[videoblogging] Re: Starring Amanda Congdon
Sheez man, is recycled Monty Python the extent of your humour? ;-) Waz ]--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Posted by: Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] ctgirl812003 YouTubers, in my opinion, are independent media makers� so they fall into the us catagory. MySpace, as I believe Dave Winer once put it, is a blog on training wheels. I am not trying to say that they do not count. They do! They are part of all this as well! The People's Front of Judea appreciate that clarification in what we consider to be a fairly provocative post, and look forward to the blog entry which is to follow. As long as our YouTubeWayArmy and MySpaceCadets are in, we're golden. At the same time, let's not overlook the fact that the Judean People's Front are, in fact, splitters. And thus, out. All the best to you and yours at this special time of year, B. Cohen (Nazareth) Esq. http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com/ http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv/ http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy The war on Christmas is, in fact, a war on Birthdays (for Parody Purposes Only) : http://blip.tv/file/117202
[videoblogging] Re: Starring Amanda Congdon
Sheez man, is recycled Monty Python the extent of your humour? ;-) Waz ]--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Posted by: Amanda Congdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] ctgirl812003 YouTubers, in my opinion, are independent media makers� so they fall into the us catagory. MySpace, as I believe Dave Winer once put it, is a blog on training wheels. I am not trying to say that they do not count. They do! They are part of all this as well! The People's Front of Judea appreciate that clarification in what we consider to be a fairly provocative post, and look forward to the blog entry which is to follow. As long as our YouTubeWayArmy and MySpaceCadets are in, we're golden. At the same time, let's not overlook the fact that the Judean People's Front are, in fact, splitters. And thus, out. All the best to you and yours at this special time of year, B. Cohen (Nazareth) Esq. http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com/ http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv/ http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy The war on Christmas is, in fact, a war on Birthdays (for Parody Purposes Only) : http://blip.tv/file/117202
Re: [videoblogging] HD vanity
As a result of what you describe, makeup and set building technology has shifted. They can't use the old sets with HD. One show I know tested HD side-by-side with 35mm a number of years back and decided to stick with 35mm because of those issues. Too much detail would break the fourth wall given their circumstances - 15-year-old sets. Find the wall broken in any case with the makeup (at least the early makeup) jobs actors got. Very pancake. Very surreal faces. It's a choice. Jan On 12/25/06, Mark Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can confirm the mesmerising power of the 42 plasma. I have enough ADD to make the watching of movies I've seen before problematic (even ones I like). With few exceptions, I just get fidgety. For the past few weeks, I've been watching movies I only have a passing interest in, just because, well, holy crap, the lush detail. I am sort of hoping this is a honeymoon period and I'll get over it, before I have to watch every movie in the Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer catalogue again, just to see exactly where Nicholas Cage's hair ends and movie magic begins. That said, having seen, say, Chris Berman on NFL Primetime in HD, I'm not sure I'd want an HD camera pointed at my mug. It's rather unforgiving, and unless Dove face-cream are going to make me a lushly pampered spokes-bloke, I think it's back to, he's got a great face for radio. If HD cameras were cheaper, and I hadn' t splurged on a big telly, I'd buy one... Mark Day http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com/ http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv/ http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] Re: HD vanity
It's interesting that you mention that. A lot of groups are interested in 24p because it makes the video look more like film. That's because you're changing the refresh rate and slowing it down to a film rate of 24 whole frames per second vs a television rate of 60 interlaced fields per second. Besides frame rate, a way to tell video from film is contrast, and with HD, contrast increases exponentially. It's more like looking out a window at a football game than seeing 35mm shot at a football game and transferred to video. I got to watch football games on HD over the Thanksgiving break, and you can really see every blade of grass. I hadn't considered how television sets might have relied on the lack of resolution. If you do a cooking show, for instance, you might have been able to get away with salt on the counter, because it wouldn't show up on the monitors or the tapes, but with HD, the smallest details have to be dealt with, or the end-user is actually going to see it in their homes. -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a result of what you describe, makeup and set building technology has shifted. They can't use the old sets with HD. One show I know tested HD side-by-side with 35mm a number of years back and decided to stick with 35mm because of those issues. Too much detail would break the fourth wall given their circumstances - 15-year-old sets. Find the wall broken in any case with the makeup (at least the early makeup) jobs actors got. Very pancake. Very surreal faces. It's a choice. Jan On 12/25/06, Mark Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can confirm the mesmerising power of the 42 plasma. I have enough ADD to make the watching of movies I've seen before problematic (even ones I like). With few exceptions, I just get fidgety. For the past few weeks, I've been watching movies I only have a passing interest in, just because, well, holy crap, the lush detail. I am sort of hoping this is a honeymoon period and I'll get over it, before I have to watch every movie in the Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer catalogue again, just to see exactly where Nicholas Cage's hair ends and movie magic begins. That said, having seen, say, Chris Berman on NFL Primetime in HD, I'm not sure I'd want an HD camera pointed at my mug. It's rather unforgiving, and unless Dove face-cream are going to make me a lushly pampered spokes-bloke, I think it's back to, he's got a great face for radio. If HD cameras were cheaper, and I hadn' t splurged on a big telly, I'd buy one... Mark Day http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com/ http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv/ http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] I hope someone can help
