[videoblogging] Re: Nader Flix
I left a comment. Told the Nader Team to start making video responses. Obama has over 1000 videos in his youtube account. He is Goliath. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interruption! Finally, a chance to push Nader on this list without being off-topic ;) http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/08/24/nader-flix/ --- We now return you to regular programming - Lesser Of Two Evils. ;) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Blitzkrieg VIdeo Release
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, jamezscript [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anybody had success producing a shit-load of videos and releasing them all at once? I know the Ask A Ninja Guy's did this... I'm finding it increasingly difficult to build an audience/brand with just a handful of videos. Thinking even if you've got something entertaining you need at least 20 vids to make a mark these days? Any thoughts? Constant release without substance is diarrhea. If you're creating online videos as a marketing business, then it probably is important to follow an established schedule. But if you're not a business, who cares? Just make stuff when you feel like making it. Make as much of it as you need. Follow an internal rhythm. John Totalvom.
[videoblogging] Re: Blitzkrieg VIdeo Release
tension, climax, post-roll? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tension, climax, relief? On 21-Aug-08, at 2:28 PM, Brook Hinton wrote: I cannot resist. Mr. Street, what are the two or more emotions that French Maid TV seeks to move through emotionally compelling content? On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: French Maid TV has 8 How To videos that usually get between 1 to 5 million views per video. The trick is to build emotionally compelling content that moves two of more emotions have spectacle... and story if you can work it in. Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV [EMAIL PROTECTED] tim%40frenchmaidtv.com Add French Maid TV to Your iTunes @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes http://1timstreet.com http://twitter.com/1timstreet On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:18 PM, jamezscript wrote: Has anybody had success producing a shit-load of videos and releasing them all at once? I know the Ask A Ninja Guy's did this... I'm finding it increasingly difficult to build an audience/brand with just a handful of videos. Thinking even if you've got something entertaining you need at least 20 vids to make a mark these days? Any thoughts? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Forum software.
Hello Everybody, I'm planning to continue making vulgar comedy videos for YouTube. But I also want to have a place to share videos that are more serious. I don't want one thousand assholes writing comments like, sorry dude, you used to be funny. I want to distribute torrents and have some community around them. I'm thinking a forum would be the best way to go. So I'm wondering if anybody knows which open source forum software I should be using to run a private forum. Ideally, I'd like to pre-approve email addresses, so there isn't much hassle to sign up for friends. But if I don't know you, then you get hassled. Thanks, John TotalVOM.
[videoblogging] Re: Forum software.
Thanks for the advice, Kent. Hey, if it's any consolation, I wish you all the success in the world. I hope you become governor of California. Then my new video, Information Dystopia, will surely become a cult fave. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kent Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ning.com And you can make flash only vids that are private. -Kent, still part of the problem --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: Hello Everybody, I'm planning to continue making vulgar comedy videos for YouTube. But I also want to have a place to share videos that are more serious. I don't want one thousand assholes writing comments like, sorry dude, you used to be funny. I want to distribute torrents and have some community around them. I'm thinking a forum would be the best way to go. So I'm wondering if anybody knows which open source forum software I should be using to run a private forum. Ideally, I'd like to pre-approve email addresses, so there isn't much hassle to sign up for friends. But if I don't know you, then you get hassled. Thanks, John TotalVOM.
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed Jon, The example I pointed out was vague terminology. The real conversation was much more specific when we asked the content creator what they were willing, and not willing to do. When that was agreed upon, the pricing was a separate issue. Another great point you made, and I agree with, is that every content creator has a different set of standards for partnerships with sponsors (advertisers), and each will be willing or not willing to do certain things. (i.e. endorsements may not be ok, but placement scripted into the video may be just fine) That gives the creator freedom to make that choice. I remember this guy who was doing videos when I first started in this group. He was hunting for Civil War relics on battlefields in the south. His videos showed him using a metal detector, how to look for these types of artifacts, and how to identify the artifacts. I had little interest in this type of hobby, but the content was consistent, and I could see the benefit for enthusiasts in this area. I believe this example went into the long tail, and I saw multiple opportunities for sponsorship, if he chose to go that direction. Dear Paul, How can you talk about multiple opportunities for sponsorship when you do not believe in the thing you are sponsoring? I am aware Civil War enthusiasm has turned into a cottage industry and the marketers are paying attention to us now. And while I appreciate your vulture advice, I hope you don't take this the wrong way when I tell you to buzz off. If I accepted sponsorships from outside of the historical community, it would change the very nature of what I am doing. No longer would I be serving this community, instead I would be serving the sponsors who quite frankly, I do not believe care one lick about the Civil War. Your statement that you have no interest in the hobby only reinforces this belief. I know you think sponsorships will help make my program more accessible. You believe accessibility and an expanded audience to be a good thing. But how far will it go? I have no doubt I could deliver millions of viral views if I showed my buttcrack while loading a musket. Paul! You do not understand this hobby! And you do not understand the importance of things! The small, yet enthusiastic, audience are the reason my consistent content exists in the first place. And I will not let your commercial schemes alienate them. Thank you, Buzz off, - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thanks for your feedback Jon, -Paul --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: Marketers and Advertisers are way behind on knowing how to work with online content creators. I've been in the community for 4 years, and sometimes I don't know where to start. Networks like Rev3 and NNN, have made it a bit easier to work with these shows, but most content creators will never work with them. There's just a shitload of content out there. I've approached a couple content creators about sponsorship. I've asked how much they charge. *cue crickets*. I'll explain why you're getting crickets. The word sponsorship summons up this glorious relationship where the sponsor gives money because they believe in the cause or the work. Take Where The Hell Is Matt? http://wherethehellismatt.com/ Scroll down to the bottom and in the left hand corner you'll see a tiny image for Stride. From the Where The Hell is Matt? FAQ: BEGIN FAQ Did they make you chew gum on your trip? They didn't make me do much of anything. They are very good people. Did they tell you where to go? Nope. They said, and I'm quoting here: We like what you're doing. We want to help you. We don't want to mess with you. These words charmed me, and they stayed true to them. Did they edit the video for you? Nope. I came home, put it together, sorted the music out, and slapped it up on the internet. That was pretty much it. Like I said: good people. Do you get lots of free gum? I get lots of free gum. How did you find them? They found me. END FAQ. That is real sponsorship. Now do you see how absurd it is to ask how much creators charge for sponsorship? It's like asking, how much would it cost me to give you money because I believe in what you're doing? It sounds like what you're really asking is, how much does it cost to put a commercial on your broadcast? Or maybe you're asking, how much for your endorsement? Or maybe you're asking how much does it cost to have endorsements made for my product and run on your broadcast? And that's fine. Just use the correct words and maybe it won't be so confusing for people. I've got a panel submission for SXSWi, on what marketers look for in a video content creator. We'll
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, trine bjørkmann berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record; Knut Hamsun (and his character in Hunger, incidentally) both had to 'deal with people'. The character in Hunger spends much of his time trying desperately to get paid, and - ironically perhaps - finds that when he does get paid, he can no longer work. Yes. Hamsun and the character had to deal with people. But he wasn't getting millions of views of Hunger without compensation. There are many pitfalls of fame and power. Maybe those pitfalls are worse than fame and poverty, as Hamsun's political meddlings suggest. Hamsun was a much admired author in Norway until he started meddling in politics and made himself incredibly unpopular. He even received the Nobel Price for literature, luckily, perhaps, before the aforementioned meddling in politics left him with fewer friends among the so-called norwegian cultural elite (contradiction in terms, I know... ;-)) Trine On 8/9/08, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] trine.blogs.com henrikisak.blogspot.com twitter.com/trine
