Re: [videoblogging] Hi folks, I'm new here!
A former YouTube denizen come over to Blip.tv and the vlogosphere. Whoot! Welcome. Jan On 3/13/07, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My name is Shawn Carpenter and I have been vlogging now for about 3 weeks. In those 3 weeks I have managed to put up 5 videos and today I posted my first mobile video. I decided to post all of my work over on Blip.tv. You can view my show here http://loudtourtv.blip.tv/ or subscribe to my feed here http://feeds.feedburner.com/LOUDTourTV The videos also run in conjunction with my blog http://spcbrass.blogspot.com I look forward to more vlogging and seeing what you guys in the community have to offer! Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Collaboration again
The thing to keep in mind is that an email address is associated with the software download; they are one. And now, changing the subject, I'm experimenting using SpinExpress to get me on target toward making a difficult documentary. One of my Spin groups is called Distributed Ass Kickin' that collects and distributes rewards and presumably kicks members' butts toward completing goals they find similarly heinous. Toward that, I'm also collecting tools with which to operate a distributed production enterprise. This is one that I feel holds promise toward assigning tasks and meeting deadlines. Don't know about you, but I always need a deadline, otherwise the future is too vague for motivation: http://www.mychores.co.uk/tasks/workload This tool creates a database of projects, teams tasks. Task elements of each project may be assigned to individuals within a team, and emails are sent out at regular intervals, nudging you toward completition. The database is printable as to-do, daily or weekly calendar, or spreadsheet, right from your browser. Teams have RSS feeds. Last but not least, it integrates with Twitter, sending a message thereto when a task is completed. Interesting. Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Washington DC Area Bloggers
I was wondering if anyone from the DC metro area is on this list. I'm hoping to meet with some of you just for fun. Or if events are already happening, I'd love to join the fun. Best, Zulma * Zulma Aguiar Electronic Artist Arlington, VA (Washington DC) 703-416-2262 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Www.zulmaaguiar.com
[videoblogging] Re: Washington DC Area Bloggers
Jonny Goldstein + DC Media Makers http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/56869 -- Bill C. http://TheLab.blip.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Zulma Aguiar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering if anyone from the DC metro area is on this list. I'm hoping to meet with some of you just for fun. Or if events are already happening, I'd love to join the fun. Best, Zulma * Zulma Aguiar Electronic Artist Arlington, VA (Washington DC) 703-416-2262 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Www.zulmaaguiar.com
[videoblogging] YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
Re: [videoblogging] Washington DC Area Bloggers
There are some DC area folks around here now, which is nice! For a long time that wasn't the case... Of course I can never go to the DC Media Makers get togethers because I work in Baltimore, but it's good the area is building up its videoblogger base! Cheers, Leslye [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
I honestly see this as a good thing - Google is just the company that can take this type of stupid suing on and win. Here's to (hopefully) much more content sharing! David On 3/13/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Deserved! The only reason it hadnt happened earlier is because in the end, the longer the infringing content was distributed on YT the better it would be for the complaintifs while they strategize on whether partnering or suing would be the ultimate decision. Sharing content is one thing. Having a platform to allow it so that you can make money (in this case, get bought out by google) is another. Not much diff than aggregators taking your content and misrepresenting it with lack of attribution and wrapped with advertisements. You shouldnt defend YT for this. And it has nothing to do with the video revolution that videobloggers have been riding since before YT even started. Sull On 13 Mar 2007 08:09:52 -0700, David King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I honestly see this as a good thing - Google is just the company that can take this type of stupid suing on and win. Here's to (hopefully) much more content sharing! David On 3/13/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
That is always an accurate point to make. But its besides the point. And You better believe EVERY content company will be entering the net with VOD services. Whether it be on Joost or one of the other upcoming VideoOnDemand services that wil be unleashed this year. TV is coming to the net. And not as 320x240 youtube encodes. sull On 13 Mar 2007 09:01:23 -0700, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows, we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online. If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed online? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
If the viewers are there, the networks will come. There are still very, very large questions regarding how advertising is going to work. This will require them to make huge changes in their ad sales staffs, etc. Until then, litigation appears to be their answer - we all know that story, aka the music industry. That is always an accurate point to make. But its besides the point. And You better believe EVERY content company will be entering the net with VOD services. Whether it be on Joost or one of the other upcoming VideoOnDemand services that wil be unleashed this year. TV is coming to the net. And not as 320x240 youtube encodes. sull On 13 Mar 2007 09:01:23 -0700, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than just a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional programming model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get video on demand, on the internet a la YouTube etc. VOD might even become law at some point. I unsubscribed from cable tv last April (just get internet) because i am fedup with the force feeding of crap i dont want. So netflix fills in the void and I'm also very interested in any new VOD service like Joost etc which i can also take advantage of. Anyway On 13 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0700, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows, we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online. If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed online? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
well the viewers are already here... on the net. so the content would be coming to the viewers just as much or more so than the viewers coming to the content... i think channels on the net will eventually work like channels on TV. the idea of one BIG site like a youtube to contain all content channels wont happen. doesnt need to. at one point, their was talk about a youtube competitor coming out by a joint effort from various MSM companies, which i saw as simply stupid i dont know what the latest is on that - maybe someone could chime in. but the point is, its unnecesssary. If i am into a show, and its avail on the net now i'll go to it and watch it. I might even be on my couch looking at my TV as a surf on over to that site/channel. Or i might be using Joost. or both. advertising. doesnt have to be much different than on TV. ads can be built right into a video (ideal for mobile device distribs) or controlled within the VOD environment like Joost... which display pre,mid,post sponsor bumps (eventually i assume you would see full video commercials). sull On 3/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the viewers are there, the networks will come. There are still very, very large questions regarding how advertising is going to work. This will require them to make huge changes in their ad sales staffs, etc. Until then, litigation appears to be their answer - we all know that story, aka the music industry. That is always an accurate point to make. But its besides the point. And You better believe EVERY content company will be entering the net with VOD services. Whether it be on Joost or one of the other upcoming VideoOnDemand services that wil be unleashed this year. TV is coming to the net. And not as 320x240 youtube encodes. sull On 13 Mar 2007 09:01:23 -0700, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]spcbrass%40gmail.com wrote: Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Sports are helping keep big cable/sat companies afloat I think. If it weren't for DirecTV's awesome sports packages like Sunday Ticket and the NCAA College Hoops package, TV would be completely irrelevant for me. I'm on Blockbuster's movie thing (great), and I can watch all the [adult swim] I want on their website. I'd miss out on shows like South Park and Good Eats, but I'm sure I could find those online too. I don't see sports moving to the net anytime soon though, because of the sheer amount of live production work it takes to make a successful broadcast. On 3/13/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than just a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional programming model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get video on demand, on the internet a la YouTube etc. VOD might even become law at some point. I unsubscribed from cable tv last April (just get internet) because i am fedup with the force feeding of crap i dont want. So netflix fills in the void and I'm also very interested in any new VOD service like Joost etc which i can also take advantage of. Anyway On 13 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0700, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows, we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online. If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed online? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Well personaly I don't think all traditional TV sucks but I do agree the model is changing. I got a DVR just over a month ago and I has transformed how I watch TV. I rarely watch a show when it is scheduled, I watch when I want, how I want and in glorious HDyes there are some shows that suck, but I don't have to watch them. and actually I think the bigger problem with TV and programing and pricing etc, is the outragious fees being extorted by some companies for the right of cable to broadcast there shows. These exclusive contracts like the NFL has, and what MLB is doing right now is hurting consumers more than the average person realizes. that is what has to stopIMO Soon free TV will be a thing of the past. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than just a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional programming model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get video on demand, on the internet a la YouTube etc. VOD might even become law at some point. I unsubscribed from cable tv last April (just get internet) because i am fedup with the force feeding of crap i dont want. So netflix fills in the void and I'm also very interested in any new VOD service like Joost etc which i can also take advantage of. Anyway On 13 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0700, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows, we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online. If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed online? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project)
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
The sports packages are more of a problem than a help. IMO, they are some of the prime reasons for the rate hikes that are going on, that and all these exclusive contracts which limit YOUR choice and force you to pay out the nose. I love sports as much as the next guy but what is happening is outragious, again IMO Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sports are helping keep big cable/sat companies afloat I think. If it weren't for DirecTV's awesome sports packages like Sunday Ticket and the NCAA College Hoops package, TV would be completely irrelevant for me. I'm on Blockbuster's movie thing (great), and I can watch all the [adult swim] I want on their website. I'd miss out on shows like South Park and Good Eats, but I'm sure I could find those online too. I don't see sports moving to the net anytime soon though, because of the sheer amount of live production work it takes to make a successful broadcast. On 3/13/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than just a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional programming model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get video on demand, on the internet a la YouTube etc. VOD might even become law at some point. I unsubscribed from cable tv last April (just get internet) because i am fedup with the force feeding of crap i dont want. So netflix fills in the void and I'm also very interested in any new VOD service like Joost etc which i can also take advantage of. Anyway On 13 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0700, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows, we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online. If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed online? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video- sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S.
[videoblogging] Re: Hi folks, I'm new here!
Well at least I had enough sense to make the jump to Blip.TV early before I invested too much time and energy into YouTube! Thanks for the welcome! See you around! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A former YouTube denizen come over to Blip.tv and the vlogosphere. Whoot! Welcome. Jan On 3/13/07, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My name is Shawn Carpenter and I have been vlogging now for about 3 weeks. In those 3 weeks I have managed to put up 5 videos and today I posted my first mobile video. I decided to post all of my work over on Blip.tv. You can view my show here http://loudtourtv.blip.tv/ or subscribe to my feed here http://feeds.feedburner.com/LOUDTourTV The videos also run in conjunction with my blog http://spcbrass.blogspot.com I look forward to more vlogging and seeing what you guys in the community have to offer! Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: video Blogging Week 2007
Not a bad idea, and it shouldn't have to be restricted to one day, since Videoblogging Week is showcased year-round. Be interesting to see how many videos we get... H. On 10 Mar 2007 14:29:43 -0800, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The video relay idea could work - would just need a volunteer in each major area. Maybe for those that aren't near those areas - we could have a 1-day delay if they could FedEx to the voluteer nearest them. A HaveMoneyWillVLog fund for paying for the FedEx shipments? -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Find great videoblogs and podcasts. blog: http://www.mefeedia.com/blog --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Harold Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reading all these posts in one fell swoop, I've the idea to come up with something -- together, that is -- that will help those that find it difficult to find the time or energy or what to participate. Videoblogging Week seems to be all about helping vloggers and would-be vloggers get going, by encouraging them (us) to post anything at all, once a day for a week. I agree with Ryanne: It's a challenge, a pain in the rump (but a good one), but one I look forward to. I participated last year and had a blast. Still: It can be a bit *too* challenging for *everyone*, so I propose we come up with a way to assist those who desire to participate but just can't come up with the time to encode their videos and upload them, especially if they haven't much experience in these tasks in the first place. Why don't we have some of those Flash videoconference sessions that week, as well? Like one every day or something, in order to enable those who want to participate to say hello on camera; they'll be recorded, of course, and the resulting video will be available online. I feel that those Flash sessions can help a person break through the shyness of being on camera (if one makes it to the videoconference, that is). Now, for those without a webcam or camcorder that can be used for this, I propose we come up with something else. Anyone have any ideas? Remember, this is intended to make it as easy as possible for those without the time or energy to post the video. Perhaps a video relay? Everyone record their video and then hand it off to someone locally who has the time (and energy) to encode/edit/upload/vlog the video? Other ideas welcome and appreciated... Harold On 3/10/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yeah i seem to always show at least 2 videos that have been made during VB weeks during presentations. yesterday at our SXSW panel (which was awesome!!! thanks to all the vloggers who came!!) we showed 2 from the 2nd vb week. very cool. people really get down to it. the nitty gritty. from austin, -ry On 09 Mar 2007 08:36:11 -0800, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED]joshleo% 40gmail.com wrote: amen, it is like purging video out of you... squeezing creativity out is when you get the really good stuff... some of my favorite videos were made durig VBWeek last year On 3/9/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED]ryanne.hodson% 40gmail.com ryanne.hodson%40gmail.com wrote: that's cool randy you don't have to do anything... participate if you want to. i like to think of videoblogging week as a total pain in the ass. the good kind. the challenging kind. ouch! -ryanne On 3/8/07, humancloner1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED]rhwicker% 40optonline.net rhwicker%40optonline.net rhwicker%40optonline.net wrote: I don't want to sound a sour note here. However, I think the idea of a video per day during videoblogging week has a serious flaw. I participated a year or two ago.Being retired and having time on my hands enabled me to get several videos ready before the week started. Yes, I posted seven videos in seven days on the theme of vblogging dangerously. Actually, some of the videos I posted I've seriously considered taking down. At least one has been eliminated by YouTube for containing inappropriate material. I would suggest that the them for VlogWeek 2007 be My Best Vlogs. That would be a great opportunity for those of us who have 150 or more vlogs on the Internet to pick the 7 best we've done. I think that would make for a better testimonial to the collectivre power of vlogging than having people churing out a vlog a day, even a 30 second nothing vlog. Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Hoboken, NJ 201-656-3280 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%
Re: [videoblogging] Re: video Blogging Week 2007