I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for Christmas. Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and it totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I had. Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod. The problem? The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my computer. Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or QuickTime video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage. I hear the sound, but get colors and wavy lines on the screen. I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when this first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure out where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that problem before. Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed. Please? -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: I hope someone can help
I've just discovered I can't even run the iTunes tutorials. NO QuickTime video will run on my computer now. On 12/26/06, Bev Sykes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for Christmas. Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and it totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I had. Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod. The problem? The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my computer. Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or QuickTime video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage. I hear the sound, but get colors and wavy lines on the screen. I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when this first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure out where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that problem before. Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed. Please? -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: I hope someone can help
What are the specs on your computer? Processer, operating system, etc? Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bev Sykes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've just discovered I can't even run the iTunes tutorials. NO QuickTime video will run on my computer now. On 12/26/06, Bev Sykes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for Christmas. Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and it totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I had. Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod. The problem? The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my computer. Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or QuickTime video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage. I hear the sound, but get colors and wavy lines on the screen. I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when this first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure out where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that problem before. Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed. Please? -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] I hope someone can help
Reinstall Windows? Bev Sykes wrote: I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for Christmas. Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and it totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I had. Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod. The problem? The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my computer. Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or QuickTime video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage. I hear the sound, but get colors and wavy lines on the screen. I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when this first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure out where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that problem before. Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed. Please? -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog .blogspot. com http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworl d.com http://funnytheworld.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] I hope someone can help
When I last updated to QuickTime, it played everything back with a weird bluish cast to it. Absolutely awful video quality. It got better when I went into the QuickTime settings and told it not to use DirectX. You might want to try it. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for Christmas. Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and it totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I had. Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod. The problem? The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my computer. Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or QuickTime video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage. I hear the sound, but get colors and wavy lines on the screen. I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when this first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure out where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that problem before. Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed. Please? -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Want to help?
All - Been spending time over the past ten days going through every site I listed on politicalwarez.com and realized that there is almost no way to make this up-to-date by myself. BUT - instead of keeping it on my site, I moved it to Pbwiki and set up a nmber of the pages with each section with it's own page. You can see it at http://socialmediaspace.pbwiki.com and the password if socialmedia. If you wish to update, add, contribute, whatever - please feel free. I will continue to add to it as I get more information - and if you want to contribute, please add your name to the Contributors page. Sanford
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The Vlogging Xmas Video.
