction from a point you haven't yet constructed. I still haven't heard a minimum level or maximum level definition from you that isn't leaving out what are widely considered blogs or including what is widely believed to not be blogs. As I said in a previous post: If you have a list of characteristics, shouldn't you end up with a clearcut answer? If you cannot, then I would suggest that the list isn't good enough. Or there is no differentiation to be found. -David SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Sony HD Camera, Under $2000
Cool! Thanks, Kunga. I'll definitely look into this more after I get off work! And thanks for the HD/HDV correction (I wasn't clear on the difference, but you inspired me to Google it). Looking forward to seeing your HDV-sourced examples, -David From: Kunga [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Sony HD Camera, Under $2000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:37:15 -0700 Yes that is correct David with XLR connectors etc. The advantage over the original is size and weight about HALF the first model. Much better for undercover and field work. Still real HDV. BYW just a note - these cameras are not HD cameras. They are HDV cameras. They shoot NATIVE 1920 x 1080i HDV and when you dumb that footage down to our internet level it is going to look FANTASTIC! I have access to the original model as soon as he stops working with it and will be posting examples of HDV sourced video soon. If you subscribe to MacTV on iTunes he already posted an HDV shoot of the Apple Intel Mac announcement in HDV and it looks FANTASTIC!! Go look. It's up there for the taking. I would always ask the Chuckmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] at http://Supervideo.com where to buy my cameras for the lowest price. He makes it his business to know. And he has arrangements with reputable dealers to give his followers the lowest price. He is a global authority on all things DV and now HDV. I recommend everyone bookmark his site for the latest info on what's next and new from Japan. Taylor Barcroft Now listed in the iTunes Podcast Directory. FutureMedia, or future, media, parties, taylor, barcroft ... barcroft (gizmo) http://gizmoproject.com kungax (Skype) http://skype.com kungag5 (iChat-AIM) http://www.aim.com http://FutureMedia.org http://videopodcaster.blogspot.com/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/FutureMedia YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)
Many categories have fuzzy boundaries. Take mother. How can we classify something as a mother? Actually, a mother seems to me to be a female that has given birth and/or has taken legal guardianship of a child. Of course there are breakdowns to this as well: birth mother, adoptive mother, etc. But certainly not all women are mothers. However, if I am reading your post correctly it seems to me you may have blurred the line betweenn a definition and word usage, e.g. The Mother Of All Wars is not literally a mother -- same with a woman who cares for someone or something like it were her child. A mothering relationship doesn't seem to necessarily make a woman a mother. If we are to agree that the definition of blog is nebulous at best, just like the definition of art. Then that, to me, means two things: 1) we will never be able to define what a vlog is, and 2) just as art is a subjective term, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to interpret blog as just another word for website (which, again, I don't necessarily agree with). -David From: petertheman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:12:57 - Is there a definitive characteristic that is exclusive to all blogs? I'm not sure. As an information architect obsessed with categorization, I have to chime in :) There is no definitive characteristic that is exclusive to all blogs. It is a category with fuzzy boundaries, as we say. Many categories have fuzzy boundaries. Take mother. How can we classify something as a mother? Is there a list of defining characteristics? Not really. Given birth? Not really, how about a person whose child was adopted. Yet we still call her a mother. Taking care of a child? Not really, how about someone who gave birth but doesn't take care of the child. And so on. Yet, we all know when someone is a mother and when they're not. It just doesn't work by using in/out criteria. The discussion of trying to define blogging in terms of a list of checkboxes we can check of to determine this is fruitless. Cheers, Peter YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
Hmmm I am not sure that I'd agree that blog is defined heuristically -- and if that were so, perhaps now it does mean all websites. Though, perhaps you could be more clear in what you mean (I think either you have the wrong word or I have the wrong definition). To me heuristically is like trial and error; solving a problem through discovery. Your search for clarity is exactly the issue here. I can empathize with the desire, but natural language will simply not permit it. Charles, if you don't know, just say you don't know. ;) Seriously, while the psycholinguistic autopsy is interesting, I think we've gone a bit off track. I think the initial idea is just that there is no agreed upon definition of what a blog is -- and insofar as I can tell, we agree on that. However, I think you believe that to be the case due to a failure of natural language (isn't the vast majority -- virtually all save for base words such as ma [which many suggest is the sound an infant mimicking suckling makes] and onomatopoeia -- of language unnatural?) whereas I question whether there are any defining characteristics. I do find it interesting that at the same time you claim there can not be a definition, you are adamant that it has to have RSS and trackbacks. As far as semantic drift is concerned, couldn't it have drifted enough to mean all websites? No. It simply hasn't and I daresay it never will. However it's quite possible that, increasingly, most new websites heretofore will be blogs. I am curious how you know that semantic drift simply has not rendered blog as another word for website. And what seperates the new websites that are blogs from those that are not? Are you suggesting that *any* new website with periodic posts and an RSS feed *is* a blog? And how are we to chart the drift if no initial definition exists to serve as a starting point? I gave you the initial definition and a canonical prototype: Robot Wisdom. The initial definition you gave me was: The term used to mean, very specifically, a periodic list of interesting links found on the web. The prototypical example remains Robot Wisdom. These days it is synonymous with the common features shared between several widely-used applications: periodic posts, rss, trackback pings. A list of intersting links found on the web sounds sort of like the Google example. The rest of it seems to indicate that a blog is not synonymous with a website that has periodic posts but no RSS. That will confuse many people who consider themselves legitimate bloggers, I think. If you respond to this post, I'd love to see your answers to: 1) Can a website with periodic personal posts, but no RSS or trackbacks be a blog? 2) What if it has periodic posts and RSS, but no trackbacks? 