You're missing the point, Jen. Trying to work out how to get those who *aren't* technically (yet) inclined to get their videos to us for Videoblogging Week...You know, the ones who only know how to shoot video, but don't yet know how to get the footage captured (not to mentioned uploaded to something like SpinXpress). H. On 10 Mar 2007 22:53:34 -0800, Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FedEx??? YUK! SpinXpress it instead. Collaborate, share the work load -- create a team of people in different places to _together_ make one video a day -- and use SpinXpress to share the source media and ideas via a wiki. Who has time for FedEx, and why spend HaveMoneyWillVlog money on something that is free instead Go get spinxpress if you don't have it already. http;//spinxpress.som (from Austin) - Jen __ Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jensimmons.com http://milkweedmediadesign.com On Mar 10, 2007, at 5:29 pm, Frank Sinton wrote: The video relay idea could work - would just need a volunteer in each major area. Maybe for those that aren't near those areas - we could have a 1-day delay if they could FedEx to the voluteer nearest them. A HaveMoneyWillVLog fund for paying for the FedEx shipments? -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Find great videoblogs and podcasts. blog: http://www.mefeedia.com/blog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
That and the fact that when you deploy citizen entertainment in your life, you actually get to hang out with your celebrity heroes in person. Why would I not want that kind of excitement in my life? I don't want to hang out with those capable of attracting millions, either. Those that attract a small, select following are what interest me. It's more efficient to get more bang for my time-buck. I want to play with those who inspire and move me to action. Television's done nothing toward action but rather inaction. Yet. Jan On 3/13/07, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes this is what I meant when I was talking about the poor quality of television programming. This is why I spend most of my time in front of the computer all day. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than just a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional programming model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get video on demand, on the internet a la YouTube etc. VOD might even become law at some point. I unsubscribed from cable tv last April (just get internet) because i am fedup with the force feeding of crap i dont want. So netflix fills in the void and I'm also very interested in any new VOD service like Joost etc which i can also take advantage of. Anyway On 13 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0700, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows, we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online. If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed online? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: video Blogging Week 2007
Ah, but there may be MANY points, neh? Many, many points. Long-tail points. Jan On 3/13/07, Harold Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're missing the point, Jen. Trying to work out how to get those who *aren't* technically (yet) inclined to get their videos to us for Videoblogging Week...You know, the ones who only know how to shoot video, but don't yet know how to get the footage captured (not to mentioned uploaded to something like SpinXpress). H. On 10 Mar 2007 22:53:34 -0800, Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FedEx??? YUK! SpinXpress it instead. Collaborate, share the work load -- create a team of people in different places to _together_ make one video a day -- and use SpinXpress to share the source media and ideas via a wiki. Who has time for FedEx, and why spend HaveMoneyWillVlog money on something that is free instead Go get spinxpress if you don't have it already. http;//spinxpress.som (from Austin) - Jen __ Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jensimmons.com http://milkweedmediadesign.com On Mar 10, 2007, at 5:29 pm, Frank Sinton wrote: The video relay idea could work - would just need a volunteer in each major area. Maybe for those that aren't near those areas - we could have a 1-day delay if they could FedEx to the voluteer nearest them. A HaveMoneyWillVLog fund for paying for the FedEx shipments? -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Find great videoblogs and podcasts. blog: http://www.mefeedia.com/blog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Fwd: Videoblogging Week 2007
Forwarding the message SpinXpress generated to invite all of you along for the distributed production ride - great idea Jen. Jan -- Forwarded message -- Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:51:29 -0800 Subject: Videoblogging Week 2007 To: jannie.jan at gmail.com jannie.jan at gmail dot com has sent you an invitation to share content via SpinXpress2. SpinXpress2 is a new technology that lets you work, person to person, securely, via the Net. You can exchange files, content, or synchronize forms and data. You may retrieve files by downloading them via your web browser by clicking on the following button [image: Access Files]https://spinxpress2.directory.spin.outhink.com:443/servlet/CRS?PID=8a2d787a2bfe3890f4c3598f38a9fe8ab3a470cfURI=%2Fservlet%2Fwcspace=3ccac5032763ef53cbdecfdef28836a58f4a232drecipient=7E93DC8B79A57DC419696CDB680594227BDB0B2C Alternatively you may launch your SpinXpress2 Client and retrieve the files there. If you do not have SpinXpress2, you may get it at http://www.spinxpress.com. http://www.spinxpress.com -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: video Blogging Week 2007
Just created a Videoblogging Week 2007 Spin group and sent an email to this list, inviting any and every to try it out. Here's the tinyURL to the group's browser interface: *http://tinyurl.com/2mz5ds Am curious how Spin will act with an email list. Perhaps since Spin doesn't belong to the group it won't go through. Feel free to email me the email addy you'd like to use for an invitation (if necessary). I wanna practice some radical editing skilz on somebody's video, yo. Jan [who's really psyched with the idea of distributed production for VB Week 2007] * On 3/11/07, Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FedEx??? YUK! SpinXpress it instead. Collaborate, share the work load -- create a team of people in different places to _together_ make one video a day -- and use SpinXpress to share the source media and ideas via a wiki. Who has time for FedEx, and why spend HaveMoneyWillVlog money on something that is free instead Go get spinxpress if you don't have it already. http;//spinxpress.som (from Austin) - Jen __ Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jensimmons.com http://milkweedmediadesign.com On Mar 10, 2007, at 5:29 pm, Frank Sinton wrote: The video relay idea could work - would just need a volunteer in each major area. Maybe for those that aren't near those areas - we could have a 1-day delay if they could FedEx to the voluteer nearest them. A HaveMoneyWillVLog fund for paying for the FedEx shipments? -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Find great videoblogs and podcasts. blog: http://www.mefeedia.com/blog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Viacom's a stupid organization. They'll lose big time. I thnk Google should just buy them and fire Summer Redstone. Z --- Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink QA. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545367
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
The turn on, tune in, and put your feet on the ottoman model of television marketing has been in decline since the invention of the first remote control. Network loyalty has repeatedly been shown to be a function largely of limiting viewer choice. The final nail in the coffin of such a model came when theme primetime blocks finally devolved on the major networks some years ago. Programming coherence is at an all-time low as Cartoon Network picks up live action shows and SciFi picks up pro wrestling. The shows have always been all that mattered, and increasing viewer choice only creates increasing amounts of mercenary behavior where pairing viewers with shows is concerned. VOD is just the ultimate realization of that. Content providers, once they can figure out the business model for it, will leap on this like nothing before. Until then, content providers know they can't keep people loyal based on their content, so they find themselves losing in so many directions, and they fight for what they have left. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than just a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional programming model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get video on demand, on the internet a la YouTube etc. VOD might even become law at some point. I unsubscribed from cable tv last April (just get internet) because i am fedup with the force feeding of crap i dont want. So netflix fills in the void and I'm also very interested in any new VOD service like Joost etc which i can also take advantage of. Anyway On 13 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0700, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows, we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online. If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed online? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