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Marketers and Advertisers are way behind on knowing how to work with online content creators. I've been in the community for 4 years, and sometimes I don't know where to start. Networks like Rev3 and NNN, have made it a bit easier to work with these shows, but most content creators will never work with them. There's just a shitload of content out there. I've approached a couple content creators about sponsorship. I've asked how much they charge. *cue crickets*. I'll explain why you're getting crickets. The word sponsorship summons up this glorious relationship where the sponsor gives money because they believe in the cause or the work. Take Where The Hell Is Matt? http://wherethehellismatt.com/ Scroll down to the bottom and in the left hand corner you'll see a tiny image for Stride. From the Where The Hell is Matt? FAQ: BEGIN FAQ Did they make you chew gum on your trip? They didn't make me do much of anything. They are very good people. Did they tell you where to go? Nope. They said, and I'm quoting here: We like what you're doing. We want to help you. We don't want to mess with you. These words charmed me, and they stayed true to them. Did they edit the video for you? Nope. I came home, put it together, sorted the music out, and slapped it up on the internet. That was pretty much it. Like I said: good people. Do you get lots of free gum? I get lots of free gum. How did you find them? They found me. END FAQ. That is real sponsorship. Now do you see how absurd it is to ask how much creators charge for sponsorship? It's like asking, how much would it cost me to give you money because I believe in what you're doing? It sounds like what you're really asking is, how much does it cost to put a commercial on your broadcast? Or maybe you're asking, how much for your endorsement? Or maybe you're asking how much does it cost to have endorsements made for my product and run on your broadcast? And that's fine. Just use the correct words and maybe it won't be so confusing for people. I've got a panel submission for SXSWi, on what marketers look for in a video content creator. We'll even talk niche, and long tail for people that don't get a bazillion views on youtube. http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/1979?return=%2Fideas%2Findex%2F3%2Fq%3Abolin It won't happen overnight. The way I see it, we're all marketers, we're just pushing different things. I've heard of the long tail of books and the long tail of DVDs and CDs and the long tail of online media. But maybe we're not talking about multiple tails. Maybe it's all one tail. You've got Amazon's most obscure products sitting out at the very tiniest tip of the Amazon tail and once you step off, you're on a new tail of stuff made just for the web with no hopes (or false hopes) of breaking into traditional (or subculture) media markets. And when you get to the edge of that tail, then you're stepping into communication. Videos about someone's wedding anniversary posted to youtube for friends and family. A myspace blog from a teenager chronicling teenager shit for her teenager friends. And then after that tail, you'll find private communication between individuals, email, phone calls, etc. When we talk about advertising this far out on the tail, it's creepy science fiction stuff. But I'm not worried about it. The market will correct itself, right? BURST! You disgusting web 2.0 bubble! BURST! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Rupert, by writing to you, I realized there was some juice left in this thread. My opinion of Ze Frank. I love that you call me the evil Ze Frank. When I was making my videos sometimes I'd take a break in the afternoon and watch the Show and I'd just say, fuck it and scrap my video. He was so quick and he came up with so much in such short periods of time. When I first started watching his show I read about his background in neuroscience and I thought he was using tricks. I was relieved when I saw an episode containing a few extra words that could have been edited out to pack more of a punch. So he wasn't completely a master of brainwashing. Sometimes though, his squeaky clean image, the rubber duckies, the sports racers, left me wanting something more evil. And he wasn't a great story teller. I think my favorite video was the one where he talked about 9/11, when he broke down crying and a nurse hugged him. That was a good story. Good stories poke around in the dark places where the author might not want to go. And Ze built this story up by reading comments and making it appear as if he was being pushed into it. http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/09/090706.html According to this NewTeeVee article, Ze candidly admits he knows little about story telling. http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ What he did very well was comment on things. And so I think he kind of embodies the best of what I'm starting to call the school of content creation. Fast. And immediate. The downside is that his show has no longevity. He ridiculed the Bush administration. I think he was very smart to only do it for a year. Because how could he keep going when what he was making was sort of shallow on a narrative level and would just shrivel up at the pace of current events? Information Dystopia is an attempt to break away from the school of content creation. It's over ten times longer than your typical piece of content. It's not easily accessible, you have to use bittorrent. It also has pacing. I did try to boil it down to essentials, but speed wasn't my ultimate goal. I framed it as an epic struggle. It goes from my small petty rivalry with Nichols and blows it up into a battle for the future of the Internet. I used songs to slow things down and build suspense. Also, it's a one shot. Not part of a series. I am starting to feel like I'm getting material for a sequel. But anyway, it breaks with the content creation rule of publishing regularly. I finished recording about 97% of it in July. The graphics took about a month. So now maybe there's someone out there more arty-farty than myself who can give an unbiased review of Information Dystopia. Here's the torrent: http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/information_dystopia.mp4.torrent Over on Kent's blog post Is online video dead, Rick Rey commented that there's no place for critics in new media. I think we need to be more critical of each other's work. I used to belong to a fiction writing list where you'd post your writing and members would break it down line by line. Now I know it's hard to do with online video because we all have such different goals and purposes. But that's all the more reason to do it. We could learn ways of approaching online video that we never could have imagined. I still feel like a redneck when I talk about video art and film making. Maybe we need two video blogging lists, one for tech support and one for content support. As Loren Feldman would say, SUPPORT! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Rupert. Let's continue our pointy headed conversation in email. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: maybe he was addicted to it, couldn't help himself. i don't know quite what my point was. i think it was probably something to do with the fact that i like your stuff best when it's satirical and rather bukowski-like in its vigorous reaction to bullshit. that running away from the bullshit is running away from some great inspiration. to me, you're like Ze Frank's evil twin. don't take that the wrong way. i don't mean Evil and i don't mean you're like Ze Frank. but the way you take on people and things, and do it with drawings, animation, music. it seems to me that your creative reaction to YouTube is what's got you the views, and that that's what you could be charging access for. i can see how people would pay a dollar a throw to watch your videos. fuck it, post partial works on your blog and then sell your videos on Cruxy.com - that's what it's there for. Aren't they selling videos on iTunes yet? Ricky Gervais made something like £10m by selling his podcast for £1 per download a couple of years ago. Forget what I said before about people not paying for media anymore. Mix it up. Try it. Stop
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ -
[videoblogging] Re: Anthropology of Social Justice and Mobile Media
democracynow.org Great resource for social justice. Is it video blogging? Just kidding. I don't want to go there. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mgotanez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am soliciting ideas on literature/theory and course activities for an undergraduate course in social justice with a focus on mobile media and video blogging at the U of Colorado Denver. May have students use RCA small wonder video camera OR mini flip (any thoughts). Will use apple's imovie or final cut, and blogger. Would be grateful for your suggestions on course readings/websites and class activities (in and out of class), and guest speakers in Denver area. thanks in advance. Marty Otanez, PhD Assistant Professor Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver [EMAIL PROTECTED] sidewalkradio.net
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ -
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Yeah, way off topic. But I remember reading a letter or maybe a poem where he said JD Salinger knew what he was doing because he wrote one good book and quit. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, that was pretty far off-topic for a videoblogging list :) On 9-Aug-08, at 4:17 PM, Rupert wrote: ha! maybe. he got more pestering after he became famous than before, for sure. but jd salinger he was not. if he hated people that much, he could have become a recluse, but he didn't. he kept living in hollywood, and the same crazies and outsiders peopled his life and work for the next 20 years after he stopped his drunken, highly entertaining readings. he was great at writing about how much he hated ugly humanity, but he recognised that this fed him. see If I taught creative writing: http://www.misanthropytoday.com/2008/07/29/if-i-taught-creative- writing-by-charles-bukowski/ versus the genius of the crowd http://plagiarist.com/poetry/4508/ Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 9-Aug-08, at 3:02 PM, ractalfece wrote: Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe rupert@ wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ - [Non-text portions
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Thanks Rupert. Let's continue our pointy headed conversation in email. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe he was addicted to it, couldn't help himself. i don't know quite what my point was. i think it was probably something to do with the fact that i like your stuff best when it's satirical and rather bukowski-like in its vigorous reaction to bullshit. that running away from the bullshit is running away from some great inspiration. to me, you're like Ze Frank's evil twin. don't take that the wrong way. i don't mean Evil and i don't mean you're like Ze Frank. but the way you take on people and things, and do it with drawings, animation, music. it seems to me that your creative reaction to YouTube is what's got you the views, and that that's what you could be charging access for. i can see how people would pay a dollar a throw to watch your videos. fuck it, post partial works on your blog and then sell your videos on Cruxy.com - that's what it's there for. Aren't they selling videos on iTunes yet? Ricky Gervais made something like £10m by selling his podcast for £1 per download a couple of years ago. Forget what I said before about people not paying for media anymore. Mix it up. Try it. Stop talking about it, and make a fucking funny brilliantly made video and sell it. Message all your fans. I don't know. I don't see why you couldn't do it right now. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 9-Aug-08, at 5:07 PM, ractalfece wrote: Yeah, way off topic. But I remember reading a letter or maybe a poem where he said JD Salinger knew what he was doing because he wrote one good book and quit. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Sorry, that was pretty far off-topic for a videoblogging list :) On 9-Aug-08, at 4:17 PM, Rupert wrote: ha! maybe. he got more pestering after he became famous than before, for sure. but jd salinger he was not. if he hated people that much, he could have become a recluse, but he didn't. he kept living in hollywood, and the same crazies and outsiders peopled his life and work for the next 20 years after he stopped his drunken, highly entertaining readings. he was great at writing about how much he hated ugly humanity, but he recognised that this fed him. see If I taught creative writing: http://www.misanthropytoday.com/2008/07/29/if-i-taught-creative- writing-by-charles-bukowski/ versus the genius of the crowd http://plagiarist.com/poetry/4508/ Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 9-Aug-08, at 3:02 PM, ractalfece wrote: Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe rupert@ wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert, you're right. My line about heroes failing us is a bit much. I should have saved it for when Obama is the president. I'll try to explain why I have both admiration and disdain for Ask a Ninja. Before 2006, I had no idea how the internet worked. I had spent a year farting around with a scanner and html to put my zines online. My traffic reports indicated that my website had gotten zero visitors. The 2006 article in Rolling Stone about the rise of the video blog was my entry point. I know, real good entry point. I think you might be able to see what was running through my little rat brain. No, wait. You can't. I have to keep explaining. I was performing in poetry slams and open mics, trying to charge $1 for my zine but usually just giving it away for free. So I read about the rise of the video blog. The article made it sound as if democracy was breaking lose. I immediately went on the internet and looked up all the shows mentioned. A lot of it didn't do anything for me, like Rocketboom. But I loved Steve Garfield's Vlog Soup. The way he was obsessed with people, he seemed like a strange, voyeuristic internet version of John Waters. He told some teenage girl on Myspace to change her background because he couldn't see anything! I loved it. I think you can see the influence in some of my videos. And Travis Poston's Good Word With the T-Bird. Pretty amazing stuff, reporting a coke dealer -Jenna Bush connection. But the one show that made me go, AH HA! I can do this too was called Ask a Ninja. All the guy did was stand in front of a video camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different from what I was doing in poetry slams? The internet suddenly looked like one giant open mic. So now do you see what was running through my rat brain? I could become a cult fave like the ninja and get my fucking name mentioned in Rolling Stone! Yeehaw! Too bad Kent didn't have a blog back then- I would never have bought the camera. Would have just sent a disgusted letter to the editor. Kent is being true to himself, sure. But this is where I feel cheated. And it might not be Kent's fault. The Ninja was cast into the role of an outsider on the rise thanks to this video blog popular movement. But really, he was business from the beginning. But while I was struggling to become a cult fave like the ninja, I had failed to understand (and from reading Kent's blog, I'm not sure if he fully understands this either) that the ninja is one hell of a piece of marketing genius. Even now, I still
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the guy did was stand in front of a video camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different from what I was doing in poetry slams? Umm. the writing and presentation is funny, not boring like a poetry slam, that's why it's popular. All he did was stand in front of a camera? That's sour grapes I think. Sure, it's not fair that nobody gives a crap about poetry in the real world, but that's just the way it is. People want to be entertained, and Kent did that. The shit is funny, and yeah, the jump cut editing helps it be funnier. This brings up another one of my fears. No marketer of the 90s would have dared called poetry boring. It was urban, it was hip. There was a massive poetry slam scene. But trendy things never stay trendy for long. So what happens when the youtube generation gets a little older. It seems to be assumed that user generated content and THE INTERNET itself are always going to be viewed favorably by the public. But popular movements often times die quick deaths when they're gobbled up by marketers. When the kids who are 2 now, grow into teenagers, what are they going to think of the cam whores of today? Are they going to give a shit when their new technological toys deliver them a crippled corporate internet? In other words, what will happen to net neutrality? - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I'm finding the whining from the artists on this list to be annoying. You should be doing your art for the love of your art, not for money. I don't believe there is a cross intersection between art and marketing. It's one or the other. If you want to make money, go make stuff that people want to see/watch/listen to. Learn how to be a marketer. If you don't want to sell out, then that's great. I'm glad for you. Just quit bitching about the people who are successful. Jim Kukral From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ractalfece Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert, you're right. My line about heroes failing us is a bit much. I should have saved it for when Obama is the president. I'll try to explain why I have both admiration and disdain for Ask a Ninja. Before 2006, I had no idea how the internet worked. I had spent a year farting around with a scanner and html to put my zines online. My traffic reports
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
. That we don't HAVE to be paid. The making of the thing doesn't COST anything. When I started making 16mm films, they were seen by hardly any people at festivals and cost thousands of dollars to make in rental and processing costs. Now I make better stuff on my free-with-my- contract phone for hardly anything except time, and it's seen by thousands. Everything else is bullshit. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 5-Aug-08, at 3:53 AM, Rupert wrote: either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. First and foremost, Steve W. has it right the key here is to be tolerant of each others' expression, which also includes people's beliefs when it comes to making money. As John's video clearly indicates, the world is tough enough to navigate without a nasty polemic that shuts down communication and has people leave the space. And for those who have been around long enough, we all know there have been many that sadly have left this space. What I don't see is this community pointing fingers at ourselves first when it comes to making our new media space a reality. People like myself have been saying over and over that time is of the essence. Two years ago, I said the marketers were discovering this space and were planning to commodify the living shit out of it in ways we can't imagine once the budgets are approved. That is exactly what has happened. In general, the marketers heard about it in '06 and the exploitation of the medium came into its own in '07, once the ledger-line planning that marketers had done the year before had been released. We had a limited time to come together and create a set of values before greater forces took over. In some ways we have succeeded (e.g. CC licenses, full disclosure) because there was agreement, and others we have failed because of varying opinions and degrees of conviction on certain issues. We need to own that as a group of individuals. The result is the result, and many ships have sailed. Regarding many issues, the complaints are useless now as the time of value and context creation on a greater scale has passed. Exposing crap such that people are looking at new ways of doing things is great, but complaining about crap through personal attacks does nothing but satisfy individuals. John's video, while technically brilliant, seems to barely even gloss over the fact that he made his own decisions here. We have all known from that the downside of YouTube's vast audience potential is scant revenue-sharing and horrific comments. We have known what models no matter how dreadful and degrading to our dreams of a new media landscape are doing well and how unfair and rather disgusting they are to some, if not most, people. I think it is rather unfair to hold others accountable for one's personal decisions or one's lack of viable options to showcase work. Alright, I'll point the finger at myself. Back in '06, when the marketers arrived and the press releases started flying about the online video revolution, I bought the hype and a video camera. It seems so naive now. The fall of corporate media being reported with glee in the corporate mainstream press? Why wasn't my bullshit detector working? I stopped making zines, stopped performing at open mics and poetry slams. It all seemed quaint compared to the future. New media revolution! The first few months, I hosted the videos on my own site. My stuff was out there for anybody to take and nobody wanted it except my friends and family. Okay so maybe the problem wasn't distribution. Maybe the problem was promotion. There was a site called YouTube where people were getting massive views just sitting in front of cameras talking about nothing. What the hell, give it a shot. And I started getting more views. In the triple digits. But it didn't feel right. Here I had taken my art form (spoken word or poetry or whatever you want to call it), a public art form and I had moved it into a private space. YouTube does a good job of pretending it's a public community. And I think many Youtubers believe it is. But I felt like I was promoting a nightmare. Here's a video that came out of that period: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBn56qMvziQ It's a video response to some house wife asking two questions, why are you on youtube? and why did you choose your user name?. The original video is gone now. I did many prank videos like this. Probably would have kept on doing it but things changed as soon as I got featured. Now I was no longer just a weirdo with a video camera. I was a youtube star. And my video responses would cause an avalanche of hate comments for the victim. It wasn't fun anymore. And kids were writing to me, telling me they wanted to be just like me. I never really thought about what would happen when I became successful. Even on a small scale. And at the same time it was becoming clear to me that the video revolution was just the hype of venture capitalists. It would be a brave new world where the content creators were hooked up directly to the advertisers. I feared this new model would make old school TV programming look like high art. Kent Nichols had called me a genius. Of course, I appreciated it but as I read more of his blog, it started to gross me out. I didn't want to go down with the content creators. Is this the school I'm from? Hell no, I'm
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Hello Brook, my experience has been that if you treat your audience like they're a bunch of youtube using babies who can't figure anything out, then that's the audience you get. To get a quality audience you need to make demands of them. My latest video is a 39 minute, 700 meg monster. I made a promo on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxyOO200ho As a result, I've sent over 200 emails in the past week. And the video has been downloaded over 100 times. It may seem a little disappointing, considering the promo has received over one thousand views. But responding to people individually has given me a concept of scale. 100 people is a crowd. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email address. Anybody else who wants it can write [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think underground video has the potential to become a wild beast. A longer format. More like an album. Hope you enjoy it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