3) What if it is a television station website with periodically posted news stories and an RSS feed? 4) How often is periodic? If someone fails to update their blog in two weeks, does it stop being a blog? Wikipedia's entry for blog seems to claim RSS and trackbacks aren't necessary, for what it is worth. Also, it seems strange to me that something that cannot be described has technical requirements like RSS and trackbacks: content cannot be pinned down, look cannot be pinned down, ownership requirements cannot be pinned down, but it must have trackbacks? And no current one is available either. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression the definitions I've seen recently are up-to-date. There is no clearcut blogness test, but there is a list of blog characteristics, and blogness is proportional to the number of them exhibited. RSS feeds and trackbacks are certainly on that list. If there is a useful list of blog characteristics, shouldn't that equal a clearcut blogness test? Anyway, the true problem is that none of the items on the list you've given is 1) required for a blog or 2) exclusive to a blog. Are all current blogs without RSS not full blogs? I have a new blog. That's not a blog! It's only a 75% blog! What would the other 25% be considered? What if a site scored 50%? At what level does one have a legitimate blog? Yes, so is text, but again, just because a website has RSS and trackbacks and text doesn't make it a blog, does it? And if it is missing RSS and trackbacks, does that mean it cannot a blog? You've ignored what's been said here. Blog and Mother are sets of stereotypical characteristics. Is item X a blog or a mother? The answer is provided by the heuristic of checking off how many of those defining characteristics are exhibited by X. The result of these processes are a blogness score and a motherness score. Sure, the list checking is perception. But I've not heard anything that would disqualify a site as a blog. No RSS? No trackbacks? I think many people would disagree with that. I've only heard three things that would qualify it as a blog: periodic posts, RSS, and trackbacks. Those are increasingly common
Re: [videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
Charles, I was rather hoping you'd respond to: If you respond to this post, I'd love to see your answers to: 1) Can a website with periodic personal posts, but no RSS or trackbacks be a blog? 2) What if it has periodic posts and RSS, but no trackbacks? 3) What if it is a television station website with periodically posted news stories and an RSS feed? 4) How often is periodic? If someone fails to update their blog in two weeks, does it stop being a blog? David Yirchott wrote: If there is a useful list of blog characteristics, shouldn't that equal a clearcut blogness test? Can such a list be clearcut when items can have some of the qualities and not all of them? If you have a list of characteristics, shouldn't you end up with a clearcut answer? If you cannot, then I would suggest that the list isn't good enough. Or there is no differentiation to be found. Anyway, the true problem is that none of the items on the list you've given is 1) required for a blog or 2) exclusive to a blog. That's how it is with most definitions as well. Do you think blog is more ill-defined than mother? I disagree that most definitions fail in the same way. Also, I think we can both agree that blog is not as defined as mother. Things required for mother: female. Things exclusive to mother: has given birth; has taken legal guardianship of a child. Are all current blogs without RSS not full blogs? I'm still waiting to hear of these many blogs that aren't running RSS + trackbacks. What is their number compared to those that do? Remember, these words are description of reality, not axiomatic constructs. If the vast majority of websites called blogs start using a background color of #d5691a, that will become one of the defining characteristics of blogs. This isn't about majority. This is about definition. The exception disproves the rule. If any blogs do not have RSS, then blog by definition cannot require RSS. It is like saying that the Toyota Camry is the most prevalent car, therefore a car by definition is required to be a Toyota Camry. I have a new blog. That's not a blog! It's only a 75% blog! What would the other 25% be considered? What if a site scored 50%? At what level does one have a legitimate blog? At precisely the dividing line between Industrial and Techno, or when a painting is considered Cubist, or a puppy becomes a dog. Ah, at a virtually indefinable moment it becomes a virtually indefinable entity called a blog. I see. So, to recap: Blog cannot be defined Blogs have characteristics Those characteristics are not neither unique to blogs nor possessed by all blogs There is a checklist by which to check if a site is a blog There are -- as far as I can tell -- three criteria on that list upon which to judge blogness At an immeasurable point a site may slip below or achieve blogness Which, I suppose, sort of puts us back to the beginning. So, blog is either indefinable because it is: 1) Infinite and awesome and our tiny human brains and our petty language cannot begin to describe it. Like God, some might say. 2) Non-existent. Like God, some might say. So therefore, either way blog=God. Perhaps we should end this here and go worship our possibly non-existent master. :) -David YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] dot tv
As a General rule, .com is the best. No question. It is the default and much more memorable. That's not to say people aren't successful with .org .net .info etcetera. You just have to be prepared that most people you tell your URI to are likely going to visit the .com first. Between a .org.uk or .tv, as a lazy American I'd prefer the .tv as I would be more likely to remember it. And I wouldn't worry too much about the whole TV thing, afterall it doesn't really stand for television it stands for Tuvalo. Anyway, the association with television may help people remember it. -David From: Starfire [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] dot tv Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:11:56 -0500 I'm considering a new domain for myself for my Vlogging ventures. The only suffixes available for the name I want are .org.uk or .tv. I kinda like the sound of .tv but vlogging is not TV. I suppose I could keep brainstorming names and find a .com out there that I like but I really wanna use a certain domain name. And with everybody getting content through a feed now days how important is a name? Is dot com the best? Thoughts, ideas? thanks. Starfire** SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Sony HD Camera, Under $2000