I wouldn't be so sure. As a lacrosse fan, the best way for me to see the games I want is via the Internet. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime I don't see sports moving to the net anytime soon though, because of the sheer amount of live production work it takes to make a successful broadcast. On 3/13/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than just a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional programming model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get video on demand, on the internet a la YouTube etc. VOD might even become law at some point. I unsubscribed from cable tv last April (just get internet) because i am fedup with the force feeding of crap i dont want. So netflix fills in the void and I'm also very interested in any new VOD service like Joost etc which i can also take advantage of. Anyway On 13 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0700, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows, we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online. If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed online? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look internally at who is choosing the programming? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Well Viacom have said: There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in the process. This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity. They have a point, a point which is also central to any battlecries on this group when sites have not honoured vloggers creative commons or copyright licenses. Unlike Viacom I would not say that youtube are destroying value, they are adding value but in a way thats beyond the reach of the infringed creators/owners of the content, so I suppose as far as Viacom are concerned this damages the value of Viacoms own service. Im reasonably sure most hosting services do not want to set a precedent by being highly pro-active in policing for copyrighted content. They want to leave that the the DMCA system where the rights holder has to complain, because if they havent got a technological solution to do it properly then it will cost them a lot of human labour. The other factor is if course whether copyrighted clips that youtube has no rights to, have been a central part of their business plan and userbase. Id sure love to know what percentrage of youtube video views fall into this category, as opposed to all the content that is now officially licenced (eg BBC) or created by independent people (eg vlogs). Anybody got any idea how long that youtube testtube stuff has been available? They have a facility where people can replace their unlicensed music in the audio track of your video, with music that youtube is officially allowed to have on their site. I havent looked at the available tracklist, but at least there is now a clear way that people could do sing along/dance along videos to commercial music and know that they arent being naughty. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Zenophon Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Viacom's a stupid organization. They'll lose big time. I thnk Google should just buy them and fire Summer Redstone. Z --- Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down. In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Viacom said YouTube's business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them. Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink QA. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545367
[videoblogging] how to do stop motion
I know this has been dicussed before and I know how to do it with a video camera, but I think that there is a way to take digital still and then combine them to create stop motion as well. Is that correct? and if so could someone please point me into the right direction? I am on a PC not a mac. Thanks! Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] Re: how to do stop motion
Theres loads of dedicated software to do that, this list is a starting point, some of its freeware: http://www.stopmotionworks.com/stopmosoftwr.htm Alternatively some video editing packages probably have a feature to import pictures. For this to be a nice solution they need to enable you to select a whole directory of pics, read them in the right order, and for you to specify how many videof rames of time each picture takes up. What sort of framerates are people finding acceptable for this sort of thing? As even a small increase in actual framerate will vastly increase the time it takes you to do the animation in the first place, but will obviously look smoother. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know this has been dicussed before and I know how to do it with a video camera, but I think that there is a way to take digital still and then combine them to create stop motion as well. Is that correct? and if so could someone please point me into the right direction? I am on a PC not a mac. Thanks! Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
Re: [videoblogging] how to do stop motion
Funny you mention stopmotion animation as I just finished adding it to the San Francisco SuperHappyVlogHouse page... http://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com What editing software do you use? PC or Mac? With stills, just import them into your editor of choice and lower the length of each pic in your slide show...which is really what you are making. A sped up slide show. For mac, I use iStopMotion, which is a really easy program to make animations. I made a video for webshots about stopmotions. You can see it here: http://webshots.com/is/spotlight Its not really a tutorial, but kinda says what I've already written here. Good luck! They are not hard to make, just very time-consumming.. like most good things are:) Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://mouthfulshow.com http://webshots.com/is/spotlight http://hatfactory.net http://evilvlog.com On 3/13/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know this has been dicussed before and I know how to do it with a video camera, but I think that there is a way to take digital still and then combine them to create stop motion as well. Is that correct? and if so could someone please point me into the right direction? I am on a PC not a mac. Thanks! Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] Re: Collaboration again
Who was charging to encode in DivX? Jim V DivX, Inc. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I was looking for. I decided on the hi-quality single bit h.264. (Are they still charging content creators to encode using DivX?) Any other opinions on how to share hi-quality video? Thanks, Markus! Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Mar 12, 2007, at 8:29 PM, Markus Sandy wrote: On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Ron Watson wrote: I am busy checking out the app and the site. Can't seem to find information on filetypes and cross platform compatibility. all file types are supported. installers availabel for osx and windows. join spinxpress yahoo group if you want to try alpha linux install. Anyone have any thoughts on what file types to use for maximum compatibility. you may find this useful http://media-collaboration.pbwiki.com/VideoWorkflow also, http://aliveinbaghdad.pbwiki.com/AIB%20episode%20format and http://swajana.pbwiki.com/Documentation http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: how to do stop motion
I know you can do this for free on a PC with Windows Movie Maker. Here are two short experiments I did last year: http://davidleeking.com/etc/2006/07/ball-and-hand-another-animation-test.html and http://davidleeking.com/etc/2006/07/testing-stop-motion-animation.html Both used Windows Movie Maker - for the images, I just took them with a cheapo web cam, then dropped them in, in order, on the movie's timeline. And somewhere, there was a way to make each image about 1 10th of a sec or so - so the animation could happen (I think I googled it to figure it out). Hope this helps! David On 13 Mar 2007 12:11:56 -0700, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Theres loads of dedicated software to do that, this list is a starting point, some of its freeware: http://www.stopmotionworks.com/stopmosoftwr.htm Alternatively some video editing packages probably have a feature to import pictures. For this to be a nice solution they need to enable you to select a whole directory of pics, read them in the right order, and for you to specify how many videof rames of time each picture takes up. What sort of framerates are people finding acceptable for this sort of thing? As even a small increase in actual framerate will vastly increase the time it takes you to do the animation in the first place, but will obviously look smoother. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know this has been dicussed before and I know how to do it with a video camera, but I think that there is a way to take digital still and then combine them to create stop motion as well. Is that correct? and if so could someone please point me into the right direction? I am on a PC not a mac. Thanks! Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: how to do stop motion