What a hoax, this online video revolution. I thought it was supposed to be a new media world where you could get unlimited niche stuff for any niche itch. And all the niche content creators were supposed to have an easy time in this new landscape. It was supposed to be the giants who fell. It was a revolution right? So why is it that unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term? I talk about it in my new 39 minute video. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email. But here's my short answer: It's because people don't seem to understand, if they don't pay for the shit they enjoy, someone else is going to pay to have shit spoon fed to them. It's just the way the market works. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Haha. That's good. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? Before online videos, I was making zines and performing at poetry slams and open mics. I believed in starving for my art. Something changed though. It was after I got featured on youtube. Now I had an audience. Not a large audience by some standards. But huge for me. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. And after about two months I figured out the problem. I was still starving for my art but now I was also dealing with the hardships of fame. And as much as I tried to ignore my tiny piece of fame, it still had an effect on me. Why am I making videos? Do I want to attract advertisers? Is it because I'm hoping for some sort of immortality years down the road, as a pioneer in this medium? Even if I had such dreams, who's to say videoblogging isn't a fad? I have no faith web 2.0 is going to last. And that what's coming next is going to be better. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? I'm emailing you the torrent, Verdi. Or you can just grab it off the link someone else posted. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I don't get this locking your videos up in bittorrent thing. Sure offer that as yet another way to get your videos (especially long one) but why make it hard for people. It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. Either be happy with the audience you have or go get fucking get the audience you want. And yeah, I kinda talked about this 2 years ago too - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/07/20/the-yang-of-vlogging/ Verdi
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. So let 'em stop watching. How does this prevent you from continuing? Why does exclusive distribution through bit torrent change the fact that they said these things? Sounds like what you actually want is a safer context in which to show your work. That's pretty much the opposite of avant-garde. It's preaching to the converted. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? OK, you're saying the audience should pay the performer or he'll pack it up and do something where there are slim chances that the performer (ok, different medium) will be paid. I don't get it. Pay me or I'll do something where you probably won't pay me? You seem to be arguing with yourself here. Maybe it will be clearer in the video. I think it will be clearer. Right now I'm pretty much arguing why I chose to use bittorrent instead of making it easily accessible. This isn't what the video is about. Bittorrent is technology I want to push. That's really all there is to it. I also wanted to give my audience the thrill of getting something that wasn't easy to get. Like back in the day when you had to send well concealed cash to a punk rock record distributer and then wait for the magic to arrive. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Brook -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YOu said: And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it... I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. I think that's the problem. What do you want to do? Make money? Then by all means, try appeasing the masses and make the videos THEY want you to make. Or are you making videos because it's your hobby/your art/your punk-rock-statement? Then you are making videos for YOU. IF others watch, well then - that's dandy. But the enjoyment is in the MAKING - not in the money. And that's my goal - to have fun (which I am). David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog David, it's great to have fun. My first year of online video, I was doing it for an audience that grew from 30 to about 200. But then my audience suddenly swelled (thanks to youtube feature) and my inbox was filled with hate mail and love letters. I was no longer doing it for a small cozy circle of people who were with it. It felt like I was on a big stage. And this rowdy bunch was very vocal about exactly what they wanted. What's the fun in that? What could I do? I could try to go backwards and get rid of my audience. Or I could find an alternative narrative. Define my own terms. And that's what I'm doing with this new video. And I know I am arguing with myself here. I'm explaining the personal circumstances that led up to the creation of Information Dystopia. The video is really about something bigger. I'll forward it to you. But you can just use the link someone posted. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the right audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a need to put up a barrier. I agree about people who complain about not being mainstream. But when you are an underground artist and your stuff goes mainstream and you're not getting paid for it. Well, then I think it's time to start throwing your weight around. I know some would argue I'm not mainstream enough. Or maybe that I never was an underground artist. Because it's true I naively bought the online video revolution hype. The new video deals with how I became disillusioned. And it offers a solution. But maybe it won't work out the way I want it to work out. That's life. I've got some other ideas up my sleeve. Gotta check out the legality first. I used to think I had to bend myself to become successful at the business of online video. But maybe business can be approached like an art form. You know, like Robin Marks at the carnival. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Now if the idea is riff on old-school-word-of-mouth-punk-rock-zine-diy-distribution and to promote bittorrent because you like it, then who am I to argue with that? In that context it's fun. Verdi
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Jen, let me tell you more about my personal life. I work a menial job that I love and don't make enough to live on (I know, I know move out of LA). I take care of an elderly man, helping him with daily living. His wife keeps on bothering me to get a raise. Get a raise. Call the agency and ask for a raise. So I finally did. Everybody in the office agreed I should get a raise. They said they'd look into it and see what they could do. I was shocked! Apparently nobody has ever asked for a raise? So I'm not making enough to live on doing my menial job. And I've got tons of buttholes (term of endearment) on the internet asking me to keep making videos. I just want to keep doing my thing. But it seems impossible. So find creative solutions. I'm not expecting this one video to fix my financial trouble. But maybe it will get the ball rolling in the right direction. Like Schlomo said, how could anyone predict it'd provide the inspiration for moneythong? Also it's part of the message. I mean, I want to get people acclimated to the idea of paying. If nobody pays, the market forces are there and the creatives will create with hopes of luring advertisers. And I used the word tax for a reason. I don't know much about grants, only that I've been denied. But I like the idea of funding arts publicly to make art publicly available. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what I'm still not quite getting - and what Rupert and Brook and Verdi have addressed - is why getting paid is such an important outcome? Is it compensation for dealing with the haters? Or is it to give the work some kind of palpable worth that it doesn't have otherwise? Certainly (street) performers have existed throughout the ages, playing for change, never making enough to live on, often doing it just for the love - is that all you want, some recompense - or are you talking about being able to live off this? I have to say - as much as I did find much to respond to in Information Dystopia, especially the first portion, (spoiler alert!) the request for money at the end made me feel like I had just watched an ad. Like an infomercial almost. I was disappointed by the attachment of money to it, which seemed rather counter to the message in the rest of the video. But maybe I just need to watch it again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the right audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a need to put up a barrier. I agree about people who complain about not being mainstream. But when you are an underground artist and your stuff goes mainstream and you're not getting paid for it. Well, then I think it's time to start throwing your weight around. I know some would argue I'm not mainstream enough. Or maybe that I never was an underground artist. Because it's true I naively bought the online video revolution hype. The new video deals with how I became disillusioned. And it offers a solution. But maybe it won't work out the way I want it to work out. That's life. I've got some other ideas up my sleeve. Gotta check out the legality first
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Schlomo, that would be awesome if you created a tracker for underground video. This latest video was my first attempt at ever putting anything on bittorrent. The public tracker I used seemed to conk out after about 12 hours. I asked one of my sixteen year old fans what I should do. Put it on Demonoid. So I did and it started working again. Only problem, now it's searchable. I wanted it to be underground, distributed via email and bittorrent. You'd have to know somebody who knows somebody to get it. So far nobody has blabbed that it's public. So my youtube fans are still sending me emails. It's such a relief to be in contact with them. I'm learning my audience isn't exclusively moron. I've got faculty. I've got art students. I've got Europeans. Shutins. Life strugglers. I feel much more connected. I email the torrent out and I see another leecher sucking it off my computer. It feels great not to be hosted anywhere. So if anybody wants my new online video you can do it the fun way and send me an email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or you can just search for Information Dystopia and grab it off Demonoid. This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John from TotalVom, whose work has often discussed his role within a world of online content creators (as well as comment on them), has had enough of the youtube comments and decides to go BitTorrent only. I can see a whole slew of bittorrents by small artists that dont need the ubiquitous nature of posting content everywhere and just put out a torrent that you send to friends. http://totalvom.blip.tv/file/1127884/ I envision a bittorrent tracker only for original longish form video content; people friending each other in Vuse to share the workload (does anyone actually friend each other in their trackers? I dont, seems weird). Awesome and easy to set up, where creators create to dialog with each other without the need/care of Views and Comments. I own moneythong.com, sounds like a good name for an Underground Video Bittorrent tracker site. Does someone know how to make one of these? And yes, I'm inspired and serious. -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Vloggercamp Who is going?