I was just asking about this HDR-HC1 on the last videoconference. Has anyone had any good/bad experiences with it? Supposedly in September the prosumer HVR-A1U is coming out. Read a preview here: ( URL: http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/articles/A1U/HVR-A1U.htm ). The article claims it'lll be priced at $2700, anyone know otherwise? Also, Andrew, I'd be grateful for a link to where the HDR-HC1 can be purchased for $1700. The cheapest I've found it at is $1899.00 at BH ( URL: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlistA=detailsQ=sku=385368is=REGaddedTroughType=search ). -David From: Andrew Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [videoblogging] Sony HD Camera, Under $2000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:34:50 - A review of the smallest and lest expensive HD camera, the Sony HDR-HC1: $1700 http://tinyurl.com/dye2c YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)
Now all you have to do is define what a blog is. Some would argue it is just another name for website. -David From: Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:38:04 -0700 Claudio, your confusion stems from the fact that if you ask everyone here what a videoblog is, everyone will give a different answer! I'm going with the most open definition right now: video. on a blog. All the other stuff, feeds/enclosures, citizen journalism, all of it: it's gravy on the toast. Video. Blog. Put them together in some way, and that's a video blog. --Stephanie On 8/21/05, claudio gherardini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ehm..I am still trying to undestand what is a videoblog and my english is very poorsob Claudio Gherardini 50126 - Firenze - via A. Traversari 75 - Italy tel: +39055687618 icq: 74274967 msn messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mobile phone: +39 347 8060186 mobile phone: +39 333 9237262 videophone +39 3932504859 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.claudiogherardini.net Stephanie Bryant wrote: I just found my first video-on-a-blog entry, from March 25, 2002, one week after I got my first blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mortaine/2900.html Wasn't, like, RSS+enclosures back then, but still. Video. Blog. Whee. What's yours? --Stephanie -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mortaine.com SPONSORED LINKS Individualhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=msk=Individualw1=Individualw2=Fireantw3=Explainsc=3s=43.sig=jfEB_5hyst_semPUs5kM_Q Fireanthttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=msk=Fireantw1=Individualw2=Fireantw3=Explainsc=3s=43.sig=ofkBYSRAqA4LBehb98mK8A Explainshttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=msk=Explainsw1=Individualw2=Fireantw3=Explainsc=3s=43.sig=ICAE5KyehbkVi3PDo2FPfg -- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS - Visit your group videoblogginghttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging on the web. - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/. -- -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mortaine.com SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)
Adrian, I am not sure that I would put myself in the camp of those whose broad definition of blog would include all websites, but as I mentioned previously some do. Although I will say I have heard that point made rather convincingly. For instance, I don't think most would consider television station website as blogs, but they do seem to meet all of the requirements (that I am aware of). I am not familiar with your university's website, but if BoingBoing: a directory of wonderful things is considered a blog, then why not Google: a self-styled directory of all things? Afterall the search function is not unlike combing the archives of a blog -- one puts in a search term and is rewarded with a list of matching posts. In fact, it is almost as if Google is a more interactive version of a blog - it only ever gives you content tailored to what you ask for. There are many blogs that link offsite, so that alone shouldn't disqualify it. And surely a splash page is okay. And the fact that people purposefully alter meta tags, font sizes, and other qualities of their sites to get submitted to search engines makes it almost like a really, really large group blog with tons of contributors. If I were asked, I wouldn't classify Google as a blog. Though I am not sure that I could give a convincing reason why. It's sort of like art. You can't describe it, but you know it when you see it. Though I'd definitely be interested in hearing why you think it isn't a blog, I suspect you've thought about this more than I have and will be able to put to words what I cannot. That being said, we still haven't defined what a blog is, only examples of what it might not be. Are there any good, widely accepted definitions out there you can point us to? Because even if search engines are taken out of the mix, that still leaves us with a lot of websites. Thanks! -David Now all you have to do is define what a blog is. Some would argue it is just another name for website. the list has discussed this at length. No, it isn't. Specifics vary but the google site is not a blog, nor is my university's. -- cheers Adrian Miles YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)
Jen, Thanks for the input, but I think you are referring to a change in technology brought about by time, not necessarily a defining characteristic of either websites or blogs. Content Management Systems have made life easier for all of us. Heck, one doesn't even really have to know any programming languages to create or maintain a website anymore. But a CMS neither defines a blog nor a website. Either can be created and maintained with or without one. I uses a template-based CMS at work and wouln't really call the end product a blog, though it seems to fit the definitions I've come across. -David From: Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:30:00 -0400 Now all you have to do is define what a blog is. Some would argue it is just another name for website. -David I wouldn't be one of those people. I started building websites in 1998. I started building blogs in 2002. There's a big difference between the way a static html-based site works and blogging technology (using some sort of third party software that creates pages for you and automatically archives, moving older content off the home page without being asked.) To me, the revolutionary