I'm on a PC and I use Sony Vegas (the lite version) for my video editing, I've done a crude version of it but never any great detail And time, I never have it but that's never stopped me! Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny you mention stopmotion animation as I just finished adding it to the San Francisco SuperHappyVlogHouse page... http://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com What editing software do you use? PC or Mac? With stills, just import them into your editor of choice and lower the length of each pic in your slide show...which is really what you are making. A sped up slide show. For mac, I use iStopMotion, which is a really easy program to make animations. I made a video for webshots about stopmotions. You can see it here: http://webshots.com/is/spotlight Its not really a tutorial, but kinda says what I've already written here. Good luck! They are not hard to make, just very time-consumming.. like most good things are:) Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://mouthfulshow.com http://webshots.com/is/spotlight http://hatfactory.net http://evilvlog.com On 3/13/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know this has been dicussed before and I know how to do it with a video camera, but I think that there is a way to take digital still and then combine them to create stop motion as well. Is that correct? and if so could someone please point me into the right direction? I am on a PC not a mac. Thanks! Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Viacom have said: There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in the process. This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity. They have a point, a point which is also central to any battlecries on this group when sites have not honoured vloggers creative commons or copyright licenses. That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same argument that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to aggregate our content sans repercussion. The fact that Viacom already got paid for the content isn't relevant. They already got their advertising money when they aired the shows originally. That doesn't make the footage any less theirs or any more available for YouTube to allow others to aggregate and collect page views and subscriptions by way of piracy instead of content creation. Unlike Viacom I would not say that youtube are destroying value, they are adding value but in a way thats beyond the reach of the infringed creators/owners of the content, so I suppose as far as Viacom are concerned this damages the value of Viacoms own service. YouTube is _adding_ value because they are showing these videos to people that would never have seen them. If you don't have cable television or your carrier doesn't have the right channel, you can't see the Dave Chappelle show. You can watch it on YouTube anywhere in the world. The problem is that the added value is mostly displaced. The show gains more fans, but the show doesn't get any more hits. The channel doesn't get any more hits. The advertisers don't get any more recognition, since their ads aren't included in the uploaded clip. The producers, directors, etc. aren't credited because the credits at the end of the 30 minute show aren't seen. Nobody new subscribes to the Dave Chappelle Channel. New subscribers add I_pirated_Dave_Chappelle's_Show, because they want to be there when the next free clip drops. That's why it's a big deal now that Viacom's going to be on Joost. They don't want the market value of the clips they're adding to Joost to be diluted by being simulcast on YouTube. Even if they don't win as far as clips that have already been posted and viewed, they're setting precedent that notice has been served if their future Joost content starts showing up on YouTube. -- Bill C. http://TheLab.blip.tv http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/2007/03/viacom_sues_youtube.html Im reasonably sure most hosting services do not want to set a precedent by being highly pro-active in policing for copyrighted content. They want to leave that the the DMCA system where the rights holder has to complain, because if they havent got a technological solution to do it properly then it will cost them a lot of human labour. The other factor is if course whether copyrighted clips that youtube has no rights to, have been a central part of their business plan and userbase. Id sure love to know what percentrage of youtube video views fall into this category, as opposed to all the content that is now officially licenced (eg BBC) or created by independent people (eg vlogs). Anybody got any idea how long that youtube testtube stuff has been available? They have a facility where people can replace their unlicensed music in the audio track of your video, with music that youtube is officially allowed to have on their site. I havent looked at the available tracklist, but at least there is now a clear way that people could do sing along/dance along videos to commercial music and know that they arent being naughty. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Zenophon Abraham thisiswar3005@ wrote: Viacom's a stupid organization. They'll lose big time. I thnk Google should just buy them and fire Summer Redstone. Z --- Heath heathparks@ wrote: Check it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real. Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom saying that they are going to create a site where people can leagaly mash up their work...Ah...corprate politics at it's finest. NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for
Re: [videoblogging] how to do stop motion
http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/ That is the single best resource for stopmotion online. The Handbook section is great for starting out, and the Message Board section is great when you run into problems and need answers. My favorite pc stopmo framegrabber: http://www.stopmotionpro.com/ On 3/13/07, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny you mention stopmotion animation as I just finished adding it to the San Francisco SuperHappyVlogHouse page... http://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com What editing software do you use? PC or Mac? With stills, just import them into your editor of choice and lower the length of each pic in your slide show...which is really what you are making. A sped up slide show. For mac, I use iStopMotion, which is a really easy program to make animations. I made a video for webshots about stopmotions. You can see it here: http://webshots.com/is/spotlight Its not really a tutorial, but kinda says what I've already written here. Good luck! They are not hard to make, just very time-consumming.. like most good things are:) Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://mouthfulshow.com http://webshots.com/is/spotlight http://hatfactory.net http://evilvlog.com On 3/13/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know this has been dicussed before and I know how to do it with a video camera, but I think that there is a way to take digital still and then combine them to create stop motion as well. Is that correct? and if so could someone please point me into the right direction? I am on a PC not a mac. Thanks! Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Collaboration again
IIRC, DivX was a $500 purchase if you wanted to encode video using DivX. Of course that was around 2000-2002 or so, and it totally could have been less money, but I remember wanting to use it, but not wanting to pay so much to do so legally. $19.99 is a much better price. Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:24 PM, JV wrote: Who was charging to encode in DivX? Jim V DivX, Inc. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I was looking for. I decided on the hi-quality single bit h.264. (Are they still charging content creators to encode using DivX?) Any other opinions on how to share hi-quality video? Thanks, Markus! Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Mar 12, 2007, at 8:29 PM, Markus Sandy wrote: On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Ron Watson wrote: I am busy checking out the app and the site. Can't seem to find information on filetypes and cross platform compatibility. all file types are supported. installers availabel for osx and windows. join spinxpress yahoo group if you want to try alpha linux install. Anyone have any thoughts on what file types to use for maximum compatibility. you may find this useful http://media-collaboration.pbwiki.com/VideoWorkflow also, http://aliveinbaghdad.pbwiki.com/AIB%20episode%20format and http://swajana.pbwiki.com/Documentation http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the users are. Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once they have been notified, that is a fact. Now does it stop people from uploading clips? Of course not. That is why they (big media) is fighting so hard for DRM, which is another story for another day. YT may have it's fault but I have to say that they have been extremely proactive in trying to secure content and partner with studios. My guess is that they money Viacom wanted up front was so outragous the Google balked and now they are suing them. That is why I said it will only get worse. the sums that they are asking for effectly guarentees that companies like YT can not make a profit from advertising, because what they would have to charge in turn for said advertising no one could afford. The whole attitude of the RIAA and these media companies right now is, OK, we realize that people are going to pirate our stuff so to make up for it, you need to give us X amount of dollars for the privlage of showing our stuff AND Y sum to make up for those nasty pirates. They are forceing these start ups to assume the risk, for their own failing.it's silly.but it will happen. And that will be bad for all of us. Look at how much you spend each month on re-occuring bills right now, that are not directly related to your living expenses... phone bill, cell bill, cable bill, a fee for this, a fee for thatthink about it. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same argument that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to aggregate our content sans repercussion.