That was awesome! On 12/23/06, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicely done folks. Good job. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Some of you may remember I asked for contributions last week for a christmas carol, well it's ready fokes!!! http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions-AdesteFideles687.mov Another collaboration, a world singing in harmony. Paul Knight -- http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] NYTimes videos have greatly improved
A far cry from where they started earlier this year. This one should not be missed: http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=7f5f12d1d283eab9a377567c6ee362b6cc76ceb7rf=bm
Re: [videoblogging] I hope someone can help
Thanks for all the feedback. I'm on Windows XP and my son figured a work-around for me; if I open QuickTime in Firefox, it plays fine. Won't play in Explorer, but I use Firefox as my browser anyway, so at least I can still see the videos after I make them. damn upgrades! g On 12/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I last updated to QuickTime, it played everything back with a weird bluish cast to it. Absolutely awful video quality. It got better when I went into the QuickTime settings and told it not to use DirectX. You might want to try it. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for Christmas. Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and it totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I had. Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod. The problem? The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my computer. Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or QuickTime video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage. I hear the sound, but get colors and wavy lines on the screen. I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when this first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure out where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that problem before. Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed. Please? -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: NYTimes videos have greatly improved
This is good. I usually watch Pogue and the flash photo slide shows in the NYT. Nice sharing. Once a condo gets built blocks from there, this crack smoking, mildly schizophrenic homeless guy will surely get evicted from his cave. Hooray for people who don't have addictions. Francisco franciscodaum.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is amazing! Wow! The NY Times has caught up to where people in this group were in 2004! -Verdi On 12/26/06, contactmica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A far cry from where they started earlier this year. This one should not be missed: http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=7f5f12d1d283eab9a377567c6ee362b6cc76ceb7rf=bm -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube probs
I've been having difficulty uploading to YT today. It continuously rejects the video description text. I tried complaining thriugh their email form, and it rejected that text too. :( joly --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] NYTimes videos have greatly improved
LOL, Well put Verdi. It's definitely a huge improvement. Atleast they've learned something from the success of youtube. It's atleast a video in a page, witha bookmarkable and referenceable url, not a popout window, or some monolithic rich media interface And they've used flash, which improves the experience. Also, the video itself is pretty cool. Just a guy talking to another guy. Lost is any subscription mechanism... anyway, to say, heh this is cool I'd like to be notified about future pieces like this... wait I retract that they have an RSS feed of some sort They also have a mechanism for bookmarking the video on NYtimes... so you can find it again, that's cool. Searchability and findability is greatly improved by the fact that it is embeded in a page and their is atleast some accompanying meta information. Just about the only things I see are 1) they're missing is a downloadable, podcastable version of the video. That's not actually that bad. 2) their RSS feeds are contain no enclosures, extremely sparse textual discriptions of the videos, and no media RSS... pretty much not so useful. 3) they fail to acknowlege or encourage embedding their videos in a blog or linking to them directly. Anyway, it's not great, but it's a thousand fold improvement from recent history. All in all... it's not something I'd ever bother to watch though. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 12/26/06, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is amazing! Wow! The NY Times has caught up to where people in this group were in 2004! -Verdi On 12/26/06, contactmica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A far cry from where they started earlier this year. This one should not be missed: http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=7f5f12d1d283eab9a377567c6ee362b6cc76ceb7rf=bm -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] NYTimes videos have greatly improved
One big thing that would help would be to use some compression settings that produced video that you could actually see and understand. That thing made YouTube look like HD. -Verdi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] iHD [was: Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?]
Are you referring to ihd.org? If so, I visited the site and there's really a lack of information. For example, it's a standards organization with members from Media, Advertising, and Technology. Who? There are no names attached. Also, the iHD spec is: -Shot in HD -Edited in HD -Aspect ratio: 16:9 -Video Bitrate: 2048 kbps -Audio Bitrate: 192 kbps -Framesize: 1280 x 720 progressive (non-interlaced) -Formats: WMV, MP4 Just starting with Shot in HD doesn't provide a lot of technical details. What basic bitrate qualifies? What about color space? Or is it just dependent on resolution? Do framerates matter? Also, why limit to WMV and MP4? If I can deliver audio-visual data that adheres to the rest of the spec, why can't I claim it to be iHD? Especially for an open standard? I would expect some type of embrace of Ogg. Or is this an attempt to crush Flash/On2 VP6? Don't get me wrong, as I'm 100% for HD delivery via IP networks. On a side note, I'm writing a blog post about why I think (broadcast) HD is going to rot on the vine. -- joshpaul On Dec 25, 2006, at 1:13 AM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote: Posted by: andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] hamletphase Date: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:09 pm ((PST)) On iHD and high bit rate files: One of the things that helped popularize Rocketboom initially was that I was one of the first to regularly distribute video content with enclosures. At the time, the audience (audio podcasters) was growing a great rate, but there was almost no video content to d/l. This was a first to market advantage for those of us that implemented the specs. I see the same thing occurring now for iHD. Maybe it wont take off in the same way, maybe it will do nothing for those that adopt such a file for distribution, though I believe there is a great chance that it will, if people also respond to the content. Have you met anyone with an HD TV? They often become obsessed and fanatical about the quality. Its as if they put on glasses for the first time in their lives and then become disappointed at anything less. Our daily Rocketboom files are under 100mb and most people can play them right from the browser. Also, while 640x480 is also a good way to up the ante on your files for the upcoming iTV onslaught, iHD files can be in .mov format too, and thus look great on bigger screens of any kind, HD or not.