thing about the invention of the blog is in the ease of the technology -- making it so very much easier to keep a site always changing, always current -- especially for those of us who've always built sites as a one-person team (not a huge site with a staff / with programmers there to write custom backend aps) Of course it's always been technologically possible to update a website often using static html, but the human-power-reality of the amount of time it took to constantly post new pages by hand meant it didn't happen nearly as much as I wanted. I would have never dreamed seven years ago of updating as often as I do now, or of running as many sites as I do now, or of those sites being as large and as complicated as they are now. In the past, I was always stuck being the only person who had the tech-know-how to make any changes. Now I can build a blog into my client's page, teach them the interface, and let them be responsible for all the news and announcements -- leave me out of it! Blogs were definitely invented much later than html. And the invention has changed the way websites are made, and made it possible for many more people to be building websites. Now we just need the same kind of easy-of-use revolution for videoblogging... A blog is a kind of website, but not all websites are blogs. Just as the web is part of the internet, but just one part -- there's a lot going on (and has been for 40 years) on the internet, that has nothing to do with the wide world web (which is just over 10 years old). j SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)
Charles, Thanks for the great link, I just bookmarked it! As far as I know, RSS and trackback pings are optional bells and whistles for both blogs and vlogs. Are there any features specific to blogs that would differentiate them from common websites? -David From: Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:44:38 -0400 The term used to mean, very specifically, a periodic list of interesting links found on the web. The prototypical example remains Robot Wisdom. These days it is synonymous with the common features shared between several widely-used applications: periodic posts, rss, trackback pings. Yes, there are edge cases. There are always edge cases. Where would pedants be without edge cases? SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)
Ah, Charles, but the website where I work has an RSS feed and it isn't a blog (to me). Many website do now. Also, there are many blogs without RSS and/or trackback pings. -David Are there any features specific to blogs that would differentiate them from common websites? In the modern usage (being descriptive and not prescriptive), blogness includes rss and trackback pings because they are notable features exhibited by the overwhelming majority of blogs, and lacked by most things that aren't called blogs. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- font face=arial size=-1a href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hcm8s9p/M=362329.6886308.7839368.1510227/D=groups/S=1705554021:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1124691727/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992 Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * 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/
Re: [videoblogging] video conference today - special topic
Maybe ( URL: http://www.script-o-rama.com/ ) Find something with a lot of parts :) -David From: Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] video conference today - special topic Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:32:38 -0700 Reminder - conference starts in a little over 20 minutes anybody got a script we can use to make a movie in the conference room? Markus Sandy wrote: Ryanne and Jay posted a video today asking about it... http://feeds.feedburner.com/RyannesVideoBlog?m=200 Clint posted a great note about it... http://clintsharp.com/archives/2005/08/16/content-of-course/ I was thinking it would be fun to bring it up in the conference today... *CONTENT!!!* So how about making it the topic for today's conference. Let's discuss what people are making. What are you watching? Let's discuss making a collaborative movie in the conference room itself (We'll need writers, actors, tech people) Please join in. Today at 5pm PDT - 8 pm EDT - mid GMT http://flash.kmi.open.ac.uk:8080/fm/index.php?pwd=2993e6-1457 Markus -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://apperceive.com http://app.etitio.us http://wearethemedia.com http://www.corante.com/events/feedfest/ http://spinflow.org http://spinsummer2005.blogspot.com http://spinsummer2005meetup.blogspot.com http://vloggercuewest.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] stats
Steven, I don't think there are any hard numbers on video blogging as it is still somewhat a new phenomenon. Certainly it is growing, but it should be pointed out that a Pew/Internet survey released January 2 of this year found that only 38% of Internet users even knew what a blog was -- 62% did not. -David From: Steven Livingstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] stats Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:55:57 +0100 Anyone got stats/pointers to facts and research on the number of Video Bloggers currently, projected number and so on? thanks, steven YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Evangelism?
Not sure if anyone addressed this, as I am catching up on email, working my way up from the bottom, so I apologize if this redundant: I am surprised DailyDancer.com is still up and creating new content. This site finished #7 in the Contagious Media Showdown ( URL: http://showdown.contagiousmedia.org/ ). Entrants must create new content specifically for the contest, so it seems this stunt was thought up for a competition and has continued on based on popularity and perhaps ad clicks/DailyDancer.com gear sales. He got 89,324 unique visitors and 132 Technorati links between 5/19/2005 and 6/9/2005. Not bad for the first three weeks after launch. Lesson: Gimmicks work. Nifty. -David From: Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Evangelism? Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:56:15 -0500 I'm wondering about videoblogging evangelism here... Take a look at this guy: http://www.dailydancer.com/ Tons of comments on his videos. Looks like he's using Blogger, the only thing missing is an RSS feed with enclosures. What would be the best way to contact the guy and say Hey, you just need an RSS feed with enclosures and tons more people will see your videos, go to this site [url?] and set one up. I'm not volunteering to spend all my time doing this, but wondering if others have done this, or looking for the best approach to doing so. Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: When the video camera makes the reputation...
