[videoblogging] Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
around the 1/8/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The Histor that: I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of 'make an example of them to get others to comply, throw the book at them' type stuff? you're right, old law. as discussed here recently, in Australia this been the norm for years. Small annual licence fee, the money is redistributed as royalties to the artists (they do audits of what is played and bought). Added together these sorts of extra costs can make it hard for the smaller venues to survive, if they arent too profitable to start with. But its something Im sure most businesses are used to paying, I think in the UK that most companies accept they have to pay such things, or they try to avoid it until they are first approached, and then they cough up the moolah rather than having to suffer any further hassle. here the cost for clubs has just gone up substantially which they're all upset about, on the other hand if I sell a recording to an individual for an individual cost and it gets played to a *paying* audience in a club of 1000, it seems pretty reasonable that the artist gets a return... I dont expect anybody that makes a stand in the courts to win, as I think the laws are pretty well established regarding public performance rights, but maybe Im wrong. Like when I was a kid, when they played videos at school the smallprint always mentioned that the video was not licensed for display at public events, in schools etc. I always wondered if the schools paid a blanket fee, or some higher authority covered it on their behalf, or whether they were being naughty and ignoring such things. it is normal practice to buy a different licence for edu use. eg a film that i can buy for $30 over the counter for home use might be $300 but I can then show it to a lecture theatre full of students. same logic as for the music. also why technically you can only photocopy x% of a book to make available to students. we can complain about it, or we can make work that is not subject to these forms of copyright if we wish. :-) -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
[videoblogging] Blip.TV and multi-format feeds
OK, here's a conundrum for ya: I'm about to launch three new video podcasts, and after plenty of searching around for a hosting platform / CDN, it seems to me like Blip.TV not only has a good rep amongst video bloggers, but also offers pretty much everything anyone could require. Since the shows are going to be for geeks, I like the fact that Blip allows you to upload multiple versions of the same show in different formats - eg I can upload a standard .mov, an .m4v designed for iPod, a .avi designed for Windows, a divx version, an HD version for AppleTV etc. Blip even gives you a direct link to each of these files so that you can post the direct viewing/download links on a blog, or wherever. By doing this you can maintain one show page with all the different versions. Here's the thing: as far as I can tell, I can't make individual feeds for each of those versions. If I click the RSS button for my show, it seems to just show me the original file I uploaded. If I click the iTunes version of the feed, it gives me the low-res iPod version I uploaded, which is no good if you want to sub on an AppleTV and want the HD version. Is there any way to make blip generate an RSS feed (compatible with iTunes or not) for each individual version of the show? That way, readers could subscribe directly to the HD version, the iPod version, the Divx version, whatever. Or am I off my rocker? Cheers chaps, Wil ChannelFlip.com
[videoblogging] Re: Blip.TV and multi-format feeds
Check out the blip user group: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/blip-users/ -- billcammack --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Wil Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, here's a conundrum for ya: I'm about to launch three new video podcasts, and after plenty of searching around for a hosting platform / CDN, it seems to me like Blip.TV not only has a good rep amongst video bloggers, but also offers pretty much everything anyone could require. Since the shows are going to be for geeks, I like the fact that Blip allows you to upload multiple versions of the same show in different formats - eg I can upload a standard .mov, an .m4v designed for iPod, a .avi designed for Windows, a divx version, an HD version for AppleTV etc. Blip even gives you a direct link to each of these files so that you can post the direct viewing/download links on a blog, or wherever. By doing this you can maintain one show page with all the different versions. Here's the thing: as far as I can tell, I can't make individual feeds for each of those versions. If I click the RSS button for my show, it seems to just show me the original file I uploaded. If I click the iTunes version of the feed, it gives me the low-res iPod version I uploaded, which is no good if you want to sub on an AppleTV and want the HD version. Is there any way to make blip generate an RSS feed (compatible with iTunes or not) for each individual version of the show? That way, readers could subscribe directly to the HD version, the iPod version, the Divx version, whatever. Or am I off my rocker? Cheers chaps, Wil ChannelFlip.com
[videoblogging] Will Video for Food
Hi I try to keep up to date with what is happening in the world of vlogging, particularly with regard to making a living out of it. One website I want to share with the group is this one http://nalts.wordpress.com by a youtube funnyman, Nalts. In his real life he works in marketing, and he makes no bones about the fact he is trying to find a way to fund his video hobby. Mark overlander.tv
Re: [videoblogging] the unstoppable net
What's with the text on that page being a Flash application??? (Instead of being just plain old HTML text.) On 7/31/07, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting artcle http://www.brw.com.au/viewer.aspx?EDP://2007071919146498magsection=Technologyportal=_ARTICLEtitle=The+unstoppable+net [...] -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Blip.TV and multi-format feeds
You can build a feed out of just about anything on blip. Maybe these will help: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/62110 http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/blip-users/message/2197 Good luck, -- Kary Rogers http://karyhead.com On Aug 2, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Wil Harris wrote: OK, here's a conundrum for ya: I'm about to launch three new video podcasts, and after plenty of searching around for a hosting platform / CDN, it seems to me like Blip.TV not only has a good rep amongst video bloggers, but also offers pretty much everything anyone could require. Since the shows are going to be for geeks, I like the fact that Blip allows you to upload multiple versions of the same show in different formats - eg I can upload a standard .mov, an .m4v designed for iPod, a .avi designed for Windows, a divx version, an HD version for AppleTV etc. Blip even gives you a direct link to each of these files so that you can post the direct viewing/download links on a blog, or wherever. By doing this you can maintain one show page with all the different versions. Here's the thing: as far as I can tell, I can't make individual feeds for each of those versions. If I click the RSS button for my show, it seems to just show me the original file I uploaded. If I click the iTunes version of the feed, it gives me the low-res iPod version I uploaded, which is no good if you want to sub on an AppleTV and want the HD version. Is there any way to make blip generate an RSS feed (compatible with iTunes or not) for each individual version of the show? That way, readers could subscribe directly to the HD version, the iPod version, the Divx version, whatever. Or am I off my rocker? Cheers chaps, Wil ChannelFlip.com
Re: [videoblogging] Blip.TV and multi-format feeds