[videoblogging] Fun legal developments
Microsoft attempts to patent web based RSS aggregation. http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-6145636.html I wrote about it here: http://mmeiser.com/blog/2006/12/microsoft-patents-web-based_26.html Also... ***Judge deems direct linking, so called hot linking to videos illegal*** http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a blog. It's happy holiday hoots all around. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com
RE: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
Already blogged about: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/12/26/direct-linking-to-videos-illegal/ -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:48 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments Microsoft attempts to patent web based RSS aggregation. http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-6145636.html I wrote about it here: http://mmeiser.com/blog/2006/12/microsoft-patents-web-based_26.html Also... ***Judge deems direct linking, so called hot linking to videos illegal*** http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a blog. It's happy holiday hoots all around. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
It is hysterical. It's contrary to not only to the very notion of media, but also contrary to the current momentum of what's going on web wide. Not only are all the major video hosting sites encouraging linking and especially embedding their videos in other webpages, but the business models such as advertising are starting to endoctrinate and embrace this model too. The point being a view is a view... you can't stop it, so why not put the add in the video and embrace and encourage it. The rules of the changing despite what copyright says, because some of the more extreme fringes of copyright is directly at odds with fundamental properties of the digital real and the internet. Necessity is not only the mother of innovation, but of change... and not even law can stand against it. Since we've begun video podcastin in 2004 the mediated web has gone from one of scare online culture to a web of rich and diverse culture of music and video and photos and mp3's. General perceptions of giving it away for free have nearly done a 180 in recent years. I remember when only a few years ago you were lucky as hell if you could find a downloadable movie trailer... it was all WMV, Real or nothing... now your movie doesn't exist unless you have atleast one downloadable movie trailer... movie studios have learned to let go and embrace the free sharing as a matter of marketing. It's the same way with mp3's and artists... and can you believe that in a time before flickr people only used to share thumbnails of their images... where now 90+% of flickrites allow you to download 4, 7 and even 11megapixel photo originals. Now we can laugh about this judge who thinks it's illegal to link directly to videos, but when Lucas Gonze started webjay only a few years ago he risked serious legal peril for hot linking to mp3's on the open web. If I'm proud of one thing it's that the media rich culture has in the last 2 short years exploded. Someone once said that we had to drag american culture out onto the open web kicking and screaming... and we so have. Five years ago height of popular culture was britney spears... now it's dominated by the likes of youtube and other services... which really is all about hundreds of thousands of people... I think it's safe to say in only a few short years we've made the cultural transition from a culture dominated by television and radio to a culture dominated by the internet and with it a whole new cornicopia of participatory culture has awakened. Some people may point to television and radio and popular music and say they haven't really slowed down... but who said they would? Certainly not me... while we are transitioning away from such a culture where television and radio dominate... the irony is they will not shrink... in fact they will be free to grow. It's not a zero sum game... the market doesn't just move from one place to another, it grows... why? The longer the tail the bigger the head... Because we're in a culture of appreciation for one.People aren't born appreciating design, or music, or hollywood movies... these are not instinctual... they are not even necissary, they are aspects of participation and appreciation of culture, just like art... the more participation the more appreciation, the more growth... This is why you don't find world class fashion designers in small town america... they move with the heard in new york or paris or elsewhere... because more competition... more designers creates more appreciation for design. We're all clothed... we don't need the gucci... yet still we want the gucci... the why is the story of the future of all intellectual property. And so it does with music and movies. Participation breeds appreciation. Secondly, because the global marketplace believe it or not is not totally saturated with american culture and technology... we've in fact barely scratched the surface. 5-10 years ago there were people in poverty in china than there were in the whole western world combined... they have increasing buying power... I'm not saying they're going to all rush out and buy american culture at all... in fact I'm sure we'll do as much buying of chinese culture as they do U.S. but it's such a hugely untapped market... and the same goes for india, and africa and south america. Right now the U.S. consumes something like 1/3 of the world's resources. That's changing. In summary... the market for intellectuall propery is EXPLODING... after years of being put on the shelf or more the couch millions of consumers world wide are becoming creators... we are just at the very very start of this future. The internet like the printing press... like the discovery of the new world is a change which will take centuries to play out. But it's going to create a cornicopia of intellectual goods... of music, writing, ideas, innovation, and culture. Maybe it's just my christmas sentimentality, but it's just been an amazing two years. To sit at the foot of this thing and