Aside for a permit so as not to obstruct the normal flow of people, another thing to be careful of is that it is possible to trademark a building or landmark. For instance, in Chicago all of Millennium Park is trademarked. Therefore in order to professionally shoot there you need to pay a fee and get a permit, as well. Casual photographers are exempted from this, but if you show up with a tripod be prepared to grease a palm or hit the curb. BoingBoing article: ( URL: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/07/please_add_photos_of.html ) Many famous and not-so-famous buildings have done this. Particularly newer structures -- even public art installations. I've heard that the Eiffel Tower is wierdly not trademarked during the day, but is at night. Here's a link to find out more about photog rights in the US and UK. I've seen this guy mentioned in a couple places. I think he's an ACLU lawyer. ( URL: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm ) Hmmm... the .pdf link doesn't seem to be working now. I'd suggest going back later or doing a Google search. -David From: Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: When the video camera makes the reputation... Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:20:31 -0500 Frank Carver wrote: Thursday, August 11, 2005, 7:55:12 PM, Pete Prodoehl wrote: Permit for what? Do you need a permit to shoot video on the subway or other locations? (I'm asking because I really don't know. Are the videographers rights the same as the well known photographers rights?) What you need to remember is that traditionally TV and moviemaking has meant big budgets. Many big cities in the USA (where lots of such things are shot), long ago decided to cash in on these lucrative activities. In such places (which (AFAIK) include LA, NY, and Chicago, for example) you need to pay up front for a permit to shoot, and will be nabbed if spotted doing something that looks like pro filmmaking without a permit. In these cases, looking like a dumb tourist is actually an advantage :) Hmmm, what I need to remember sounds just all wrong... I was never involved in traditional tv or moviemaking, so I would have no idea I'd need a permit to walk around a major city with a video camera. See? It always comes back around to money. The cities wanted to make money off of big media, and we have to suffer because of it. Sigh... Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.
Responding to this offline. Will cc Verdi. -David From: Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc. Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:00:01 -0700 I disagree with you David. I do not think Verdi's response was unfair or cruel at all. I think the point is to raise the bar. Markus David Yirchott wrote: Wow, Verdi. I think that response is, to say the least, a bit unfair. I don't see the point in trying to cruelly shame somebody out of their dream. I also don't see the point in publicly damning a member of the community for simply asking for some help. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.
Wow, Verdi. I think that response is, to say the least, a bit unfair. I don't see the point in trying to cruelly shame somebody out of their dream. I also don't see the point in publicly damning a member of the community for simply asking for some help. RadioMike, I have to get some sleep as I work in the morning. I'll post a legitimate (I can't guarantee it will be helpful, but it'll be legitimate) response Saturday. Congratulations on the new project. -David From: Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc. Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:43:51 -0400 On Aug 12, 2005, at 8:25 PM, RadioMike Perazzetti wrote: My colleague and I have been brainstorming podcasting ideas and we figure the best way to do it and do it right is to obtain underwriting, sponsorships, and the like with advertising coming in at a close second or third. Hey Mike, This is pretty much a flame. Don't take it personally, I don't even know who you are. Your email though brings up what I think is a really important point that I didn't want to let slide. Personally, I think that quote above tells me your looking at this whole thing as a means to make a buck. In my opinion this dooms you to a life of producing complete and utter bullshit. Listen, if your stuff hit the right demographic and was bland enough you'd be on the radio or TV already. Since it's not, you must be looking to be a low budget imitation of bland, mindless crap. That doesn't seem like a very good business plan. Here's my suggestion: you and your colleague should go get yourselves on the radio or TV if that's what you want. If, on the other hand, what you really want is to podcast or videoblog, I have a few places to start: 1. Brainstorm some good ideas about content and forget about good ideas for underwriting. 2. Better yet, fuck brainstorming, if you're creative you probably have some stuff you're just dying to do - do that instead. 3. Quit lurking around and just get started. Then get better at it. Peace -- Verdi http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://graymattergravy.com YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] MSM Dialogue (was: CBS starting a podcast (Response To David)
Gena, Sorry this is a long response. If we keep this up we may have the second book to come from this group! I separated the points with lines to make it easier to read. I promise I'll try to make any future posts shorter! I really understand about having too much to do and no time to do it. I read your other post about full disclosure and now have a concern that you might get job whacked for blogging. It has happened. It is not just MSM I have distrust for but what companies are currently doing to employees that express themselves via blogging. Yeah, maybe I need to do a little more full disclosure. I am, I think, the only person currently on this list that does not yet blog or vlog. I have mentioned it before. I am lame. I am still in academic mode and trying to find my voice. But soon, soon I shall join you all in the Promised Land of free expression. I was going to dive in the other week, but my work schedule got switched, I didn't (and still don't) know what to call my vlog, I am sort of waiting for Movable Type to release 3.2 (any day now), and, well I suppose there will always be excuses. Anyway, hopefully very soon. That being said, I don't expect I'll blog much about work. Television and media theories, perhaps, but not specifics of my day-to-day job or the people there. That's typically where people go wrong. Although, who knows, maybe someday something blogworthy will happen at work. I guess I'll cross or burn that bridge when I get to it. === *Podcasting has cut into bottom lines and ...it is still young/increasingly bad financial situation.