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Well yes, using the comparison to video services that re-show vloggers stuff without honouring the license, youtube would be comparable to a site where the users submitted peoples rss feeds, as opposed to the site themselves deliberately going out and selecting content to put on their site without having the right. Im not totally clued up on DMCA but I think it also affects how 'reasonable' viacoms demands will be seen as. If viacom send youtube a list of the URLs of every piece of content that infringes their rights, then I think youtube have to act. If viacom demand that youtube work out what the offending content is, and come up with a system to prevent such content ever getting uploaded again, then thats different and may be part of any interesting precedent this case could set, if it gets that far. DRM wont save viacom or youtube from the horrors of illicit user uploads, because most of that content is getting ripped onto computer from sources that are insecure, such as TV or DVD. OK maybe if none of the new future 'secure' systems get hacked in a huge way like the DVD protection scheme was, then eventually they could secure their stuff at the source, but as we've seen a lot of people question whether a DRM war is any more winnable for them than the war on drugs. Dont understand your point about the bills. Someones gotta pay for real services that use resources. And the things you mentioned are living expenses, they are a part of this lifestyle and this life. They arent essentials like food or warmth, but they feel pretty 'essential' to a lot of people. We live the life of kings queens in the past, in terms of annemities, but mostly we have to do a lot more hard work. Har har the early promises of the modern electric home and all its gadgets, designed to save time to give people more leisure time. Then the rise of gadgets designed to occupy that time. And the internet can be a strange mix of both work and leisure, almost simultaneously. But ooh, do these things really free us? Maybe some of that time and energy that the functional home gadgets saved is now spent at work. Does the internet allow ou to espeace your desk, or does it make you bring your work home with you and spend even longer on it? Such are the paradoxes of our age, I wonder what the luddites would make of it all. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the users are. Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once they have been notified, that is a fact. Now does it stop people from uploading clips? Of course not. That is why they (big media) is fighting so hard for DRM, which is another story for another day. YT may have it's fault but I have to say that they have been extremely proactive in trying to secure content and partner with studios. My guess is that they money Viacom wanted up front was so outragous the Google balked and now they are suing them. That is why I said it will only get worse. the sums that they are asking for effectly guarentees that companies like YT can not make a profit from advertising, because what they would have to charge in turn for said advertising no one could afford. The whole attitude of the RIAA and these media companies right now is, OK, we realize that people are going to pirate our stuff so to make up for it, you need to give us X amount of dollars for the privlage of showing our stuff AND Y sum to make up for those nasty pirates. They are forceing these start ups to assume the risk, for their own failing.it's silly.but it will happen. And that will be bad for all of us. Look at how much you spend each month on re-occuring bills right now, that are not directly related to your living expenses... phone bill, cell bill, cable bill, a fee for this, a fee for thatthink about it. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same argument that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to aggregate our content sans repercussion.
[videoblogging] Re: Collaboration again
The $20 is the price for the software div pro, wheras I think the $500 dollars refers to the license to distribute div-encoded content that divx sells to commercial users. I seem to remember vaguely ranting about this stuff, and questioning whether it would affect vloggers, ages ago. I thought I recalled a satisfactory outcome but now I cant remember what it is. Certainly stage6, divx's video hosting service, adds a new dimension. But the pages about the $500 and other options are still live and linked to: http://www.divx.com/company/partner/licensing.php There's a divx indie programme which is free, has various conditions, needs to be renewed annually: http://www.divx.com/company/partner/indies/ Anyway as that stuff is broadly what I remembered reading and talking about a year or so ago(?), I dont know if nothing has changed on that front, whether there were clarifications given that this wouldnt affect us, or whether stage6 is deemed to be an alternative way round this issue if the others options seem unpalatable. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IIRC, DivX was a $500 purchase if you wanted to encode video using DivX. Of course that was around 2000-2002 or so, and it totally could have been less money, but I remember wanting to use it, but not wanting to pay so much to do so legally. $19.99 is a much better price. Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:24 PM, JV wrote: Who was charging to encode in DivX? Jim V DivX, Inc. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: That's what I was looking for. I decided on the hi-quality single bit h.264. (Are they still charging content creators to encode using DivX?) Any other opinions on how to share hi-quality video? Thanks, Markus! Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Mar 12, 2007, at 8:29 PM, Markus Sandy wrote: On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Ron Watson wrote: I am busy checking out the app and the site. Can't seem to find information on filetypes and cross platform compatibility. all file types are supported. installers availabel for osx and windows. join spinxpress yahoo group if you want to try alpha linux install. Anyone have any thoughts on what file types to use for maximum compatibility. you may find this useful http://media-collaboration.pbwiki.com/VideoWorkflow also, http://aliveinbaghdad.pbwiki.com/AIB%20episode%20format and http://swajana.pbwiki.com/Documentation http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Collaboration again
We have had an open offer of not only free encoding license vor video, but also covering mp3 encoding for quite a while now. I've been here since 2002. Non commercial has always been free. Anyway, hit me up if you have any DivX questions or want more info about free licensing. Jim V DivX, Inc. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IIRC, DivX was a $500 purchase if you wanted to encode video using DivX. Of course that was around 2000-2002 or so, and it totally could have been less money, but I remember wanting to use it, but not wanting to pay so much to do so legally. $19.99 is a much better price. Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:24 PM, JV wrote: Who was charging to encode in DivX? Jim V DivX, Inc. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: That's what I was looking for. I decided on the hi-quality single bit h.264. (Are they still charging content creators to encode using DivX?) Any other opinions on how to share hi-quality video? Thanks, Markus! Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Mar 12, 2007, at 8:29 PM, Markus Sandy wrote: On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Ron Watson wrote: I am busy checking out the app and the site. Can't seem to find information on filetypes and cross platform compatibility. all file types are supported. installers availabel for osx and windows. join spinxpress yahoo group if you want to try alpha linux install. Anyone have any thoughts on what file types to use for maximum compatibility. you may find this useful http://media-collaboration.pbwiki.com/VideoWorkflow also, http://aliveinbaghdad.pbwiki.com/AIB%20episode%20format and http://swajana.pbwiki.com/Documentation http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline... BROADCAST YOURSELF. Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated Content. But they realized, or maybe knew all along, that a more lucrative goal would be to become TV for the net. And as the inevitable happened... pirated shows being uploaded, they were fine with it and the loads of traffic it brought them. It might not be the case now but at one point these pirated shows were regularly featured on their front page. So if they really want to avoid the problem, they would need to do things like curating/moderating (could be crowdsourced), banning users, limiting upload sizes and relying more on webcam recordings etc... But they dont want to only be the longtail king. They want that juicy torso content be they want that MSM head too. Directors? MSM deals? Fact is, they got lucky but they also took advantage of the sudden boom of this online video revolution and enjoyed the ride to being the top trafficked video site. This has nothing to do with the open media revolution. This is the open pirate video revolution. And it doesnt last forever. On 13 Mar 2007 13:16:20 -0700, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the users are. Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once they have been notified, that is a fact. Now does it stop people from uploading clips? Of course not. That is why they (big media) is fighting so hard for DRM, which is another story for another day. YT may have it's fault but I have to say that they have been extremely proactive in trying to secure content and partner with studios. My guess is that they money Viacom wanted up front was so outragous the Google balked and now they are suing them. That is why I said it will only get worse. the sums that they are asking for effectly guarentees that companies like YT can not make a profit from advertising, because what they would have to charge in turn for said advertising no one could afford. The whole attitude of the RIAA and these media companies right now is, OK, we realize that people are going to pirate our stuff so to make up for it, you need to give us X amount of dollars for the privlage of showing our stuff AND Y sum to make up for those nasty pirates. They are forceing these start ups to assume the risk, for their own failing.it's silly.but it will happen. And that will be bad for all of us. Look at how much you spend each month on re-occuring bills right now, that are not directly related to your living expenses... phone bill, cell bill, cable bill, a fee for this, a fee for thatthink about it. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same argument that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to aggregate our content sans repercussion. -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline... BROADCAST YOURSELF. Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated Content. Absolutely. But they realized, or maybe knew all along, that a more lucrative goal would be to become TV for the net. And as the inevitable happened... pirated shows being uploaded, they were fine with it and the loads of traffic it brought them. That's my point. That's not YouTube. That's ThemTube or TheirTube or OwnedBySomeoneElseTube. It seems that YouTube got 'lucky' and came up with a TOS that would force major corporations to sue kids on skateboards that have no earning potential but the very least internet literacy to be able to copy a video from one location and repost it in another location. It's a sweet deal. It's not YouTube's fault that the pirated videos are on the site. The only people liable for the videos being there are broke penniless. Even if Viacom wanted to sue, they had to issue Cease Desist orders (I believe) which would allow the offender time to remove the material or face the consequences. I had an interesting situation happen to me. A dance group performed at a festival. The dance group was given two feeds from two different cameras of their performance. Those tapes and others were given to me and I edited them together and added highlight video from other performances that the group did. It was CLEARLY my own work, not only because nobody edited the raw footage in the same way I did, but because I added so many other performance clips. The video was on YT for months, then, all of a sudden, I get this message that my video was removed. Nobody asked me where I got the footage. Nobody asked me if I had permission to use anything. I got the message, and when I checked, the video was no longer playable. If some idiot who knows nothing about the genesis of a project or about who gave tapes to whom, or who had permission to do what with footage of their own dance group's performance can petition YouTube to take my video down, and it disappears with ZERO INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS, then YouTube could clearly have found AL the music videos and everything else owned by Viacom and not only removed those videos but deleted the offending members' accounts. There's no reason why this shouldn't have been done when they initially requested it, so I agree with you that they were waiting it out to get more hits and more advertisement in and now they may just have to pay for that. It might not be the case now but at one point these pirated shows were regularly featured on their front page. So if they really want to avoid the problem, they would need to do things like curating/moderating (could be crowdsourced), banning users, limiting upload sizes and relying more on webcam recordings etc... But they dont want to only be the longtail king. They want that juicy torso content be they want that MSM head too. Directors? MSM deals? Fact is, they got lucky but they also took advantage of the sudden boom of this online video revolution and enjoyed the ride to being the top trafficked video site. This has nothing to do with the open media revolution. This is the open pirate video revolution. And it doesnt last forever. On 13 Mar 2007 13:16:20 -0700, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the users are. I see... So if I have a dog and I let that dog bite you, it's not my fault? This is ENTIRELY YouTube's fault. You don't aggregate rss feeds to YouTube... You upload video to THEIR servers. Not only that, but once you upload it, you're not suposed to be able to get it back out. The way the system's built, you're _supposed_ to have to go back to YouTube every time you want to see that clip. It's ENTIRELY the owner's fault if the dog gets off the leash... out of the house... out of the yard... down the street and bites you. Entirely. Especially when it happened before, and the owner was warned to change the situation and make sure the dog didn't get out again. Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once they have been notified, that is a fact. That's part of Viacom's beef. WHY should Viacom have to go to the expense of finding every single Shabba Ranks video and clips from The Real World or whatever the offending material is and give YouTube a list of the videos it wants removed? Meanwhile, YouTube still gets more hits and does more advertising and as you mention right now, more people upload MORE Viacom videos while we chat about it. Now does it stop people from uploading clips? Of course not. That is why they (big media) is fighting so hard for DRM, which is another story for another day. YT may have it's fault but I have to say that
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
As far as I know no site, none can completly stop pirated content from being uploaded And again I am not defending the practice of allowing such content. I personaly think a BILLION dollars is streching it a bit. And I respectfuly disagree and think this could have an impact on all media, user and produced alike. Big Media wants to control what they have and TV, movies, video is still a huge part of it and how and when and who controls that is very important to them. but that's just me... Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline... BROADCAST YOURSELF. Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated Content. But they realized, or maybe knew all along, that a more lucrative goal would be to become TV for the net. And as the inevitable happened... pirated shows being uploaded, they were fine with it and the loads of traffic it brought them. It might not be the case now but at one point these pirated shows were regularly featured on their front page. So if they really want to avoid the problem, they would need to do things like curating/moderating (could be crowdsourced), banning users, limiting upload sizes and relying more on webcam recordings etc... But they dont want to only be the longtail king. They want that juicy torso content be they want that MSM head too. Directors? MSM deals? Fact is, they got lucky but they also took advantage of the sudden boom of this online video revolution and enjoyed the ride to being the top trafficked video site. This has nothing to do with the open media revolution. This is the open pirate video revolution. And it doesnt last forever. On 13 Mar 2007 13:16:20 -0700, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the users are. Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once they have been notified, that is a fact. Now does it stop people from uploading clips? Of course not. That is why they (big media) is fighting so hard for DRM, which is another story for another day. YT may have it's fault but I have to say that they have been extremely proactive in trying to secure content and partner with studios. My guess is that they money Viacom wanted up front was so outragous the Google balked and now they are suing them. That is why I said it will only get worse. the sums that they are asking for effectly guarentees that companies like YT can not make a profit from advertising, because what they would have to charge in turn for said advertising no one could afford. The whole attitude of the RIAA and these media companies right now is, OK, we realize that people are going to pirate our stuff so to make up for it, you need to give us X amount of dollars for the privlage of showing our stuff AND Y sum to make up for those nasty pirates. They are forceing these start ups to assume the risk, for their own failing.it's silly.but it will happen. And that will be bad for all of us. Look at how much you spend each month on re-occuring bills right now, that are not directly related to your living expenses... phone bill, cell bill, cable bill, a fee for this, a fee for thatthink about it. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same argument that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to aggregate our content sans repercussion. -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