You guys rock!! Wil. On 2 Aug 2007, at 15:53, Kary Rogers wrote: You can build a feed out of just about anything on blip. Maybe these will help: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/62110 http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/blip-users/message/2197 Good luck, -- Kary Rogers http://karyhead.com On Aug 2, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Wil Harris wrote: OK, here's a conundrum for ya: I'm about to launch three new video podcasts, and after plenty of searching around for a hosting platform / CDN, it seems to me like Blip.TV not only has a good rep amongst video bloggers, but also offers pretty much everything anyone could require. Since the shows are going to be for geeks, I like the fact that Blip allows you to upload multiple versions of the same show in different formats - eg I can upload a standard .mov, an .m4v designed for iPod, a .avi designed for Windows, a divx version, an HD version for AppleTV etc. Blip even gives you a direct link to each of these files so that you can post the direct viewing/download links on a blog, or wherever. By doing this you can maintain one show page with all the different versions. Here's the thing: as far as I can tell, I can't make individual feeds for each of those versions. If I click the RSS button for my show, it seems to just show me the original file I uploaded. If I click the iTunes version of the feed, it gives me the low-res iPod version I uploaded, which is no good if you want to sub on an AppleTV and want the HD version. Is there any way to make blip generate an RSS feed (compatible with iTunes or not) for each individual version of the show? That way, readers could subscribe directly to the HD version, the iPod version, the Divx version, whatever. Or am I off my rocker? Cheers chaps, Wil ChannelFlip.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Will Video for Food
Hello, On 8/2/07, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I try to keep up to date with what is happening in the world of vlogging, particularly with regard to making a living out of it. One website I want to share with the group is this one http://nalts.wordpress.com by a youtube funnyman, Nalts. Which is now on Vlog Razor http://vlograzor.com/ :-) (Thanks for the link.) See ya [...] -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News http://vlograzor.com/
[videoblogging] the ugly truth about online video
interesting article about predictions for online video advertising http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about-online-video/
[videoblogging] Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
I've been active on youtube over the last month and have had two of my videos featured in the travel and places category, My Byron Bay vid and my currently featured Canberra Story on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMlHjO2nh4 I got to say I am sickened by the racist comments people have made with regard to the Tent Embassy. I was going to wipe them all, but decided against it. How have other people found the youtube 'community' Is this just something I have to accept? Mark
[videoblogging] Re: Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
Hello Mark, Just wondering why you decided not to delete the comments? Terry Rendon http://www.terryannonline.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been active on youtube over the last month and have had two of my videos featured in the travel and places category, My Byron Bay vid and my currently featured Canberra Story on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMlHjO2nh4 I got to say I am sickened by the racist comments people have made with regard to the Tent Embassy. I was going to wipe them all, but decided against it. How have other people found the youtube 'community' Is this just something I have to accept? Mark
Re: [videoblogging] Twitter vlogging Twittervlog!
http://blog.martinjwells.com/2007/07/30/tangler-for-commenting/ On 3/29/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Rupert. great that you are trying this. also refer to tumblr.com for blogging without the fuss idea. we have had some discussions here mostly inititiated by Steve Watkins about a different environment that takes the best of a group like this yahoo mailing list, discussion forums, chat and add in ability to include video, audio, images etc.. it's been a vision of mine and others. so recently i was invited into a service called Tangler.com. i have talked to their community manager, marketing/strategy person and CEO within their tangler environemnt. so i spoke of how some people from this videoblogging group would find tangler interesting. it is similar to twitter. but its also unique. so far, i am enjoying it. over time, i expect it to get much better. if you would like an invite, please email me off-list. though i believe they plan to open up to public some time in April. sull On 29 Mar 2007 11:15:25 -0700, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today is my 2 year vlogiversary. I haven't posted nearly enough in that time, and most of my old stuff is offline. I've always wanted to post more inconsequential short moments, to document cool, beautiful or interesting things as they happen. In the end, I just film a lot of moments, and never post them because I don't want to clutter up my main vlog. Stupid. I got a Nokia N93 in January and thought that it would mean I would film a lot of short Moments and post straight from the phone, but I kept filming and not posting. More stupid. I thought I would try and use videobloggingweek to force me to do it... but then there are other, longer-form things I also want to do. SO ANYWAY, I've only been Twittering for a week or so, but I love its immediacy and disposability - and a lot of the text moments recorded there remind me of what I wanted to do with vlogging, and with my N93. Seems to me that these video moments belong more on Twitter than they do on a blog. They're for immediate consumption, and need the immediacy and disposability and Now-ness of Twitter, rather than being viewed later via feed or on a blog. So I checked it out, and there's a free browser-based tool at http:// www.twitterfeed.com/ which takes any RSS feed and posts it to Twitter. I've set it up so that I can film a short moment on my N93, email it (via regular wifi) to Blip, then Twitterfeed.com automatically takes my Blip feed and posts it to Twitter - to http://www.twitter.com/ twittervlog/ The result is a Tweet which contains the post title and a TinyURL to the Blip video (and, if you want, a description in however many characters you have left.) ALL FREE! ALL AUTOMATIC! ALL THE TIME! God damn, I love the web, and all the people that make these things free. Twittervlog is a special video only Twitter account in addition to my regular one, but you could just set Twitterfeed to post your Feed to your regular Twitter account. Even better, we should set up a Videobloggingweek twitter account which runs off a feed of all the videobloggingweek videos as they're posted. I will set this up - which feed should I use? I'm confused about all the different ways we'll be centrally aggregating the vbweek videos. Let me know, if you have thoughts or concrete info on this. When I have a moment, I will put my Twittervlog process on the wiki. Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe http://www.twitter.com/twittervlog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
This is common on Youtube, unfortunately - as elsewhere on the web.It's one of the things that have kept so many videobloggers away from Youtube for so long. A lot of people (my no means the majority) find it fun to be nasty there, and there's no way of stopping them except to moderate and delete their comments. I can't understand why Youtube don't allow you to report a comment/commenter as inappropriate, as well as as spam - to help limit trolling. That they don't have comments set for Moderation by default is stupid as well. I really don't understand what people get out of it, but I guess they're unhappy and it gives them a sense of power to say something that they know will provoke a reaction. Having said that there are a lot of people on Youtube who make nice comments and nice video comments, and getting along and making friends with each other just fine. But issue posts draw scum like moths to a flame. I guess you didn't delete the comments because you didn't want to censor, or because you wanted to expose their attitudes. I personally would take the view that they are inappropriate for your post, that they're not reasoned arguments, that what they say is unacceptable... and that by letting them stand that they are adding fuel to a fire - and I'd set comments for Moderation, so that they wait until your approval or deletion - Youtube provides this service, why not use it? Don't give these people an outlet, or any more attention. And report them to Youtube. Rupert On 2 Aug 2007, at 16:20, terry.rendon wrote: Hello Mark, Just wondering why you decided not to delete the comments? Terry Rendon http://www.terryannonline.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been active on youtube over the last month and have had two of my videos featured in the travel and places category, My Byron Bay vid and my currently featured Canberra Story on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMlHjO2nh4 I got to say I am sickened by the racist comments people have made with regard to the Tent Embassy. I was going to wipe them all, but decided against it. How have other people found the youtube 'community' Is this just something I have to accept? Mark [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] the ugly truth about online video