If I make it to vloggercamp. And I'm really gonna try. If I make it I'll sit around and bullshit about kicking some mothervloggin ass with whoever will listen. Here's an idea that popped into my head and I don't know what to do with it. So I'm going to pretend I'm looking into a camp fire with a beer in my hand. Because that's really where ideas like this should go. Into a fire. Okay, you know the youtube system, how suggested videos pop up in the player after you watch one? And also there's the related video list over on the sidebar. In the early days it was based on tags. And you could get massive amounts of views by changing your tags to the tags of a popular video. But they've changed the algorithm. I think they're now using some sort of social scoring system sort of like google page rank. And the evidence I'm going on here is the strange experiences I've had with my videos. Someone leaves an intriguing comment and I want to know more about this person. I go to the commenter's youtube profile, I watch one of the commenter's videos and one of my own videos pops up in the player! I've also noticed odd behaviour with the videos I've favorited- they have a tendency to show up on the related sidebar list together. Okay, so do you realize what we as a vlogging community could do? We could create an insular social circle so that the majority of the videos that pop up are from our circle. Nay, our cult! We could all start inserting a single frame of satanic imagery. Think how this will look to the average youtuber. He or she keeps clicking on the videos that youtube suggests and everything youtube serves up has the same dark image inexplicably inserted into it. No better yet: a whispered phrase. Think about it. I'm gonna go take a leak over in those bushes now. WE COULD DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE WHIRLY SPEED OF THE APOCALYPSE! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if i tell my wife that i'm burning $1000 that i can't really afford to spend 5 days away (including my daughter's birthday) when she's 8 months pregnant and when my sister, her boyfriend and her two kids are visiting from England and staying in our house just for FUN, then i'll get fired. maritally speaking. if i'm coming, i'm coming to kick some mothervloggin' ass. not chew straw and whittle. R --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina irinaski@ wrote: rupert i think this was just for FUN heard of it? On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Rupert rupert@ wrote: 5 have paid - but there are THIRTY people on the list on the wiki, right? So. That's where it needs to be to start with. No we've got to persuade each other to put our money where our mouth is. Seems to me that all these people WANT to go, but need to know who else is going before they put their money down and buy their tickets. It's this point, decision time, when we all measure the mood and work out whether it's worth it to us, right? If those 30 people come - and more - this will be a GREAT few days. Not just hanging out in the woods with a bunch of video weirdos, but a time to really take things to the next level. The events list on the Vloggercamp wiki is still mostly full of ideas for tech lessons. But it seems to me that most of us who are going have cracked the technology a long time ago. We're not pioneers in anything any more. Everyone with a broadband connection has watched YouTube. Now we've got to figure out What We Want To Do With It. Both for ourselves personally - as a hobby - and collectively, as a group: where the exciting shit is, what the new challenges and opportunities are, to use bullshit Media Convention marketing speak. I've heard people talk about collaborative Shows, interactive storytelling, grassroots democracy journalism, becoming better filmmakers. What *I* want from it is to go and hang out with some of you cutting edge motherfuckers and come up with some stuff that we can do TOGETHER. Make some stuff there and then, and come away with plans for the next year. COME ON! Sign up, let's make this an unmissable event, a much needed turning point and new beginning. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 30-Jun-08, at 7:45 AM, Bill Streeter wrote: We have 5 people who have registered. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Irina irinaski@ wrote: SO whats the count RIGHT NOW bill [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Vloggercamp Who is going?
Even if gas was affordable, I'm terrified of cars. Two years ago I was in a bad mashup at hiway speeds. Nobody was hurt. But it left me having very little stomach for driving or being driven around. Especially with someone like you Irina who drives like a maniac. I am simply too terrified. Another thing that blows: I found out I'm on the terrorist watch list. I was at the La Guardia airport in January and being my normal organized self, I showed up at the check-in desk with only forty minutes to spare. And the old man said, Oh my goodness. I don't think you're going to make it. And he typed some things in his computer and then he chuckled, And of course you're on the list. He paused again. Okay you're on the flight. You made it by thirty seconds. But your bags probably aren't going to make it. So this has been a mystery I've been trying to figure out. Why am I on the list? Was it my library record? Was it this video I filmed at a party in portland: http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/2006/11/episode_27_george_bush_pinata.html http://tinyurl.com/55g73u Or is it a mistake? I watched a video about a John Higgins who was put on the list. Maybe he got put on the list because his name is similar to mine: John Holden. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOQ4lEzChQI --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ok so john holden, we cant even drive any more do you have a prius, i think in all the prii, we can drive for $27 On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:10 AM, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is what I'm talking about. With ideas like this, we could change the world. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: If I make it to vloggercamp. And I'm really gonna try. If I make it I'll sit around and bullshit about kicking some mothervloggin ass with whoever will listen. Here's an idea that popped into my head and I don't know what to do with it. So I'm going to pretend I'm looking into a camp fire with a beer in my hand. Because that's really where ideas like this should go. Into a fire. Okay, you know the youtube system, how suggested videos pop up in the player after you watch one? And also there's the related video list over on the sidebar. In the early days it was based on tags. And you could get massive amounts of views by changing your tags to the tags of a popular video. But they've changed the algorithm. I think they're now using some sort of social scoring system sort of like google page rank. And the evidence I'm going on here is the strange experiences I've had with my videos. Someone leaves an intriguing comment and I want to know more about this person. I go to the commenter's youtube profile, I watch one of the commenter's videos and one of my own videos pops up in the player! I've also noticed odd behaviour with the videos I've favorited- they have a tendency to show up on the related sidebar list together. Okay, so do you realize what we as a vlogging community could do? We could create an insular social circle so that the majority of the videos that pop up are from our circle. Nay, our cult! We could all start inserting a single frame of satanic imagery. Think how this will look to the average youtuber. He or she keeps clicking on the videos that youtube suggests and everything youtube serves up has the same dark image inexplicably inserted into it. No better yet: a whispered phrase. Think about it. I'm gonna go take a leak over in those bushes now. WE COULD DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE WHIRLY SPEED OF THE APOCALYPSE! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe rupert@ wrote: if i tell my wife that i'm burning $1000 that i can't really afford to spend 5 days away (including my daughter's birthday) when she's 8 months pregnant and when my sister, her boyfriend and her two kids are visiting from England and staying in our house just for FUN, then i'll get fired. maritally speaking. if i'm coming, i'm coming to kick some mothervloggin' ass. not chew straw and whittle. R --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Irina irinaski@ wrote: rupert i think this was just for FUN heard of it? On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Rupert rupert@ wrote: 5 have paid - but there are THIRTY people on the list on the wiki, right? So. That's where it needs to be to start with. No we've got to persuade each other to put our money where our mouth is. Seems to me that all these people WANT to go, but need to know who else is going before they put their money down and buy their tickets. It's this point, decision time, when we all measure the mood and work out whether it's worth it to us
[videoblogging] Re: My Apologies...Here is the link again...this time, no embedding...