* No they kind of did it to themselves by marketing their product to 13 to 39 year old boys or cheap reality programming. They listened to the bean counters and advertisers who told them to target and slice up the demographics. Actualy, 18-34-year-old males are the most desired audience, and even though I still fall in that range, I agree the programming choices stink. That's why I don't miss my television. But you are right, they listen to the advertisers and they serve up banal or sensationalized programming to appeal to the widest desired audience (AKA: lowest common denominator). But they are in a business to make money, so while I don't necessarily like it, I do understand it. It is the same with movies, unfortunately. The other part of this as Clint Sharp, myself, and others have stated: They get one program to air at any given time to the entire country. If you tune in at 8pm tonight, any station you go to is going to offer you one choice (unless you go to a Video On Demand station). Think of the possibilities the Internet can open up when they -- and we -- are not restricted to a single-program delivery model. Will they change or just offer more of the same? I don't know. But they might invest more in higher-quality second-tier programs that will bring in sizeable cash even if it is less than what they make off of I Want To Be A Hilton because they can effortlessly show both at the same time. When TV and the Internet become joined, however, it'll bring with it a host of new issues for businesses to deal with: Instead of competing in a 500-channel universe, they will be competing against every web page in existence. What will the advertisers do? Pay lower Internet rates instead of high television rates? If they do, then networks will lose money. If TV and Web become the same, there will be no reason for network affiliates anymore. Network shows would be accessible via the network website/stream or from other non-local affiliates (unless they figure out how to restrict it). Likely they'll lose many affiliates and the cashflow from them. If Internet/Web is the same, in theory the whole world could watch a show -- but will US companies want to pay ad rates if the show is seen by a large number of people outside the US? Same for political ads. I am off on a tangent. Sorry. To get back to yourpoint: MSM has gotten rich off of the coveted 18-34-year-old male. But they haven't really understood him. So, they were taken somewhat unaware when research started showing that that demographic is watching less television. They play video games. They use the Internet. Internet usage=less TV. Broadband=even less TV. Broadband saturation is over 50% in the US. Is MSM killing itself by putting such a high focus on men 18-34? Yes and no. As this demo continues to migrate away from TV, networks will have to make adjustments. However, if relevant high-brow content was truly what people wanted, PBS might likely be the richest network. Afterall, unlike traditional networks it gets significant funding *directly* from its viewers. And viewers have sway when it comes to picking shows. If television networks had been the ones who pioneered alternative media distribution methods, they might have controlled it, now they are playing catch-up and they don't fully understand the
RE: [videoblogging] Disclosures, disclosures
If I may, let me present a fuller disclosure than before: I am not a CBS/Viacom spy. I am not one of the higher-ups at Viacom. I am not participating in this group for my job. I am not a comapny man. I am not what I do (Jean-Paul Sartre aside, perhaps I should rephrase that as: I am not what I do for a living). In fact, I joined this group before I worked for CBS, though I had a different username then. That's not too important as I did not participate. As I explained in my introductory post, I work for a television staion. A CBS OO, to be precise. What is an OO? It is a television station that is Owned Operated by the network. Most television stations in the US are affiliates, which means the stations belong to a company that pays for network programming. Sort of like a franchise. My last job was at KRON in San Francisco. It is an independent (meaning no network affiliation) station owned by Young Broadcasting. Young Brodcasting owns something like ten television stations of different affiliation (URL: http://www.youngbroadcasting.com/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=YBTVAscript=11905item_id=%27stations.htm%27 ). When I was three, I decided I wanted to make movies. I was a film/video major in college. I ended up in television and then the Internet side of television. I have always been interested in communication, particularly visual communication. I know that television is evolving and/or dying. I agree wholeheartedly with those who think there is almost nothing but crap on the tube. I annoy people at work by telling them we'll all be out of jobs in a few years and television as we know it won't exist. I am excited by the possiblities that are now available to millions of individuals who want to communicate and create. I guess what I am saying is: I am not CBS. I am not Viacom. They just happen to sign my paychecks. It's a job. In my television career I have worked for Viacom, Young Broadcasting, Lin Television, Argyle, and PBS. I never swore an oath of fealty to any of them, though I do like to do good work. I am involved here because I choose to be and because I want to participate in the evolution that is underway. Anyway, I hope that quells any fear others may have about my affiliation with the MSM. If you have further questions of me, post them or email me. For what it is worth, I have enjoyed reading the disclosures others have posted. So, I hope there are more to come. -David From: R. Kristiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Disclosures, disclosures Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:00:35 +0200 Hey all, The recent disclosure of David stating that he works for CBS/Viacom is interesting. Not surprising as such, but interesting. I am happy to know, at least. How about we all disclose our affiliations? Too radical, eh? There are many actors in this field with plans. Plans for how to use the information we achieve through this forum for our own projects, goals, economic growth. This mailing-list is very rich with content, and it is amazing how potent it still is. Sometimes, we as a group react like an angry mob when someone tickles with us. I can only refer to the story of a certain film producer.. We as a group provide important feed-back to tool-makers like FireANT, Apple (for iTunes), feedburner and so on. If you are working on a tool for videobloggers and go about your promotion of your site in a good way (like Matt did with vlogmap.org), you can get a Lot of link love within days. Disclosures are important, but we cannot expect that all those lurkers will disclosure their identity. We know that we are being watched, though. I sometimes get frigging paranoid with I think that over 80 individuals are subscribed to my lousy