I note this, from djoxyk in the comments section: I watch video on Soundpedia http://soundpedia.com/ and Youtubehttp://youtube.com/'cause it's free and fast services. The online video is a big part of my life since I spend up to 10 hours a day in the internet. I do not watch TV 'cause advertising irritate me. That's the point of using online media services. Do any of you, when you watch video online, pay attention to ads at all? And how many of us will just close the window of an ad we can't skip or get rid of? OR refuse to return to something where we know an ad will be IN the video episodes? If I ask myself what are the worst things about television? I come up with these: 1. Advertising. 2. The influence advertising support has on what gets programmed. 3. The programming. (which flows directly from 1 and 2). It's not like the advertising model has made television such a great thing (beyond the expected handful of programs that break the mold) - otherwise why are we bothering with an alternative to begin with? If online video is really going to provide a compelling alternative to television, a mechanism that allows people to focus full time on making deep, quality work is indeed important. The current obsession with advertising as a means to this, though, just leads me to expect any profitable aspect of online video to ultimately devolve to the level of television, only smaller and available on demand. For everyone making this stuff, from those making video with a more mass appeal and an eye on dollars, to those doing personal work, far greater benefits (monetary and artistic) will come of finding a business model that ISN'T about advertising. In fact, if we can do that, it could leak into other media (television itself?) as well, and quality would rise accordingly. It could change the whole face of mediamaking. I wish I knew what that model could be, but with so many creative and innovative people in this hypercommunicative sphere, there is hope for an alternative to evolve. I know I'm not going to stop thinking about it. Please note that I say this with all due respect to folks like blip who are trying to find creative and effective ways to make advertising support videomakers in new and less obtrusive ways. I just don't share the optimism. Brook On 8/2/07, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: interesting article about predictions for online video advertising http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about-online-video/ -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
Hi Terry I posted this comment 3 days ago: I'm a bit disappointed with some of the racist comments people have made with regard to my video. I could remove them, but I won't, because I think many are indicative of race relations in Australia. I accept and give credence to the democratic nature of youtube, where everyone has the right to comment, but ask that people think about whether they would be willing to make their comments, in front of a group of Aboriginal AFL footballers? It is easy to be brave behind the safety of a keyboard. I think people need to stand by what they say, I notice some of these racists seem to be trollers, posting such comments in various places. I wonder if we will ever see a defamation case on youtube? We don't have the same 'freedom of speech' amendment here in Oz. Mark terry.rendon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Mark, Just wondering why you decided not to delete the comments? Terry Rendon http://www.terryannonline.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been active on youtube over the last month and have had two of my videos featured in the travel and places category, My Byron Bay vid and my currently featured Canberra Story on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMlHjO2nh4 I got to say I am sickened by the racist comments people have made with regard to the Tent Embassy. I was going to wipe them all, but decided against it. How have other people found the youtube 'community' Is this just something I have to accept? Mark - Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
Mark, Yes, this is common in my experience, and I would say just delete them. My personal opinion is that the advantages of exposing these sorts of things, is out-weighed by the disadvantage of giving these people a platform. My most popular video on you tube was one I made about Amanda Congdon. It is cool because it has about 30,000 views, which isn't very impressive by youtube standards, but very impressive by Richard Show standards On my vlog I got supporting and positive comments, and on you tube the majority of them were like nice tits and a lot worse. I get an email from youtube when there is a comment, I read it, and if it's like the one above, I just delete it and that's it. I know this is not consistent with some people's philosophy about free speech or whatever, but, my feeling is I'm just not going to support that sort of thing. The Amanda video is about a talented artist. Of course there are people who are going to objectify her because of how she looks, discounting any her talent/skill. People (ok, men) do this all the time, and, maybe that's the way the world is, but, it's not the way the Richard Show world is - my comment section on videos are not going to be a vehicle for that, so I'm deleting these immediately so long as I have the power to do so. Comments on my videos are a dictatorship - definitely a non-free speech zone ... if *I*, the high inquisitor of comments on my videos, find the comment offensive, non-constructive, or I just don't like the cut of their jib (whatever that means), then I delete it. ... Richard On 8/2/07, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been active on youtube over the last month and have had two of my videos featured in the travel and places category, My Byron Bay vid and my currently featured Canberra Story on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMlHjO2nh4 I got to say I am sickened by the racist comments people have made with regard to the Tent Embassy. I was going to wipe them all, but decided against it. How have other people found the youtube 'community' Is this just something I have to accept? Mark -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
I should point out that my experience is the same as Rupert's, in that there were nice and supportive comments on youtube and I left them. In my previous email, I made it sound like they were all negative, and that's not really true, though probably over half were pretty rude. Also, I think you can mark a comment at spam in youtube ... Richard On 8/2/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is common on Youtube, unfortunately - as elsewhere on the web. It's one of the things that have kept so many videobloggers away from Youtube for so long. A lot of people (my no means the majority) find it fun to be nasty there, and there's no way of stopping them except to moderate and delete their comments. I can't understand why Youtube don't allow you to report a comment/commenter as inappropriate, as well as as spam - to help limit trolling. That they don't have comments set for Moderation by default is stupid as well. I really don't understand what people get out of it, but I guess they're unhappy and it gives them a sense of power to say something that they know will provoke a reaction. Having said that there are a lot of people on Youtube who make nice comments and nice video comments, and getting along and making friends with each other just fine. But issue posts draw scum like moths to a flame. I guess you didn't delete the comments because you didn't want to censor, or because you wanted to expose their attitudes. I personally would take the view that they are inappropriate for your post, that they're not reasoned arguments, that what they say is unacceptable... and that by letting them stand that they are adding fuel to a fire - and I'd set comments for Moderation, so that they wait until your approval or deletion - Youtube provides this service, why not use it? Don't give these people an outlet, or any more attention. And report them to Youtube. Rupert On 2 Aug 2007, at 16:20, terry.rendon wrote: Hello Mark, Just wondering why you decided not to delete the comments? Terry Rendon http://www.terryannonline.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been active on youtube over the last month and have had two of my videos featured in the travel and places category, My Byron Bay vid and my currently featured Canberra Story on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMlHjO2nh4 I got to say I am sickened by the racist comments people have made with regard to the Tent Embassy. I was going to wipe them all, but decided against it. How have other people found the youtube 'community' Is this just something I have to accept? Mark [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