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube probs
Seems to be fixed now. I've been having difficulty uploading to YT today. It continuously rejects the video description text. I tried complaining through their email form, and it rejected that text too. :( joly --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
In Mike's blog post you can go read the article about this. It says in part: U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis, who operated Supercrosslive.com and had been providing direct links to the live audiocasts of motorcycle racing events. The audio Webcasts are copyrighted by SFX Motor Sports, a Texas company that is one of the largest producers of Supercross motorcycle racing events. SFX sued Davis in February, noting that fans who go to its own Web site will see the names and logos of sponsors including wireless company Amp'd Mobile. (Anyone who clicked on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of companies that paid to be sponsors.) It 's about direct linking to live streaming audio files, not a hosted web video. Information Week has this: SFX Motor Sports is dumb because they apparently failed (as TechDirt correctly notes) to put in place any of the easy-to-implement technologies that can be used to block links from specific external sites. Davis is dumb for representing himself -- he apparently thinks that calling the opposition names like Genghis Kahn is the height of legal argument. And the judge's ruling is dumb because it extends copyright to an instance where there were no actual copies made. And yet: What Davis did is wrong. He's a parasite, getting revenue from the hard work of other people and giving nothing back. A better way to handle this would have been for SFX Motor Sports to have put in place technology to block Davis's connections and then, if necessary, sue Davis for circumventing them. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/12/ plenty_of_dumb.html On Dec 26, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Mike Hudack wrote: Already blogged about: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/12/26/direct-linking-to-videos-illegal/ -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:48 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments ... ***Judge deems direct linking, so called hot linking to videos illegal*** http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a blog. It's happy holiday hoots all around. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
RE: [videoblogging] the UNHOLY Arrives in 2007!
I like how this melodramatic cliche of terrorist attacking New York city turns from a mental yawn into a verbal exclamation when you read further down to see that it's really just a guise for a horny adult production. I'm no publicist but maybe you could get right to the point with a tagline like this: When the world is in peril, there's only one thing to do: Have An Orgy. . . (insert da da dum drum roll here) In the UNHOLY aka An attempt by VT Productions to make a quick buck off Online Porn. . . How's about that?To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:04:17 -0800Subject: [videoblogging] the UNHOLY Arrives in 2007! Greetings Fellow Videobloggers, After 6 years in production the UNHOLY will be arriving sometime in 2007. What is the UNHOLY? the UNHOLY! With the United States of America on constant Terror Alert and the World teetering on the brink of total war. A group of underground New York City, early 21st Century, Dominate and Submissive Fetish Adventurers conduct Wild Sadomasochistic Play Parties beneath the streets of Post 9-11, Pre-Apocalyptic Manhattan. The World could end at any moment. What happens next is anyone's guess! Thank You, V.T. Director Commando 11 digital Motion Pictures to create and distribute movies, no matter what! THE BATTLE CONTINUES...ONLINE! http://theunholy-movie.blogspot.com/ V.T.DirectorCommando 11digital Motion Picturesto create and distribute movies, no matter what!THE BATTLE CONTINUES...ONLINE!http://theunholy-movie.blogspot.com/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _ Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