I went to your site and I couldn't get anything because too was going on. Here's my suggestion- and I'm gonna put it in the language of video games: You typed in some codes and got yourself to level 20. But you don't have the experience points to be at level 20 yet. You gotta go back and start at level 1. And you've got to slowly build your vlog/blog up over time. john from totalvom dot com. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, videogamersoasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Widgets don't work in this Dimension...heh heh. http://www.videogamersoasis.com/blog Some REALLY way-out stuff is here! You'll LOVE IT! There is now a Suggestion Box on my Blog, so if you have any helpful suggestions to make my Blog and Vlog better, please, leave some interesting comments on my Blog.
[videoblogging] Re: Vloggercamp Who is going?
I wasn't planning on registering. I was just gonna show up in the woods with a hatchet and a ski mask. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need 35 people to register to make this happen. We don't have nearly that number yet--I think maybe 10 so far. So if you guys think we should I can extend the registration by about a week. People can even register after that too, but we need at least 35 to commit at least a month in advance because we aren't taking any sponsorship money for this. Everything will be paid for from the registration funds, and we're operating pretty much at cost. At this point I don't see it happening unless we get about 25 more people to sign up. Don't get me wrong, I really want to do this. But I can't afford to hire the chef and pay for the camp if no one shows up. We can still make it happen if you want, but I need you help getting the word out and getting people signed up soon. Does anyone have any better ideas? Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Coffey jimmycrackhead2000@ wrote: Who is going to Vloggercamp? I've already booked my airline tix to St Louis. Don't leave and Demanda Condom hanging! John Coffey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: I Want My Vlog to Look Like a Porno Site
Could popping the pretentious bubble that was growing on someone's forehead like a petit pois be considered an innovating and pioneering contribution to video blogging ? Or do both parties the popped as well as the popper become fish gasping for water trapped in a net of asshole behaviour ? John at total vom dot com
[videoblogging] Re: I Want My Vlog to Look Like a Porno Site
I think you're asking me those questions. So I'll defend my mail as a vlogging contribution. We were talking about how to make a site look like a porno site. You gave a link to a beautiful masterfully done site. It looks amazing. It is the opposite of a porno site. So I submitted a site I'd done using gif animations. The goal in this case is not to be a pioneer. The goal is to look tawdry and cheap. Using decrepit technology is the best way to achieve a porno look in my opinion. -John from totalvom.com. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not sure to be understood but Who is the vlogger? You or your archives ? That you are saying now ( in the flux) or that you have made 5 years ago ? Is swimming pool by Bill Viola a vlogging work ? Is this mail a vlogging contribution ? Difficult to stay a pionner on Internet Who is a pionner now ? ( i have some names ;-) ) Nice day or night for all Loiez Loiez Deniel http://www.loiez.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! new cell phone : +33 06 08 31 96 98 Skype : ultimcodex M'appeler gratuitement de votre PC sur mon portable http://call.mylivio.com/loiez
[videoblogging] Re: I Want My Vlog to Look Like a Porno Site
Haha. I'm laughing at myself now (and you). I see the misunderstanding. The site is called totalassface2003.com so you thought it was from five years ago. Watch the video the joke is based on. I went undercover, posing as an internet loser (which isn't far from the truth) and asked some tough questions of my youtubin' peers. I put a dated url on my name tag. It was part of my character. Here's the video again since you clipped it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvOs9HEzZQg -john from totalvom.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're asking me those questions. So I'll defend my mail as a vlogging contribution. We were talking about how to make a site look like a porno site. You gave a link to a beautiful masterfully done site. It looks amazing. It is the opposite of a porno site. So I submitted a site I'd done using gif animations. The goal in this case is not to be a pioneer. The goal is to look tawdry and cheap. Using decrepit technology is the best way to achieve a porno look in my opinion. -John from totalvom.com. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, l.deniel@ l.deniel@ wrote: I am not sure to be understood but Who is the vlogger? You or your archives ? That you are saying now ( in the flux) or that you have made 5 years ago ? Is swimming pool by Bill Viola a vlogging work ? Is this mail a vlogging contribution ? Difficult to stay a pionner on Internet Who is a pionner now ? ( i have some names ;-) ) Nice day or night for all Loiez Loiez Deniel http://www.loiez.org l.deniel@ ! new cell phone : +33 06 08 31 96 98 Skype : ultimcodex M'appeler gratuitement de votre PC sur mon portable http://call.mylivio.com/loiez
[videoblogging] Re: I Want My Vlog to Look Like a Porno Site
I made a crazy website using gif animations. My lil' brother drew a bunch of flipbooks. I scanned them in and put them together using the gimp. Gif's are the way to go for insanity. http://www.totalassface2003.com Enjoy. -John from totalvom.com. (P.S. It's a joke from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvOs9HEzZQg ) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My friend Mikael Borras AKA Systaime made somethinglike that but using flash http://systaime.com/ Best regards Loiez Loiez Deniel http://www.loiez.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! new cell phone : +33 06 08 31 96 98 Skype : ultimcodex M'appeler gratuitement de votre PC sur mon portable http://call.mylivio.com/loiez
[videoblogging] Re: upload a Youtube video: adding textual commentary to parody/satire a news clip?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, B Yen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright issues Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff- Rose Music, Inc. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her. Parodying music is legal in the U.K, America and Canada. I want to upload a video clip from a news broadcast, to Youtube. To avoid violating terms of use (copyright infringement), can I add some text for satire (commentary). Would this parody of a copyrighted broadcast..work? Isn't that how Jay Leno/NBC (or Jimmy Kimmel/ABC) can take news clips, air it on their comedy shows with satire.. get away with it? This subject has come up on this list a while back. But, I forgot the outcome. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] This came up when I did a parody. I'd include links to the videos but I feel like it's a dead horse. The outcome? My lawyer (who came to the rescue because I asked for help here on this list) spoke with their lawyer. And they started offering me money to take the videos down. I rejected the offers and the videos are still up. So that was the outcome. But only because I had lots of help. And I am still very thankful for it. -John (totalvom.com)
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
-John, totl --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two laywers (one from NBC, the other from Columbia law school) are discussing what fair use these days when it come to remixing. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/ NBC laywer says, fair use is not a right, a misconception and misstatement frequently made these days. you can imagine how the conversation goes from here. This is a really interesting argument in light of the issue that John had over at Total Vom: http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/2008/01/my_legal_struggle_with_christi.html I think my usage of the fourth dimension threw off the Metaphyiscal Scientists. They didn't realize the uniqueness of their original video, how their leader pauses as if waiting for a response and how this lends itself to be commented upon, criticized and parodied in a unique way. I think if I had used the more traditional method of cutting back and forth between their video and my video, they would have never threatened me with a lawsuit. As ive said before, its strange that it's totally accepted and encouraged for text bloggers to use text from other sources to build their own work. The lawyer from Columbia uses the example of the NY Times Book review using quotes from books without fear. This makes for a healthy media ecosystem. So why would online video be any different? I tried to think up some best practices for when neither party is making money from selling content, in other words, when both parties have put their content online for free. Exposure is the main currency in the digital age and fair use should be defined very wide. Best practice for using materials fairly: If you want your audience to find the original work, then what you're doing is probably fair. For example, let's say I need a cat in one of my videos. And I take a short clip from somebody's cat video and fit it into my narrative. But I don't want to link back to the original because I want it to look as if it was my own cat footage. This is probably a rip-off. Not fair use. Identical situation, but in this case I link back to the original because this is part of the joke. I'm creating the illusion that I'm interacting with somebody else's cat. This is probably some blend of commentary, criticism and/or parody. Fair use. Best practice for protecting your original work: Be very honest with yourself about what is bothering you. Is it the ersatz copy or is it the commentary, criticism or parody? When someone is making fun of you, this is hard to do. But try to imagine if the same material was being used to flatter you, would the use of your work still bother you? -John, totalvom.com
[videoblogging] Re: New BlipTV show page preview
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the future I do believe we'll be presenting Related videos on this page. The related videos will probably be driven by a collaborative filtering system. Right now we're evaluating four different CF systems. These systems work by providing recommendations on two planes: videos that are subject-matter similar to the video you're watching now and videos that are similar to videos you've expressed interest in before (based on a number of criteria like how long you watched videos, which videos you watched more than others, how you responded to them by commenting or rating, et cetera). Check this out. I was on YouTube the other day and I favorited a Japanese hip hop video. A little latter I went back to watch it again and I noticed four of my favorites and one of my own videos in the related videos box of the music video. These videos had nothing to do with the music video. I thought, wow, my favorites are controlling the related videos! But the next day I went back again and the related videos were all of the Japanese band. So somehow they filtered out. YouTube is genius at finding and promoting viral videos. It's going to be hard to beat them at that game. I rarely ever watch videos on the blip show pages. And it's not because of the layout. It's because the serious content creators who use your site tend to set up their own sites and organize their content that way. But I like what blip is doing with Five Head. I think that's the right direction. A TV channel with a chat room right there. People want to be exposed to new content but they're lazy about it. They don't want to swim through a river of shit to get there. But if someone was operating a ferry, they might take that ride. Especially if they can yell this is SHIT! at the operator. -John, totalvom.com
[videoblogging] Re: Creating a Youtube group account?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Golf Pro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Say, I have tourism network and I want to create a video producing contest. I can't figure out how to create a group under my company name where people can submit their videos so I can start my contest? Can someone help me? Thanks, Mark Here's how I'd do it on YouTube. I'd make a video describing the contest and I'd ask everybody to submit their videos as video responses.