Yes, I have 11 vids on youtube and I get my share of negative comments as well. Since I am in my 60s, the what I assume are young gentlemen, hone in on my age and looks as I am an easy target for those kind of comments. On the whole the comments are positive and the viewer numbers grows each day, and since I am a motivational speaker, I just remind myself that only wins count. OK thanks for bringing this issue up. Edward W. Smith Offer 2 Free life-coaching sessions with an experienced, reputable life coach to purchasers of your book or product, at no cost to you. A proven way to increase your product sales and offer a $250 value to your customers, with no catches. Contact Theresa Smith at 201-568-0019, email, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://brightmoment.com/coaching.htm. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: interesting article about predictions for online video advertising http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about-online-video/ I already said that back on February 19, 2007: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/56970 No proof of demographics = No sales to advertisers. -- billcammack
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
The other thing you can do to get rid of the trolls on YouTube is just turn off comments and turn off ratings, and put a link to your videoblog in the description so that people can go there and comment if they want to. I'd bet any money you like that the nasty little turds don't bother to go and comment on another site. They just do it on Youtube because they're logged in already and all they have to do is write some shit in a box and click send. I have turned my comments on because I want to try to seek out the good conversations on Youtube and connect with videobloggers and filmmakers there, particularly in the UK (hence my pushing of the Youtube videoblogging group this week). But the moment nasty comments start bothering me, I'm going to turn off comments and point over to twittervlog.tv Rupert
Re: [videoblogging] Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
King Richard: Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead; And I would have it suddenly perform'd. Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Richard III, Act IV, Scene ii GOD SAVE KING RICHARD! On 2 Aug 2007, at 16:33, Richard (Show) Hall wrote: Comments on my videos are a dictatorship - definitely a non-free speech zone ... if *I*, the high inquisitor of comments on my videos, find the comment offensive, non-constructive, or I just don't like the cut of their jib (whatever that means), then I delete it. ... Richard [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
This made me recall what Bill Gates said back in January: http://newteevee.com/2007/01/29/gates-tv-is-doomed/ Ad dollars to video is not going to change from TV overnight, but there WILL be a change over time and a significant one at that. Chuck --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: interesting article about predictions for online video advertising http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about- online-video/
[videoblogging] Re: Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
I too have been 'prepared' for the nasties since putting videos on YouTube. I tend to watch a lot of the YouTube Drama Stars (heh) and see the flood of negative and hurtful comments (known as from 'the haters') constantly. So, being that I'm gay and have some videoblogs about somethings related to that, I had to prepare myself. Knock on wood, I've been pretty lucky and haven't got hit yet. But, from watching how others handle it, I found that some believe that it is a 'no no' to delete the 'haters' comments. Either because they want it there for evidence for the future (if needed) or because of the equality of speech stuff. But there is always a fine line. Hard core haters are now posting personal info (why? no clue other then to step it up a notch). So, on other peoples accounts, they post another persons address, phone number, etc. It should be common sense that everyone deletes that type of information no matter if they done you wrong or not. Anyway, my point is, just be prepared... but don't take it personally. It's your account/videos, so at the end of the day its your right to delete or not delete the comments. My biggest thought is... where do they get the time to make all these comments! If I could just have a fraction of their wasted time!! There are a lot of good people on there, so its definitely good to not get sidetracked by these 'kids'. Kev! http://www.limeblog.tv http://www.youtube.com/limeblog P.S. That is one thing I was always thankful for with this group of people on here... for the most part, everyone has always had a open mind and kind to one another (at least from what I've seen and received in video comments) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been active on youtube over the last month and have had two of my videos featured in the travel and places category, My Byron Bay vid and my currently featured Canberra Story on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMlHjO2nh4 I got to say I am sickened by the racist comments people have made with regard to the Tent Embassy. I was going to wipe them all, but decided against it. How have other people found the youtube 'community' Is this just something I have to accept? Mark
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube Group to complement this one
We have over 50 members now. Hurray! Go to http://youtube.com/group/videoblogging and click Join Group. Then you can find everybody's Youtube profiles easily, by clicking the Members link. Click on people you know and Add them as Friends, don't just Subscribe. Let's get everybody easy to find, all in one place. OK, last time I'm going to write about this before I go away for a month. Rupert On 1 Aug 2007, at 20:19, Mike Meiser wrote: So basic social networking like on twitter and facebook. Just the ability to see who everyone is. The other faces in the crowd. Simple enough... consider it done. We've got a critical mass on there already. We just need to bug people to join. So... let's start putting the urls in our sig. That should do the trick. :) -Mike [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
The shift will be faster than people think b/c of the demographics of online video (the coveted 18-34 year-old crowd). It is common sense really - when was the last time you heard a 20-something year-old talk about a TV show? The buzz and chatter is all about online video, social networks, etc.. On a related note, the LonelyGirl announcement today was huge for indie video producers. I know it is a hit, but regardless, it signals a shift b/c it appears that LG licensed their content to MySpaceTV w/out having to sign an exclusive or hand over creative control. Big shift for old media player Fox (although sometimes the devil is in the details, so it is hard to say how good of a deal it actually was). -Frank Frank Sinton CEO [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mefeedia.com/user/franks/ http://mefeedia.com - Discover, Collect, and Share video blogs _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:29 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video This made me recall what Bill Gates said back in January: http://newteevee. http://newteevee.com/2007/01/29/gates-tv-is-doomed/ com/2007/01/29/gates-tv-is-doomed/ Ad dollars to video is not going to change from TV overnight, but there WILL be a change over time and a significant one at that. Chuck --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: interesting article about predictions for online video advertising http://mediabiz. http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about- blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about- online-video/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Final cut express questions
My boss wants me to jazz up videos I'm making for work. So far, I've been using iMovie. He blanched at the cost of Final Cut Pro, so I'm thinking of Final Cut Express as an option. If anyone has used FCE and has tried to do any motion graphics or compositing, I'd love to talk with you. I know that FCE is a blunter instrument than FCP for motion graphics and compositing, but I want to get a feel for how much blunter it is from someone who actually has used it. If anyone is willing to have a brief chat on the phone with me about this, that'd rock my world. email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we can set up a time to do a 5 minute phone call. Thanks! Jonny G.