videoblog. Who are they? What do they want? Entertainment? A piece of Norway? Unlike Josh Leo's site, for instance, I don't get a lot of comments so people are being mostly quiet about how they are watching. I expect that we will see a lot of instances like Hello, I am from Warner Bros, I have been observing this community for months now, and we will now be launching X concept. No wait, they won't write it here. They will issue a press release ffs. So, disclosures. My own, in case you haven't seen it: I work for BlogSoft, a Norwegian blogging software company. We are thriving well in the Norwegian and Swedish market (where Six Apart is not active), and we are working on tools for videoblogging now. Tools like Youtube or Blip.tv. but more centered around a blog and with better blogging tools. We create portals for media companies like the Norwegian tv station TV2. We are looking at ways to do video mobileblogging. I am part of this community, and also I observe this community. Sometimes I feel rather xenophobic :) Out of the 1100 subscribers to this mailing list, I guess we have heard from perhaps 400. Are there any numbers on this, Jay? The majority are,
[videoblogging] MSM Dialogue (was: CBS starting a podcast (Response To David)
Gena, Sorry it took so long for a reply. It's like my life has ADD, I kept getting interrupted. Anyway, I wanted to stress again that I don't mean to single you out. This isn't intended as a personal attack. In fact, I think we both expressed ourselves fairly well. However, I will pick among the bones to see if there is anything else to clarify: Thank you for telling me that you work for Viacom. Disclosure is important for true communication. Thank you for acknowledging my post and responding with a thoughtful and meaningful post. Point 1. Yes. You are correct. I did react. I shared how I felt when I read about a huge multi-billion dollar corporation with multiple routes of access using a tool they really don't need. I disagree that they are using a tool they don't need. Podcasting has cut into bottom lines and it is still young. Plus, as a media company they *need* to explore alternative media outlets, refusing to do so is part of why I consider them a dinosaur industry and part of why they are in an increasingly bad financial situation. I see it more of the carpet baggers are coming to town. Yes, hatred of carpetbaggers was also based on a blind, knee-jerk disdain. But look now, their families live peacefully alongside those of native southerners as neighbors. Point 2. I have no intention of entering the contest. Trust me, they don't want someone like me and the feeling is mutual. Fair enough. Point 3. You are correct. That is exactly what they are doing. Appearing to be on the vanguard is not the same as taking the time to find out what is actually needed. True, but perception is reality. Most people accept illusion as fact. Sad, but true. Also, sad but true: business don't have to care about what is needed. They are out to make money, not help people. However, their desire to appear hip and make money is also spreading the word about podcasting. A recent Pew/Internet survey from May - June of this year found that only 13% felt they have good idea that they know what Podcasting is, 64% were not really sure, and 26% had never heard of them. ( URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Data_Techterm_aware.pdf ) A media Blitz campaign could help change that. It just seems like a huge wolf in sheep's clothing. I think it is more like that awkward person at a party that so desperately wants to be popular, and just tries too hard. I am not and could not deny Viacom anything. They have the right to explore new business avenues. Go for it. It doesn't mean I have to like or trust it without a foundation of facts. I agree 100% with this. My main issue with your post was that you kind of went off and sarcastically ridiculed something that someone on the list might have found exciting. All based on previous judgements and not based, it seemed, on any facts. It was opinion. Negative opinion. Point 4. MSM have been napping. Some companies haven't a clue and will no longer exist. I'm not a total luddite. I know that in the future there will be interesting synergies with independent producers and media outlets. I hope the compensation for the IPs is a lot more fair than in the past. But that is a long way off. Again, 100% in agreement Point 5. I mean this type of contest is old hat. It was done by radio in the 30's. Teen magazines use to do this, Early TV did this. True, and each found it successful or it would not have been used in this case. Also, they never claimed the contest was a new idea. This is a controlled marketing campaign. Nothing more. This has nothing to do with letting alternative podcasters do their thing. If you want to do it, go for it and I support you. Prove me wrong. (I am at wrong at least six times a day!) I stand by my statement. Crap. As I see it, yes and no. I do not believe the podcasters will get to fully do their thing they will be doing their interpretation of Viacom's thing (and I am sure Viacom will have veto power). However, it is a chance for someone to quickly gain a monster-sized audience and hopefully bring them back to their independent content when the contest is over. Or continue on, with, perhaps, more control. But when someone else is paying the billls I don't think requiring them not to break FCC rules is too much to ask. Point 6. Anybody who make the effort to put together a show is jake with me. Even MSM. I wish MSM would do it better but I am not holding my breath. I gave my thoughts as to what I believe they are thinking. Once more I'm in for 100% (assuming jake is a good thing) Point 7 8 They have done what!?! They don't even know what CJ or Participatory Media is. They are scared to death of it. Please show me a MSM web site that consistently takes video content from bloggers and post that video as a news story. I cited NECN.com, and while I do not monitor their site, my understanding is that is what they are doing. Are they posting everything? No, but they aren't public access. Also keep in mind
Re: [videoblogging] Re: THE BLUERAY DISC