[videoblogging] Re: Fair Use (was: being a youtube star)
Okay, okay, I have to figure out how to capture the damn thing and stick a creative commons license on it. It's really going to hate this. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: FYI: the cartoon butterfly is available at a reasonable price for anybody to license;) Reasonable price? Nay! Unleash him freely into the vlogosphere! He could be the next Flat Stanley! Or, if he's really ambitious, Rudy's next Galacticast co-host... Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Fair Use (was: being a youtube star)
I'm really happy everything worked out. FYI: the cartoon butterfly is available at a reasonable price for anybody to license;) -John Holden. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, valdezatron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chalk one up for the good guys. Gotta keep the Monkey Minds and Lizard Brains in check. Way to respond. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chris cjburdick@ wrote: I still say her own videos would benefit greatly if she added that friggin' cartoon butterfly to all of them. Chris --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: On Jan 3, 2008 1:44 PM, noel hidalgo noel@ wrote: i just love the most recent video... holysnappers! it's time for a blog war!!! http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/2008/01/my_legal_struggle_with_christi.html It's like an epic battle of foes. Im glad it all worked out and everyone came to their senses. Videobloggers/Youtubers should be able to use each other's work for parody, comment, etc with appropriate attribution. just like text blogs, newspapers, and books. Jay
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
A lawyer who is an expert in copyright law and online free speech has offered to represent me pro bono! And it all happened because I started talking about on this list and Irina forwarded it to Jason Schultz at LawGeek who is now representing me. I can't thank everybody enough. File this one as an instance of the community standing up for somebody. seems like a bad deal, but maybe worth the hassle of fighting Youtube and her DMCA takedown request. this kind of thing sends a chill through the creative air.
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... the situation is resolved.
Well, the good news is I worked out a compromise. The bad news is the video I just spent 10+ hours working on will never be posted. She wants me to sever all connection to her from the video, remove her name, the metatags and the youtube response connection so that nobody watching her stuff will find my stuff. But I can keep the video. Otherwise, she will hunt me down, her team is researching my website server right now to have it shut down. She will ask youtube to delete my entire account. She says she will begin a two year legal battle. And she will sue me for slander if I start blogging about it or speaking in forums. I'm avoiding using her name right now because geez, she would not be happy if she found out I was talking about it. I briefly thought about becoming a martyr for fair use but quickly came to my senses. I get to keep the video! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm taking your advice, Jay. All this pointy headed thinking has put me in the mood to make a humorous video about this situation. Controversy gets you views. And it makes the jokes better. since no one is making money hereit seems more a matter of this woman not having a sense of humor. god knows Ive been skewed in my time. John, just post this video to blip if Youtube is going to take it down. if anything, controversy gets you views.
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
Thank you Jay. It's great to have someone affirm your right to exist. I contacted the Fair Use Project and I read the documents at the Center for Social Media (Thank you Steve Rhodes!). I'm pretty sure my video is within the bounds. Of course it's still messy. Did I use too much of their original video? I used the entire thing. But I would argue that it was necessary to make my point. I wanted to make fun of her conversational style. She talks like she's having a conversation with someone who isn't there. I used her pauses to show how this imaginary conversation might proceed. It was necessary for me to not break the time line of the original video because my intention was to be the other half of her imaginary conversation. I would also argue that a single video in her case does not represent a complete work. She has posted a series of videos that are identical in style and tone. They are numbered. The video I commented was 6 Now is A Good Moment, Suffering is in the Mind, Monkey Mind. I only used lesson #6 in a 21 part series. Clearly anyone who is interested in her spiritual message will not be satisfied with my video. They will seek out the originals, which are readily available because I have linked to them. I am not trying to be a replacement. Which brings up another point, my video was posted as a video response. I re-read their original message (from July 14th) after I posted my response. We aren't going to authorize it to be posted to our own video in connection, though, just to let you know, but we are happy to let you use our vid in your own profile stuff even though it is copyrighted. I'm glad your friends are enjoying it too, so carry on, oh silly one that you are! Geez, sort of sounds like they granted me the use of their copyrighted material. Now, six months later, I have stolen their work. It's absurd. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess im trying to figure out how much interpretation all the players in this process have BEFORE it hts the courts. I feel we as creators and hosting services need to help define what is fair use. then stand up for it. Just watch John's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E why cant this exist! haha the monster butterfly. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
Thank you Lan. I was just writing about this when you posted. Here is what she said on July 14th: We aren't going to authorize it to be posted to our own video in connection, though, just to let you know, but we are happy to let you use our vid in your own profile stuff even though it is copyrighted. She now says it has been revoked. This is where the weirdness starts to come out. The person who I have been speaking with is not the woman in the video. She is a woman named Jenny who maintains Christine's YouTube account. She claims in the first message she sent me, she did not have the right to grant the copyright. She is just a worker within the Metaphysical Science University. She made a mistake. But it's a pretty big mistake. I mean, how am I suppose to know when I receive a message from someone's YouTube account that I am not speaking with the owner of the videos? I know when you grant a Creative Commons license you can't revoke it if you don't like the resulting uses of your work which are in accordance with the license. Seems like a similar thing should apply in this case. But I don't know. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lan Bui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, I wonder if because she granted you use before, if she has the right to revoke that... It might seem like she would have that right, but you should check that out. BTW, I could not sit through her version. Your version actually got me all the way through, I laughed and actually heard and understood her message. -Lan www.LanBui.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I made a parody of somebody's video. I knew I was taking a risk. For six months they were cool with it. They wrote me and said they had a sense of humor and they weren't going to do anything about it. But a few days ago, they decided they didn't like it after all. They asked me to remove it and threatened copyright infringement. The original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo My version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E Like I say, I knew I was taking a risk when I made this video and I was prepared to take it down. But I also think I'm within the spirit of fair use. I used their copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism and parody. And they want it removed because they are offended by it. But I know being within the spirit of my own interpretation of the law isn't going to count for much. They have spoken with a lawyer and of course now they're trying to intimidate me, telling me how I'm just using unreliable wikipedia and crazy ideas of fair use from bloggers who know nothing. How far am I within or outside the bounds of fair use? I feel like which ever direction it is, it can't be by very much. -John Holden P.S. I know it's YouTube and I'm fucked. The video is coming down. But I'm asking these questions for the sake of argument and also to learn more about fair use.
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
I'm taking your advice, Jay. All this pointy headed thinking has put me in the mood to make a humorous video about this situation. Controversy gets you views. And it makes the jokes better. since no one is making money hereit seems more a matter of this woman not having a sense of humor. god knows Ive been skewed in my time. John, just post this video to blip if Youtube is going to take it down. if anything, controversy gets you views.
[videoblogging] Copyright and fair use...