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube Group to complement this one
does anyone use a profile service, like http://profil.es/ ? On 8/2/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have over 50 members now. Hurray! Go to http://youtube.com/group/videoblogging and click Join Group. Then you can find everybody's Youtube profiles easily, by clicking the Members link. Click on people you know and Add them as Friends, don't just Subscribe. Let's get everybody easy to find, all in one place. OK, last time I'm going to write about this before I go away for a month. Rupert On 1 Aug 2007, at 20:19, Mike Meiser wrote: So basic social networking like on twitter and facebook. Just the ability to see who everyone is. The other faces in the crowd. Simple enough... consider it done. We've got a critical mass on there already. We just need to bug people to join. So... let's start putting the urls in our sig. That should do the trick. :) -Mike [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
I remain skeptical on a number of fronts. For a start television, at least in the past, was just the perfect medium for advertising. Mass audiences, in a state where they are likely to absorb the message, have their attention focussed on your ad, and where avoiding the advert required at least some effort. Now this is changing because of PVR's and tv on demand/iptv set-top boxes, and of course the internet. But that doesnt mean that the internet will be as friendly or desirable to advertisers. The more it starts to resemble TV, eg mass audiences and lots of safe, controlled, professional content, the more the existing advertising business with its billions of $ will be interested, and will switch over. Now thats where I assume many of the $ we see on these charts that predict future internet ad spend, will come from, if it comes at all. And that may happen, but its certainly not the world im interested in. Its still msotly the same players, its really TV on the internet and it turns out that doesnt actually offer me much more than TV by radiowaves, cable, satellite. I guess I just expect that if most of the viewers cash go to the internet, all the existing producers of TV shows will go to the internet, although I suspect that whatever the technology, really huge audiences are a thing of the past because there is always so much more choice to fragment the audience. On a wider level I think humans, society economy have exceeded their own limitations when it comes to scale. Many of the different challenges that humans face over the coming century will be about scale. We've achieved many things that would not be possible if it were not for the absurd scale they have been conducted on, largely powered by the industrial revolution and its fossil fuels. But it doesnt look like its sustainable unless the sci-fi mineral mining multi-planet humanity becomes a reality at some point. So maybe the solutions are all small, local, primitive compared to todays giddy heights, but sustainable and less of a house of cards. Bug numbers are so cool and sexy right now, maybe there will come a time when down becomes the new up, and I wonder if this is where future economic realities may meet long-tail concepts. Until then theres insane profit to be made by those that can ride the bohemoth, so I doubt it will happen till its unavoidable. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The shift will be faster than people think b/c of the demographics of online video (the coveted 18-34 year-old crowd). It is common sense really - when was the last time you heard a 20-something year-old talk about a TV show? The buzz and chatter is all about online video, social networks, etc.. On a related note, the LonelyGirl announcement today was huge for indie video producers. I know it is a hit, but regardless, it signals a shift b/c it appears that LG licensed their content to MySpaceTV w/out having to sign an exclusive or hand over creative control. Big shift for old media player Fox (although sometimes the devil is in the details, so it is hard to say how good of a deal it actually was). -Frank Frank Sinton CEO [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mefeedia.com/user/franks/ http://mefeedia.com - Discover, Collect, and Share video blogs _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:29 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video This made me recall what Bill Gates said back in January: http://newteevee. http://newteevee.com/2007/01/29/gates-tv-is-doomed/ com/2007/01/29/gates-tv-is-doomed/ Ad dollars to video is not going to change from TV overnight, but there WILL be a change over time and a significant one at that. Chuck --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, caminofilm caminofilm@ wrote: interesting article about predictions for online video advertising http://mediabiz. http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about- blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about- online-video/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Global Voices is seeking to hire a Video Editor (fwd)
FYI... Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you have any questions, as I am not involved in the hiring process. -andy --- Georgia Popplewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To: GV Authors [EMAIL PROTECTED], Global Voices Community [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Georgia Popplewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Global Voices is seeking to hire a Video Editor Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:26:09 -0400 Global Voices (GV) is seeking to hire a Video Editor. THE JOB: The Video Editor will be responsible for keeping track of online citizen-produced video from throughout the world and selecting clips to be featured and contextualized in articles on the GV web site 2-3 times per week. The Video Editor will work closely with the rest of the Global Voices editorial staff (managing, regional and language editors), and will also be expected to attend regular online editorial meetings. As Global Voices is a virtual organization, the Video Editor will not be expected to relocate. Regular access to high-speed internet connectivity will, however, be a key factor in being able to carry out this job. THE REQUIREMENTS: Our ideal candidate has an international outlook and solid experience in blogging and online citizensÂ’ media with a special emphasis on online video. Solid English-language writing editing skills are a must, but a strong familiarity with the current tools, web sites and trends in online video worldwide is important. S/ he has the ability to work independently and responsibly with only remote supervision. Ideally, s/he will have the ability to read and write well in at least one language other than English and have a working knowledge of other languages. Preference will be given to candidates from outside the United States and Western Europe. To apply, please send your CV and a letter of interest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The application deadline is Friday August 24, 2007. -- GEORGIA POPPLEWELL Co-Managing Editor | Podcast Editor Global Voices Online www.globalvoicesonline.org Mobile: (868) 681-6103 | Skype: gapopplewell -- ABOUT THIS LIST: This is an e-mail discussion list-serv for people who work on or who are interested in knowing more about our global online citizens media project, GlobalVoicesOnline.org. Please do not abuse this list as a p.r. vehicle for your personal weblog or organization. Many people on this list are not members of the Global Voices editorial team. All emails on this list represent the views of the email writer and nobody else. To unsubscribe, click here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/signoff/globalvoices To change your delivery options, click here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/suboptions/globalvoices To subscribe to Global Voices content, please click here: http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/subscribe/ Andy Carvin andycarvin at yahoo com www.andycarvin.com www.pbs.org/learningnow -- ABOUT THIS LIST: This is an e-mail discussion list-serv for people who work on or who are interested in knowing more about our global online citizens media project, GlobalVoicesOnline.org. Please do not abuse this list as a p.r. vehicle for your personal weblog or organization. Many people on this list are not members of the Global Voices editorial team. All emails on this list represent the views of the email writer and nobody else. To unsubscribe, click here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/signoff/globalvoices To change your delivery options, click here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/suboptions/globalvoices To subscribe to Global Voices content, please click here: http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/subscribe/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