Thanks steve, I overlooked that take on it. Well written, dumb times three. It reflects poorly on all involved. I don't see how hot linking to a streaming video vs. a downloadable one makes much of a difference to the argument. -Mike On 12/26/06, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Mike's blog post you can go read the article about this. It says in part: U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis, who operated Supercrosslive.com and had been providing direct links to the live audiocasts of motorcycle racing events. The audio Webcasts are copyrighted by SFX Motor Sports, a Texas company that is one of the largest producers of Supercross motorcycle racing events. SFX sued Davis in February, noting that fans who go to its own Web site will see the names and logos of sponsors including wireless company Amp'd Mobile. (Anyone who clicked on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of companies that paid to be sponsors.) It 's about direct linking to live streaming audio files, not a hosted web video. Information Week has this: SFX Motor Sports is dumb because they apparently failed (as TechDirt correctly notes) to put in place any of the easy-to-implement technologies that can be used to block links from specific external sites. Davis is dumb for representing himself -- he apparently thinks that calling the opposition names like Genghis Kahn is the height of legal argument. And the judge's ruling is dumb because it extends copyright to an instance where there were no actual copies made. And yet: What Davis did is wrong. He's a parasite, getting revenue from the hard work of other people and giving nothing back. A better way to handle this would have been for SFX Motor Sports to have put in place technology to block Davis's connections and then, if necessary, sue Davis for circumventing them. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/12/ plenty_of_dumb.html On Dec 26, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Mike Hudack wrote: Already blogged about: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/12/26/direct-linking-to-videos-illegal/ -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:48 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments ... ***Judge deems direct linking, so called hot linking to videos illegal*** http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a blog. It's happy holiday hoots all around. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] The queen of England's podcast
I think someone might have posted about this, but in case noone did. I just added the queen of England's podcast to my list of politicians who podcast. http://mefeedia.com/lists/57/ It is only an audio podcast, not a video podcast. It's also just a podcast of speaches, not a direct or personal address, but still, it's pretty cool. I couldn't find an actual corresponding blog like page, so here's the page on mefeedia. http://mefeedia.com/feeds/22360/ Only two speaches so far. That makes one Chancellor of Germany (a video podcast), the queen of england, the president of the united states (three podcasts, one video podcast of his dog), and a bunch of senators and congressmen... even some state and city government level politicians. Most of them audio podcast, but a select few video podcast. If you know any others let me know either here or by leaving a comment on my list. I know I'm far from complete. -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog
Re: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
Live streaming broadcast. That's the thing. It's like if you streamed a broadcast of a weekend NFL game that's being broadcast on NBC. On Dec 26, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Mike Meiser wrote: I don't see how hot linking to a streaming video vs. a downloadable one makes much of a difference to the argument. -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
[videoblogging] Re: Fun legal developments
I watch MotoGP from MotoGP.com. They stream the video LIVE from wherever in the world they happen to be racing. Normally that means I'm watching the race @ 8amEST. live. Speed Channel (re)broadcasts the race either later that same day or days later. MotoGP also archives the files. Seeing the race live, as it happens, is an added value. There's no reason why someone else should be able to provide live broadcasts by linking to a site where time, energy, money and connections were used to produce this live event. On top of that, the article mentions several sponsors who pay to advertise on the site that's providing the live streamed event. When someone bypasses that advertising, those sponsors aren't getting their money's worth. What they paid for is still being seen, and they're not getting any benefit from that. If companies can usurp feeds from other companies, there's no reason to sponsor anyone, because there's no guarantee that the site where your logs, etc are placed is going to be the site that people actually go to. This is why they make that whole .any re-broadcast . re-transmissionof this telecast.. without the expressed written consent of the New York Yankees is prohibited announcement. Otherwise, you'd be able to watch the Yankees games LIVE on any channel that decided to broadcast the live feed from the stadium. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see how hot linking to a streaming video vs. a downloadable one makes much of a difference to the argument. -Mike On 12/26/06, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Mike's blog post you can go read the article about this. It says in part: U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis, who operated Supercrosslive.com and had been providing direct links to the live audiocasts of motorcycle racing events. The audio Webcasts are copyrighted by SFX Motor Sports, a Texas company that is one of the largest producers of Supercross motorcycle racing events. SFX sued Davis in February, noting that fans who go to its own Web site will see the names and logos of sponsors including wireless company Amp'd Mobile. (Anyone who clicked on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of companies that paid to be sponsors.) It 's about direct linking to live streaming audio files, not a hosted web video. Information Week has this: SFX Motor Sports is dumb because they apparently failed (as TechDirt correctly notes) to put in place any of the easy-to-implement technologies that can be used to block links from specific external sites. Davis is dumb for representing himself -- he apparently thinks that calling the opposition names like Genghis Kahn is the height of legal argument. And the judge's ruling is dumb because it extends copyright to an instance where there were no actual copies made. And yet: What Davis did is wrong. He's a parasite, getting revenue from the hard work of other people and giving nothing back. A better way to handle this would have been for SFX Motor Sports to have put in place technology to block Davis's connections and then, if necessary, sue Davis for circumventing them. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/12/ plenty_of_dumb.html On Dec 26, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Mike Hudack wrote: Already blogged about: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/12/26/direct-linking-to-videos-illegal/ -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:48 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments ... ***Judge deems direct linking, so called hot linking to videos illegal*** http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a blog. It's happy holiday hoots all around. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] mefeedia some changes
Hey all :) We made some changes at the meef, mainly: you can now see who is subscribed to a feed. Just go to the feed page and click who is subscribed. Some subscribers are listed multiple times, working on that little bug :) Also, for example this lists of PodTech feeds shows some new stuff to our Lists feature: http://mefeedia.com/lists/72/ Happy Xmas! Peter -- Find 1s of videoblogs and podcasts at http://mefeedia.com my blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ my job: http://petervandijck.net
[videoblogging] The N-Word In A Video - Commentary
Hi All, I made a video commentary on the use of the N-Word. It's here: http://blip.tv/file/121813 Thanks and Happy Holidays, Zennie
[videoblogging] Question before posting
Hello all. I ran across a company that is using network marketing to recruit reps and make sales. What I like most about this company is all the pieces are there for a video producer/blogger to build not only a following but earn income by branding their content. The company has a marketing plan that matches it's global reach. The cost seems high until you do the numbers. So my question before I figuratively hit myself in the forehead with a hammer is: Should I make this a Contact me off list if you are interested post? I like Youtube. Blip.tv much more. Revver has revenue sharing. I do NOT want to be spamming here. I really think this company has all of the potential that lacks in other's platforms and offerings. Thank you for your opinion. Dave
[videoblogging] Re: Question before posting
Well, I like the scratch and sniff test myself. Just on what you described I have questions. There is a difference between being a sales rep and a content producer. What are they asking you to do? If if just being a sales rep then why do you have to give them money to sell their product/service? If you are content producer what are you getting for your investment? It has to be more than web hosting or is that the service you are purchasing? You produce content and pay $$$ for what? Are you being pressured to do it now? Cuz if you are then it ain't about the possibilities but the reality of getting your money now. If it is any good it will be here next month, six months from now or a year. What's your hurry bub? Another thing I would do is put the company's name into Google and do a search. See how many places they have posted this particular opportunity and for how long. Are they spamming folks? Seeding newsgroups and forums? Are they any unhappy campers that float to the surface? If you comeback with a 1.5 million hits you or this opportunity may not be as special as you thought. I don't know if this is true for Australia but I would find out where these folks are located and check the local Better Business Bureau. In California I can go to the State Attorney's office and check out current fraud alerts. I got more questions but I'm learning to cut myself off at three. Ok, it was six questions but it is a process. Be safe, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all. I ran across a company that is using network marketing to recruit reps and make sales. What I like most about this company is all the pieces are there for a video producer/blogger to build not only a following but earn income by branding their content. The company has a marketing plan that matches it's global reach. The cost seems high until you do the numbers. So my question before I figuratively hit myself in the forehead with a hammer is: Should I make this a Contact me off list if you are interested post? I like Youtube. Blip.tv much more. Revver has revenue sharing. I do NOT want to be spamming here. I really think this company has all of the potential that lacks in other's platforms and offerings. Thank you for your opinion. Dave