So I made a parody of somebody's video. I knew I was taking a risk. For six months they were cool with it. They wrote me and said they had a sense of humor and they weren't going to do anything about it. But a few days ago, they decided they didn't like it after all. They asked me to remove it and threatened copyright infringement. The original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo My version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E Like I say, I knew I was taking a risk when I made this video and I was prepared to take it down. But I also think I'm within the spirit of fair use. I used their copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism and parody. And they want it removed because they are offended by it. But I know being within the spirit of my own interpretation of the law isn't going to count for much. They have spoken with a lawyer and of course now they're trying to intimidate me, telling me how I'm just using unreliable wikipedia and crazy ideas of fair use from bloggers who know nothing. How far am I within or outside the bounds of fair use? I feel like which ever direction it is, it can't be by very much. -John Holden P.S. I know it's YouTube and I'm fucked. The video is coming down. But I'm asking these questions for the sake of argument and also to learn more about fair use.
[videoblogging] Re: ARTICLE - Web Video: Move Over, Amateurs
Another misleading claim in this article is that celebrity videos = slick professionalism. I noticed Will Ferrel was mentioned. His drunk baby thing has the look and feel of user generated content. The angle could have been, if you can't beat the amateurs, join 'em.
[videoblogging] Re: Online Video Posting Sites, HELP NEEDED please! :)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw you got featured. Brilliant. Congrats. But I also saw that hundreds of Youtube types didn't get your schtick at all and wrote the usual stream of hate that they write to pretty much any creator with a brain who gets featured. Your average rating was 2 stars. I found that very depressing. Didn't you? Thanks Rupert. Naw, 2 stars doesn't depress me. I used to do poetry slams. You know, where the members of the audience have score boards and you get up there and read your precious poetry. And then you get the brutal truth. People hate it or love it. It's natural. That's what this niche stuff is about. Getting the YouTube feature is like performing at a stadium filled with idiots. It's a painful experience. But out of all those idiots there's a tiny percentage of weirdos who might be into your stuff. Continuing this analogy further, I have no desire to perform at staduims. But now that I've done it once, when I show up at the coffee shops, they'll be packed. My latest video has over 4,000 hits, a 4.5 star rating and extremely supportive comments. I'm proud of this one, take a look, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B1J7oq99uQ http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/2007/11/shit_the_shoe.html Actually, I find Youtube user behaviour regularly depresses me about the future of online video. But then I'm a person who'd rather not see people antagonising each other on this list, and lots of other people think there's something revealing and interesting about that. So maybe I'm missing the whole point. Perhaps hateful Youtube users are really very fascinating and fun? It doesn't depress me. I try to imagine this anonymous crowd of hateful YouTube users. All I see is a bunch of teenagers. The future of online video? Those teenagers aren't going to be teenagers forever. It's going to mature. Might take a few more years though.
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Having Technical Problems With Blip TV
Good it's not just me. If youtube featured a video for this long there would be a riot. Well, maybe not a riot. But people would be boycotting the internet. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have this problem as well and I wish he would just die already!!! It pretty annoying that he JUST. DOES. NOT. DIE. (autoplay can die as well) On 10/18/07, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been having a problem with Blip. I'm not sure when it started. I think it was two or three weeks ago. Okay, this is what happens. I go to the blip.tv website and this guy named David Pen starts talking. He says he's going to die. And then I hear a gunshot. Every single time I log in this happens. Anybody else having this problem? -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Having Technical Problems With Blip TV
I've been having a problem with Blip. I'm not sure when it started. I think it was two or three weeks ago. Okay, this is what happens. I go to the blip.tv website and this guy named David Pen starts talking. He says he's going to die. And then I hear a gunshot. Every single time I log in this happens. Anybody else having this problem?
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Having Technical Problems With Blip TV
Changing out the promos would help. It would be even better if blip featured a video. I know blip is all about promoting shows. But not every episode from every show is a hot one. If they put a hot one up every day, that would be my dream come true, as a viewer. As a creator, I love blip, of course. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, bestdamntechshow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the new homepage has gone up, we're going to be programming more promos on it, so fear not, it will be changed out in the days to come and definitely more often! _drew olanoff drew (at) blip.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: Not just you. There are a lot of people that are sick of it. I finally realized that they arent going to do anything about and just bookmarked my dashboard inside the Blip site. Of course, the autoplay stops me from going to Blips front page now because it's so annoying and I miss out on any new shows that might pop up there. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: Good it's not just me. If youtube featured a video for this long there would be a riot. Well, maybe not a riot. But people would be boycotting the internet. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz schlomo@ wrote: I have this problem as well and I wish he would just die already!!! It pretty annoying that he JUST. DOES. NOT. DIE. (autoplay can die as well) On 10/18/07, ractalfece john@ wrote: I've been having a problem with Blip. I'm not sure when it started. I think it was two or three weeks ago. Okay, this is what happens. I go to the blip.tv website and this guy named David Pen starts talking. He says he's going to die. And then I hear a gunshot. Every single time I log in this happens. Anybody else having this problem? -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat
[videoblogging] How would you have done it? Was: For Dan McVicar (was Re: Loren Feldman
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides a lot of people finding the video offensive, uncomfortable, demeaning, hurtful etc.., very little (at best as I have been able to follow the thread) in the way of constructive criticism. grabbing the bridge collapse to try to make my point. It took a catastrophe to raise awareness of the problem Besides a better written skit with a clear message or stated purpose, What could/should have been done differently and still generated the kind of conversation this video sparked? I've been thinking about this. It's been pointed out in this thread, if you really read into this video, there could be many interpretations, it could be a caricature of pop culture that is harmful to the black community, for example. But the problem is, his set-up doesn't allow for multiple interpretations. He spells it out in the intro that this is a caricature of black tech bloggers. If he was the provocateur that he thinks he is, he would have left it open by not telling us, this character I'm doing is supposed to be black. Then he could have at least pulled something like the Eminem defense: why are you upset about a white guy saying these misogynist demeaning things in your tech community? Aren't you aware of (or do you just not care about) pop culture in the black community? Oh wait, I bet that's coming later this week when we all get punk'd. P.S. Anybody remember when zefrank talked like a thug and said the word ho twice? He was smart enough not to preface it with, Hmm, I wonder what it would be like if a black guy had a vlog... http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/04/040406.html
[videoblogging] How would you have done it? (was Re: Loren Feldman = Technigga)
hehehehe OMG. You mean that little intro thing Frank did? I just watched that whole episode. If you're talking about the beginning, then what you're saying is that Frank was acting black, which would imply that just before that, when he was playing guitar, he was acting white? HAHAHAHA OMG. :) Frank didn't say ANYTHING about black or white ANYTHING when he did that. Yeah, that's my point. It's the set-up. Feldman didn't give us a lack of context. He gave us way too much context. And no matter where you go from there it's going to be fucked up. Feldman basically says, Hey everybody, I'm about to tell a racist joke here. I know the zefrank thing wasn't racial. And that was my point, you could say practically anything after the Feldman set-up (even something excruciatingly innocent) and everybody would be scratching their heads. It wasn't great provocative art that started this conversation. It was dumb dumb art that started this conversation. Feldman wasn't touching a nerve. He was hitting us over the head with a hammer.
[videoblogging] For Dan McVicar (was Re: Loren Feldman = Technigga)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, danielmcvicar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reading these posts, and my original post, I found something that I am not too happy with. I was originally looking for ways to make the bit work, but now realize, that this attempt at comedy is far too steeped in racism. We don't need to represent Loren Feldman in a hood, or bring up more stereotypes. I disagree. He starts out the video with the question where are the black tech bloggers? And it was reminiscent of when Renetto asked why aren't there more Black people on youtube? http://youtube.com/watch?v=HBNBNxrrGb0 This is who I think he was attempting to satirize. The privileged liberal white guy who is oblivious to his privilege. I think there's a rich vein of material here. And I think he intended his message to be, look at me, I'm so not a racist because I at least know enough about black culture (I own fiddy's albums) that I can make fun of it. And I'm comfortable doing it. I'm not like those other white tech guys who tip-toe around this issue like they're in shark infested water. But he has such a weak grip on his art, he doesn't realize what he's actually doing is asking the question, why are there no black tech bloggers? and answering it with it's cause they're pimps and hoes. The sentiments of a true racist. It could have been done right and actually been funny if he had a clue of what he was doing.
[videoblogging] Re: Great parody technique
Wizard People: http://www.illegal-art.org/video/wizard.html Five Dollar Dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMUgZE4_dOw Anybody seen similar technique anywhere? http://tinyurl.com/qs5yw /daniel -- http://pouringdown.tv