Hello Richard, On 8/2/07, Richard (Show) Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] My most popular video on you tube was one I made about Amanda Congdon. It is cool because it has about 30,000 views, which isn't very impressive by youtube standards, but very impressive by Richard Show standards On my vlog I got supporting and positive comments, and on you tube the majority of them were like nice tits and a lot worse. I get an email from youtube when there is a comment, I read it, and if it's like the one above, I just delete it and that's it. I know this is not consistent with some people's philosophy about free speech or whatever, but, my feeling is I'm just not going to support that sort of thing. You've not violating Free Speech. Free Speech... which is short for Freedom of Speech... is about not using force against others for what they say. This does NOT require you or anyone else to listen. Or even help them out. You're not using force against them when you delete their comments... so you;re not violating Free Speech. (Note here... I'm talking about literal Free Speech... not the Right to Speech, in the USA, which because of unfortunate happenings in history is mistakenly called the Freedom of Speech.) See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News http://vlograzor.com/
[videoblogging] Washington Post: Out of the Theater, Into the Courtroom
It is very hard for me to feel sympathy for Old Media with nonsense like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102398.html Chuck
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
See, the problem here is that people seem to think that advertisers are just looking to throw away money. :) I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting (except to the audience of ten) topics to EVER be monetized. As far as I know, there's not an example YET of that happening. If anyone knows of one, feel free to post and let me know. What *I* see happening here is MSM picking up people or internet video production companies that have proven their ability to get, maintain and grow an audience. Meanwhile, in the other direction, I see production companies that have been trying their hand at getting into television starting to make series for the internet to get exposure, make contacts and hopefully get a buzz started about their company that will catapult them back into television or Hollywood. Like I've been saying for ~ 6 months, without a way to verify and quantify demographics, you have NOTHING to offer potential advertisers. NOTHING. Your only hope is to have some kind of niche program content that will prompt a sponsor to back your play and support you financially to get your show made. I'm not talking about some adsense dollars or revenue-sharing from viral videos. People seem to be WONDERING when the advertisers are going to show up with their money, and that's going to be AFTER someone can guarantee them the proper ROI. I've seen a lot of talented videobloggers with shows that aren't sponsored AT.ALL. I think conversations that focus on When are videobloggers in general going to be monetized? are completely disingenuous. I think a better conversation (and also more useful to the community) is How is someone going to figure out how to quantify demographics similar to what's done already in MSM so that the talented videobloggers can be properly recognized and sponsored? I mean, look at public access television. You don't have to pay to have a show on public access. OTOH, you don't GET PAID either. :) You do it because you like to do it, and there are rules (at least in Manhattan, NYC) that prohibit you from advertising, because you're not paying anything for your broadcast slot in the first place. The question could be asked When are they going to monetize public access shows? :D Well... Just because someone has a show doesn't mean that ANYONE feels it's worth advertising on. Meanwhile, you have people that have shows like Max on Boxing that do public access for years, and demonstrate their worth and now Max Kellerman's on ESPN. He was the best and most passionate boxing commentator on television on his internet show, AND he was doing CALL-IN shows!!! Not like these guys that sit at a table with papers in their hands with their lines on them and teleprompters on the cameras and earpieces in their ears with producers telling them what to do and say! :D Max Kellerman should have been in MSM way before he actually was, because he was demonstrating passion, ability, knowledge and talent on public access that outdid the MSM sportscasters that were talking about the same fights at the same time AND he was giving his opinions on the fly to people that would call in randomly. The same thing's happening here with Amanda and Ask A Ninja and WallStrip and Hayden's new projects. People are demonstrating ability on the internet and getting picked up. It's not like these are accidents or that they were all lucky. :D People are being selected for whatever their consistent, proven talents are. There's no trickle-down. There's no matter of time. I think that if someone wants to be supported financially for their videoblog, they need to take a hard look at what they're doing and honestly ask themselves WHY would ANYONE pay me to do this? -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remain skeptical on a number of fronts. For a start television, at least in the past, was just the perfect medium for advertising. Mass audiences, in a state where they are likely to absorb the message, have their attention focussed on your ad, and where avoiding the advert required at least some effort. Now this is changing because of PVR's and tv on demand/iptv set-top boxes, and of course the internet. But that doesnt mean that the internet will be as friendly or desirable to advertisers. The more it starts to resemble TV, eg mass audiences and lots of safe, controlled, professional content, the more the existing advertising business with its billions of $ will be interested, and will switch over. Now thats where I assume many of the $ we see on these charts that predict future internet ad spend, will come from, if it comes at all. And that may happen, but its certainly not the world im interested in. Its still msotly the same players, its really TV on the internet and it turns out that doesnt actually offer me much more than TV by radiowaves, cable, satellite. I guess I
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
I agree completly Bill, that's why a long time ago, I stopped worrying about someone paying me or advertising on Batman Geek. I mean I get a few hundred downloads, why would any advertiser look at me... Now would I like to make money, yep, and that is why I make films, and having been doing a few other things to maybe someday make money at filming stuff...making commerical's etc.. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See, the problem here is that people seem to think that advertisers are just looking to throw away money. :) I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting (except to the audience of ten) topics to EVER be monetized. As far as I know, there's not an example YET of that happening. If anyone knows of one, feel free to post and let me know. What *I* see happening here is MSM picking up people or internet video production companies that have proven their ability to get, maintain and grow an audience. Meanwhile, in the other direction, I see production companies that have been trying their hand at getting into television starting to make series for the internet to get exposure, make contacts and hopefully get a buzz started about their company that will catapult them back into television or Hollywood. Like I've been saying for ~ 6 months, without a way to verify and quantify demographics, you have NOTHING to offer potential advertisers. NOTHING. Your only hope is to have some kind of niche program content that will prompt a sponsor to back your play and support you financially to get your show made. I'm not talking about some adsense dollars or revenue-sharing from viral videos. People seem to be WONDERING when the advertisers are going to show up with their money, and that's going to be AFTER someone can guarantee them the proper