Cheryl, Please do not misinterpret the way some people are put off by unsupported, self-indulgent boasting as misogyny. I sent two replies to your email. The first, admittedly kinder version actually arrived after the second due to some sort of email problem on my end, most likely -- Which is why I sent the second. However, the tone of the second was due mostly to: keep in mind my firm gets information two years of more before the general public does It's like having inside information on both the CES Consumer Electronics Industry and the Film/Television Community Have you guys forgotten what I do for a living? hmmm?? First off, for such an insider, why didn't you know what Ro was talking about? But more importantly, perhaps, Cheryl, how could we ever forget what you do. It seems to me that you take every opportunity to remind us. Like others, I am happy for you success. But I don't think you fully understand the types of people who are on this list. I think, in large part, we are not casual web surfers. We are not interested to find out that Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson are engaged *again*. We reject, to some degree, mainstream media -- even those of us who work for it. We stay informed. If we are interested in something we eat it, breathe it, and bathe in it. And, I think, most of us understand that there is no way we can know everything. I am certainly not trying to speak for everyone on this list; this is just my take. But knowledge is not a tire iron to beat the defenseless with. And ignorance can be cured through teaching. I guess the best way I can relate this is, when you were new and you had questions I do not remember anyone saying: You don't know what RSS is? Ha. I am an ubergeek and I've known about that since I was 12! Here, none of us are insiders and all of us are. We all come from very different backgrounds -- which is great. For what it is worth, I don't have a problem with you as a woman. I love women. And strong ones at that -- I do, however, think it is a cheap shot to call upon the support of all womankindkind to defend you against the evil men, when it is your attitude, not your gender to blame. You are a professional communicator and so it boggles my mind a bit that you think you will reach and engage people with psuedo-elitist downtalking. Please don't. You don't have to impress us. Just be yourself. Anyway, I guess we are like a big family here, and while we may never see eye-to-eye it doesn't mean I hate you. I hope my email made sense. Thanks, -David From: Cheryl Shuman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: THE BLUERAY DISC Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:40:09 -0700 I just love how these assholes pick apart everything I write just because I'm new and a woman. Where are the other fucking women out there? Do I have to stand up for all of us? Maybe we should form a women's only group? Cheryl Shuman On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:38 AM, ro9core wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Cheryl Shuman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yeah, short on time and a lousy speller. so what if youre a lousy speller? youre still fabulous ro Yahoo! Groups Links YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out!
Charles, I am as much confused by this post as I am by the cluetrain website... You wrote: The corporate culture is smarmy. It's press releases written in impenetrable jargon And then, you wrote: None of them are screwball idealists dreaming of a breatharian diet. What they and I are against is the plastic scent of institutional alienation. Is that the new clear? I checked out cluetrain.com, and maybe it is me, but for a site about clear communication I am not exactly sure what they are attempting to convey. Most everything seems a bit obvious or non-sensical. The site derides corporations for talking down to people then lists 95 (IMO: mostly obvious and/or redundant statements -- okay, in honesty I only made it through 45 before I got bored) things such as: The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media. If, as you said: The users are demanding it with their feet and dollars. Then, trust me, the corporations will follow. That's the beauty of our system and shows that it works. Anyway, as you stated: corporate culture is hopelessly, cravenly conformist Which I agree with. So there isn't anything to be upset about. It'll always conform to the will of the people. I think someone previously mentioned an amorphous revolution -- the overthrow of nothing. I am not trying to stir up trouble, but I am honestly not sure what I am missing here. -David From: Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out! Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:40:50 -0400 Deirdre Straughan wrote: Call off your old, tired labels. Speaking as a suit (I even wear one, sometimes) and a certified MBA, can we please dump the old corporate = evil equation? After all, many human beings are employed by - hello! - corporations I am distinguishing corporate culture from the quest for profit. The corporate culture is smarmy. It's press releases written in impenetrable jargon, advertisements that are laughably campy, and all the pomp and circumstance that corporations throw up exactly to HIDE the fact that they are filled with human beings. And the customers are getting sick of it. What's more, I predict that the honest, open businesses are going to drive out the old school. The users are demanding it with their feet and dollars. Take a look at the Cluetrain Manifesto at http://www.cluetrain.com/. With the internet, it's impossible to avoid a bad reputation. And corporate culture is hopelessly, cravenly conformist, and just as many in the NYC financial community started to wear khakis because khaki-wearing geeks were making money, they will faddishly adopt this too. (Can they succeed? Adapt or die. But you can't fake the funk. This is a topic for a different thread.) But if you remain in the old ways without a clue, you'd better count every dollar you make because they're all numbered like barrels of oil from here on out. The people on this list are not against making money. None of them are screwball idealists dreaming of a breatharian diet. What they and I are against is the plastic scent of institutional alienation. charles.hope.vcf YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out!
Frank said: However, in reality, it's often much simpler (i.e more profitable) for an organization to adapt public opinion to suit its needs, rather than adapting the organization to meet the whims of the public. True, but as long as both needs meet up in the end, both sides are happy. If not a little deluded. :) -David From: Frank Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out! Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:46:30 +0100 Saturday, July 16, 2005, 7:53:12 PM, David Yirchott wrote: Some interesting thoughts, most of which I can see the sense of, but one bit worried me: Anyway, as you stated: corporate culture is hopelessly, cravenly conformist Which I agree with. So there isn't anything to be upset about. It'll always conform to the will of the people. I think this is how it works _in theory_. After all, t's the basis of the capitalism = democracy argument. However, in reality, it's often much simpler (i.e more profitable) for an organization to adapt public opinion to suit its needs, rather than adapting the organization to meet the whims of the public. When was the last time you saw an advertisment that just told you the raw details of a product or service instead of trying to make you want something? -- Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
