Relax guys, there's no reason to get your panties in a bunch over this
interview... what sort of questions do you think you would ask if you
were interviewing your idol? If I was interviewing someone I look up
to... like Kyle McLaughlin or Bill Shatner... I doubt I would ask too
many
I would have steered away from the question all together not opened
with it 'so we can clear all the doubts once and for all...'
And how'd you know I wore panties today?
On 4/5/06, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Relax guys, there's no reason to get your panties in a bunch over this
geez, casey! he's been posted those online again i told him it was bad for our image!On 4/5/06, Casey McKinnon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Devlon-What I said was Adam Curry clears up concerns that under the Podshow
contract he owns all Podshow producers' content.What he said in theinterview
Hello,I'd need to actually read the contract, but I have a feeling that Adam Curry is using a bit of word play to mislead people. Let me explain.While technically, they don't own the content, it has the effect that they own the content. If PodShow gets exclusive rights to do anything they want
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:55:44 +0200, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What I said was Adam Curry clears up concerns that under the Podshow
contract he owns all Podshow producers' content. What he said in the
interview was content isn't owned by us it's owned by the producers.
That
that's probably what ot comes down to, yes.do they at least give some sort of royalties if podshow profits from your content?i think audio 'talk show' type content can often become irrelevent after some time passes whereas video is *more likely* to maintain a higer value as time passes.
how
On 4/5/06, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Devlon-
What I said was Adam Curry clears up concerns that under the Podshow
contract he owns all Podshow producers' content. What he said in the
interview was content isn't owned by us it's owned by the producers.
That said... what else
also, i think people interested in a podshow type of service are looking for exposure with the hope to land a bigger and better opportunity. well, that's the whole purpose, right? this likely holds more value than the content they will put out while in contract with podshow.
its a price you pay
I would like to see Keith and the Girl interview Adam Curry about
this, but Curry would be an idiot if he did an interview with them.
Although they are entertaining, they are also set in their beliefs and
they may just gang up on him. In the end, an interview like that
would be about as
i've not really followed the story i listened to some of the podcast about it.so, is this (controversy?) about Adam Curry not admitting intracacies of the contract or is it about the contract itself?
On 4/5/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/5/06, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:26:39 +0200, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When you're a businessman trying to promote a product, you choose to
do interviews with people who will not give you a negative image.
Perhaps this is what he was doing with Geek Brief.
Businessmen who behave like
I gotta say that all this discussion about Podshow and their alleged
contract seems like a lot to do about nothing. First of all no one
knows if what was read was actually a Podshow contract, and second
of all it takes two to do a deal. If someone offers you a contract
(or agreement) you are
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Businessmen who behave like that usually have a product they know to
be
subpar.
I disagree. Part of being in a cutting edge business is
confidentiality. The last thing you want is your competition knowing
all
damn that google, can't hide anything.
On 4/5/06, Anne Walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
geez, casey! he's been posted those online again i told him it was bad
for our image!
On 4/5/06, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Devlon-
What I said was Adam Curry clears up concerns that
I told you... I'm a ninja... Google had nothing to do with it... your
panty footage is safe with me. For now...
Casey
http://www.kitkast.com/
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
damn that google, can't hide anything.
On 4/5/06, Anne Walk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from the reading on keith and the girl, however, a bigger and better opportunity would be difficult as, after the end of your contract with podshow, they retain rights to your brand in perpetuity - your name, your logo, your content during your contract and the content that you made coming into
On 4/5/06, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, what this vlog community needs is a new Monty Python...
with men dressed as women and rowdy british comedy.
Devlon in panties is a good start. :PI don't see that happening in the near future.
Casey
http://www.kitkast.com/
---
Michael Sullivan wrote:
i think audio 'talk show' type content can often become irrelevent after
some time passes whereas video is *more likely* to maintain a higer value as
time passes.
how many people go back and listen to a podcast from a year ago?
unless these independent shows include
i can understand the brand and content, but hopefully they let people have another show on their own after a contract is over (and i believe the contracts are short-term). they prob own rights of the name of your podcast, logos etc... but your private name and ability to start a new show should
Hello,Correct me if I'm wrong but, accounding to what Keith and the Girl said, if you signed up with PodShow then you were forever prevented from making a PodCast/Vlog/etc with anyone else or on your own. (
I.e., all your work now and in the future had to go through them.)Which IMO is a pretty
Hello,True, it wouild be entertaining :-)I'd like see the contracts that Keith and the Girl had sent to them. That would certainly clear things up one way or another.See ya
On 4/5/06, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to see Keith and the Girl interview Adam Curry aboutthis,
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:33:41 +0200, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Businessmen who behave like that usually have a product they know to
be
subpar.
I disagree. Part of being in a cutting edge
Hello,Originally (at least from my perspective), after listening to this...http://shitecom.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=73950
...this was about the contract being bad. The PodShow and Adam Curry were OK. But they did nothing wrong. It's just that it was my/our opinion that the contract was bad.
Andreas-
I'm not contradicting myself, I'm discussing two seperate points:
1- Business confidentiality to protect a company's individuality (i.e.
not divulging specific information so that your company remains on the
cutting edge of it's domain);
2- Interview strategies to promote a positive
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:21:31 +0200, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas-
I'm not contradicting myself, I'm discussing two seperate points:
1- Business confidentiality to protect a company's individuality (i.e.
not divulging specific information so that your company remains on
After all if the product was fine theywould be able to defend it.in private meetings, sure.
on an entertainment venue, not always true.you can proeprly defend but if an insult or other negative trajectory by the 'host' is more entertaining, then guess who wins?
On 4/5/06, Andreas Haugstrup
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:47:43 +0200, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After all if the product was fine they
would be able to defend it.
in private meetings, sure.
on an entertainment venue, not always true.
you can proeprly defend but if an insult or other negative trajectory by
Hello,On 4/5/06, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I'm telling you that businessmen who pursue this trategy usually
have a product they know is subpar. After all if the product was fine they would be able
Hello,Good point.On 4/5/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After all if the product was fine theywould be able to defend it.
in private meetings, sure.
on an entertainment venue, not always true.you can proeprly defend but if an insult or other negative trajectory by the 'host' is
For whoever hasn't become bored with the debate, I posted a comment on
the GeekBrief.tv post about the interview asking for some
clarification. She did reply.
http://geekbrief.podshow.com/?p=69
It all boils down to reading what you are signing. If all this debate
has done is made people more
not always ;-)home turf helps.On 4/5/06, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:47:43 +0200, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After all if the product was fine they would be able to defend it. in private meetings, sure. on an entertainment venue, not always
31 matches
Mail list logo