ROI. I've seen a lot of talented videobloggers with shows that aren't sponsored AT.ALL. I think conversations that focus on When are videobloggers in general going to be monetized? are completely disingenuous. I think a better conversation (and also more useful to the community) is How is someone going to figure out how to quantify demographics similar to what's done already in MSM so that the talented videobloggers can be properly recognized and sponsored? I mean, look at public access television. You don't have to pay to have a show on public access. OTOH, you don't GET PAID either. :) You do it because you like to do it, and there are rules (at least in Manhattan, NYC) that prohibit you from advertising, because you're not paying anything for your broadcast slot in the first place. The question could be asked When are they going to monetize public access shows? :D Well... Just because someone has a show doesn't mean that ANYONE feels it's worth advertising on. Meanwhile, you have people that have shows like Max on Boxing that do public access for years, and demonstrate their worth and now Max Kellerman's on ESPN. He was the best and most passionate boxing commentator on television on his internet show, AND he was doing CALL-IN shows!!! Not like these guys that sit at a table with papers in their hands with their lines on them and teleprompters on the cameras and earpieces in their ears with producers telling them what to do and say! :D Max Kellerman should have been in MSM way before he actually was, because he was demonstrating passion, ability, knowledge and talent on public access that outdid the MSM sportscasters that were talking about the same fights at the same time AND he was giving his opinions on the fly to people that would call in randomly. The same thing's happening here with Amanda and Ask A Ninja and WallStrip and Hayden's new projects. People are demonstrating ability on the internet and getting picked up. It's not like these are accidents or that they were all lucky. :D People are being selected for whatever their consistent, proven talents are. There's no trickle-down. There's no matter of time. I think that if someone wants to be supported financially for their videoblog, they need to take a hard look at what they're doing and honestly ask themselves WHY would ANYONE pay me to do this? -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: I remain skeptical on a number of fronts. For a start television, at least in the past, was just the perfect medium for advertising. Mass audiences, in a state where they are likely to absorb the message, have their attention focussed on your ad, and where avoiding the advert required at least some effort. Now this is changing because of PVR's and tv on demand/iptv set- top boxes, and of course the internet. But that doesnt mean that the internet will be as friendly or desirable to advertisers. The more it starts
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
Hey Bill, Long time no see. How's it going? On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting (except to the audience of ten) topics to EVER be monetized. sometimes things are of interest to an audience larger than expected. For example, wasn't South Park originally a christmas card sent by some ad folks to a few people but it went viral within the industry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park admittedly not your typical case, but it happens -- http://tools.ourmedia.org/blog http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Bill, Long time no see. How's it going? On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting (except to the audience of ten) topics to EVER be monetized. sometimes things are of interest to an audience larger than expected. For example, wasn't South Park originally a christmas card sent by some ad folks to a few people but it went viral within the industry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park admittedly not your typical case, but it happens -- http://tools.ourmedia.org/blog http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy Hey Markus. :) That's my point, exactly. Not that there isn't any hope for something random to go viral or be seen as something worth funding... but rather that it's an anomaly. To speak about these things as if they're regular or as if they're definitely going to happen at some point I think does a disservice to the community. I keep seeing these posts that imply that everyone's going to get a piece of the pie, eventually... but even in the case of YouTube, it wasn't EVERYBODY that landed partnership program deals. -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv
[videoblogging] Re: Welcome to Youtube - racist comments
You have the right to set the tone and the environment for your videos posts. You can moderate or delete hate-filled comments because there will be one distinctive feature about them. The intent is to cause hurt and pain. You are not removing another another point of view or a personal illumination. The intent of the comment is to hurt you/the video in a mean spirited manner. These type of comments feel like the on-line equivalent of the bad forms of Graffiti(in this case paint taggers.) Negative attention is better than no attention at all. This is different from someone who disagrees with you and uses one of the seven dirty words to emphasis the depth of their disagreement. I've let those stand if they have made a viable point. You are not required to boost their little petards by allowing the comments to stand and hurt others. You do no service to your viewers who have watched the video, gained something from it and then have to wade through the comment crap. Sane people will not do that. Nuke 'em! Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com Word History: The French used pétard, a loud discharge of intestinal gas, for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. To be hoist by one's own petard, a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices. http://www.thefreedictionary.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been active on youtube over the last month and have had two of my videos featured in the travel and places category, My Byron Bay vid and my currently featured Canberra Story on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMlHjO2nh4 I got to say I am sickened by the racist comments people have made with regard to the Tent Embassy. I was going to wipe them all, but decided against it. How have other people found the youtube 'community' Is this just something I have to accept? Mark
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
Bill, I think your points are all spot on, but the landscape is nonetheless going to experience dramatic change over the next few years. That doesn't mean the vlogging community will be the beneficiaries of that change. Big money and big media are no doubt already planning strategies and those strategies don't involve any of us. I think that being a video blogger now and establishing a presence early on is risky in light of the good points you make, BUT - the very nature of change and the winner take all dynamics of it will make **some** of us very profitable. That's a *VERY* small percentage of us. I'm reading the Black Swan right now by Nassim Taleb (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=86522) and I really think that this next few years will see some black swans in videoblogging. I know I'd love to be one. :-) Chuck --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sandy@ wrote: Hey Bill, Long time no see. How's it going? On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting (except to the audience of ten) topics to EVER be monetized. sometimes things are of interest to an audience larger than expected. For example, wasn't South Park originally a christmas card sent by some ad folks to a few people but it went viral within the industry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park admittedly not your typical case, but it happens -- http://tools.ourmedia.org/blog http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy Hey Markus. :) That's my point, exactly. Not that there isn't any hope for something random to go viral or be seen as something worth funding... but rather that it's an anomaly. To speak about these things as if they're regular or as if they're definitely going to happen at some point I think does a disservice to the community. I keep seeing these posts that imply that everyone's going to get a piece of the pie, eventually... but even in the case of YouTube, it wasn't EVERYBODY that landed partnership program deals. -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, pouringdownpix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting (except to the audience of ten) topics to EVER be monetized. As far as I know, there's not an example YET of that happening. If anyone knows of one, feel free to post and let me know. hi, never YET? never EVER? uninteresting videoblog monetized, if only for a moment: http://pouringdown.tv/?p=161 -- daniel, pouringdown.tv Well... Congrats on getting paid to do a commissioned video. :D However, we can nit-pick all day. It's pretty clear from the rest of my post which you cut out that that's not what I'm talking about. Not being familiar with your videoblog, I don't know if that's something you had already done that they decided to pay you to use for their purposes, or a situation where they saw your work and wanted you to make something for them because they liked your style. Either way, it's commendable. However, I was talking about *advertising*. There's a difference between someone paying you to make a video that THEY USE and someone paying you to advertise on YOUR site. My examples, which again, were cut out by you in your response... were Amanda Congdon, Ask A Ninja, WallStrip and Hayden Black. My point was about consistency, quality, demonstrated ability and other factors adding up to agencies or companies being interested in them BEFORE any form of demographic quantization was available, because it STILL isn't available. I wasn't saying that NOBODY'S going to give ANY videoblogger ANY money to do what they do unless they have similar talents or qualities. Wreck Salvage has done auctions for advertising space on their show. Galacticast has given out titles to people financially supporting thier show. There are people that have deals with UTA. There are people that have deals with Next New Networks. I'm sure there are people every day that use their videoblog as a resume and get some sort of paying work for video production or post. People are getting ad-sharing revenue from blip, revver, etc. So... We can come up with a million examples of Someone paid me to do a video, but the thread, which you deleted, was about advertising dollars moving over from MSM to internet video. In order to understand WHY someone would pay someone to make an internet video, you have to understand WHY someone would pay someone to make an MSM video. The reasons are that on television, you can quantify the demographics and tell the advertisers what ROI they're going to get if they place a 30-second ad on such and such a show at such and such a time on such and such a day. You can NOT do that [yet] on the internet, so until that time, unless you demonstrate extraordinary talent, or as Markus brought up, something you do happens to become really popular for some reason, nobody's getting paid [from advertisers]. -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill, I think your points are all spot on, but the landscape is nonetheless going to experience dramatic change over the next few years. That doesn't mean the vlogging community will be the beneficiaries of that change. Big money and big media are no doubt already planning strategies and those strategies don't involve any of us. I think that being a video blogger now and establishing a presence early on is risky in light of the good points you make, BUT - the very nature of change and the winner take all dynamics of it will make **some** of us very profitable. That's a *VERY* small percentage of us. I agree, Chuck. I'm not saying that people shouldn't do what they want to do and what they love to do and HOPE to get paid to do it. I'm just saying it's more of a longshot than I've seen discussed in this group. -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv I'm reading the Black Swan right now by Nassim Taleb (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=86522) and I really think that this next few years will see some black swans in videoblogging. I know I'd love to be one. :-) Chuck --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sandy@ wrote: Hey Bill, Long time no see. How's it going? On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting (except to the audience of ten) topics to EVER be monetized. sometimes things are of interest to an audience larger than expected. For example, wasn't South Park originally a christmas card sent by some ad folks to a few people but it went viral within the industry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park admittedly not your typical case, but it happens -- http://tools.ourmedia.org/blog http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy Hey Markus. :) That's my point, exactly. Not that there isn't any hope for something random to go viral or be seen as something worth funding... but rather that it's an anomaly. To speak about these things as if they're regular or as if they're definitely going to happen at some point I think does a disservice to the community. I keep seeing these posts that imply that everyone's going to get a piece of the pie, eventually... but even in the case of YouTube, it wasn't EVERYBODY that landed partnership program deals. -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting (except to the audience of ten) topics to EVER be monetized. As far as I know, there's not an example YET of that happening. If anyone knows of one, feel free to post and let me know. hi, never YET? never EVER? uninteresting videoblog monetized, if only for a moment: http://pouringdown.tv/?p=161 -- daniel, pouringdown.tv
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
That's a zillion times *more* interesting than most monetized video. Brook On 8/2/07, pouringdownpix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: never YET? never EVER? uninteresting videoblog monetized, if only for a moment: http://pouringdown.tv/?p=161 -- daniel, pouringdown.tv -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
Absolutely. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, Chuck. I'm not saying that people shouldn't do what they want to do and what they love to do and HOPE to get paid to do it. I'm just saying it's more of a longshot than I've seen discussed in this group. -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv
[videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video
The thing is that I cant actually think of many people here who believe otherwise. OK maybe occasionally someone who hasnt put in insane amounts of effort into their vlog, wonders why they arent being noticed and propelled to the giddy heights, but generally it seems like most people know that it will take a certain something to make a show with a large audience and h potential to make money via advertising. There is of course a natural desire for some people who get so hooked on vlogging and related arts, to want to do it all day, and so to wonder what ways may exist to make money. But most people are quite realistic, they may not know demographics but they know the approximate size of their own audience. What may also have encouraged talk of people getting paid here, and the view that many vloggers believe this will happen as if by magic, is the businesses that have got a lot more riding on this. These companies, and their associated media blogs, are the ones that need this stuff to happen, and they are going to talk things up. And when they buy eachother for insane amounts of money, or get a load of VC money, or do advertising deals that sound lucrative, the people who make the videos wonder about their cut. But like with so much of web 2.0, there can be some very big numbers involved which arent actually based on any revenue stream, just the expectation that there will be revenue in the future. At this stage my concern is not about how many people are going to get rich, but about whether the infrastructure for easy vlogging will survive ok if the buzz dies and the income to the companies that do the hosting etc doesnt materialize. I was sarcastic about the sheer number of video hosting companies that appeared once videoblogging become big, but choice is good, I like variety. Its not going to be very nice if at some point some video hosting sites get unplugged forever and people face losing or having to reupload all their stuff. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: I agree, Chuck. I'm not saying that people shouldn't do what they want to do and what they love to do and HOPE to get paid to do it. I'm just saying it's more of a longshot than I've seen discussed in this group. -- billcammack http://reelsolid.tv