This is only going to make a pack of lawyers very happy. Viacom has the legal right to protect their property. They have now chosen to do so. This can't be disputed or parsed into anything but what it is - they own the content and want to harvest the profits from said product. I think it is a bone stupid idea. Legally yes, they have to protect their content. But I think there was another way to approach this. YouTube and by extension their users constantly told Viacom what people wanted to see or to share with friends independent of channels and schedules. It was the cheapest form of market research they ever had. YouTubers told them on a daily basis what they valued and what they wanted to see and see again. There had to be an intermediary step before they brought this suit. A long term licensing agreement? X-amount for each Viacom product accessed on YT? The other companies did it, why couldn't Viacom? It could have been as simple as identifying Viacom products make Google slap an ad at the back of the video for other programs Viacom wants to promote? It didn't have to come to this. If Viacom wants to park everything behind a gated wall so be it, they can set it up and it will be ok. They will draw some viewers in. As for Google - the attorneys had to tell them that they are running a huge risks before purchasing the company. This has to be expected. Did they do outreach to Viacom? Or do they have the war chest ready? Maybe this is how dinosaurs dance. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] net neutrality mention in St. Louis paper
Thought you guys might be interested. The St. Louis post dispatch mentioned the video I did on net neutrality. *http://tinyurl.com/2ztg6h ... Richard * -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
I'm not sure how many times I can say this but I am not defending the uploading of copyrighted worksThe way the current law reads, the DMCA (and yes the law sucks but for right now it's still the law) the way the law reads is if they take down the material once they are notified they are following the law. And as I stated a minute ago in another thread of know of no company or software that can completly stop copyrighted material from being uploaded. Do it on the front end? How big a staff would you need for that? You couldn't do it. That is why the law reads the way it does. It provides somewhat of a safe harbor to allow you to operate legitimatiley. You mentioned someone, somehow, someway petiotined and had your video taken down. If you own it, it shouldn't have happened but to use that and say that they can therefore find all pirated content, I don't see the connection. They received a notice and took down the clip per the DMCA, and by law they have to, they can't ask questions, they have to do it as soon as they receive a take down notice. It's the way the law reads (again part of the reason the law sucks because legit clips get taken down all the time in error) As far as the dog thing goes a more accurate portrayal would be some guy with a dog comes on to my property and bites you. Am I as the home owner responible or the guy who brought the dog? I didn't know this guy and I didn't know this dog, how is that my fault? Especially if I wasn't there? Yeah, people are uploading which brings me back to the point of there being no known way of stopping pirated content at this time. I mean let's be honest here what video site would NOT want a way to stop pirated content, at least those that are trying to be legit In a perfect world no, none of us would have to search to find violations of our content, tell me how it can be done, heck if you can do it, you will be a rich man. And as far as them making money, hey in every TOS I know there is some provision for the hosting site to be able to make money off advertising, (I am referring to legit content or content you own) And that is why you partner with studios so you can legaly show their clips and make money. And if you or anyone didn't make a dime on the sale of YT, what can I say, you knew the TOS when you uploaded your content, make a better system, make a better way. As far as my last thing, I am talking about how media is trying to get us as consumers used to the idea of paying for everything, nothing you have would be yours, You buy a DVD, it's not yours, you can't put it on a portable device, you can't back it up. You want to be able to do those things? You have to pay again and again...Mark my words, someday free TV will no longer exsist, TV over the air will no longer exsist, you will have to payit's only a matter of time if we let them. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com And I am not saying pirated content is ok.I'm not, a billion dollars just seems a bit overinflated to me --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull sulleleven@ wrote: First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline... BROADCAST YOURSELF. Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated Content. Absolutely. But they realized, or maybe knew all along, that a more lucrative goal would be to become TV for the net. And as the inevitable happened... pirated shows being uploaded, they were fine with it and the loads of traffic it brought them. That's my point. That's not YouTube. That's ThemTube or TheirTube or OwnedBySomeoneElseTube. It seems that YouTube got 'lucky' and came up with a TOS that would force major corporations to sue kids on skateboards that have no earning potential but the very least internet literacy to be able to copy a video from one location and repost it in another location. It's a sweet deal. It's not YouTube's fault that the pirated videos are on the site. The only people liable for the videos being there are broke penniless. Even if Viacom wanted to sue, they had to issue Cease Desist orders (I believe) which would allow the offender time to remove the material or face the consequences. I had an interesting situation happen to me. A dance group performed at a festival. The dance group was given two feeds from two different cameras of their performance. Those tapes and others were given to me and I edited them together and added highlight video from other performances that the group did. It was CLEARLY my own work, not only because nobody edited the raw footage in the same way I did, but because I added so many other performance clips. The video was on YT for months, then, all of a sudden, I get this message that my video was removed. Nobody asked me where I got the footage. Nobody asked
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
Just as an aside I was not trying to be flip or dismiss the legit claim or frustration for YT making a ton of money off of people's legit content, but they did just announce a program to start paying content creaters did they not? Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure how many times I can say this but I am not defending the uploading of copyrighted worksThe way the current law reads, the DMCA (and yes the law sucks but for right now it's still the law) the way the law reads is if they take down the material once they are notified they are following the law. And as I stated a minute ago in another thread of know of no company or software that can completly stop copyrighted material from being uploaded. Do it on the front end? How big a staff would you need for that? You couldn't do it. That is why the law reads the way it does. It provides somewhat of a safe harbor to allow you to operate legitimatiley. You mentioned someone, somehow, someway petiotined and had your video taken down. If you own it, it shouldn't have happened but to use that and say that they can therefore find all pirated content, I don't see the connection. They received a notice and took down the clip per the DMCA, and by law they have to, they can't ask questions, they have to do it as soon as they receive a take down notice. It's the way the law reads (again part of the reason the law sucks because legit clips get taken down all the time in error) As far as the dog thing goes a more accurate portrayal would be some guy with a dog comes on to my property and bites you. Am I as the home owner responible or the guy who brought the dog? I didn't know this guy and I didn't know this dog, how is that my fault? Especially if I wasn't there? Yeah, people are uploading which brings me back to the point of there being no known way of stopping pirated content at this time. I mean let's be honest here what video site would NOT want a way to stop pirated content, at least those that are trying to be legit In a perfect world no, none of us would have to search to find violations of our content, tell me how it can be done, heck if you can do it, you will be a rich man. And as far as them making money, hey in every TOS I know there is some provision for the hosting site to be able to make money off advertising, (I am referring to legit content or content you own) And that is why you partner with studios so you can legaly show their clips and make money. And if you or anyone didn't make a dime on the sale of YT, what can I say, you knew the TOS when you uploaded your content, make a better system, make a better way. As far as my last thing, I am talking about how media is trying to get us as consumers used to the idea of paying for everything, nothing you have would be yours, You buy a DVD, it's not yours, you can't put it on a portable device, you can't back it up. You want to be able to do those things? You have to pay again and again...Mark my words, someday free TV will no longer exsist, TV over the air will no longer exsist, you will have to payit's only a matter of time if we let them. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com And I am not saying pirated content is ok.I'm not, a billion dollars just seems a bit overinflated to me --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull sulleleven@ wrote: First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline... BROADCAST YOURSELF. Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated Content. Absolutely. But they realized, or maybe knew all along, that a more lucrative goal would be to become TV for the net. And as the inevitable happened... pirated shows being uploaded, they were fine with it and the loads of traffic it brought them. That's my point. That's not YouTube. That's ThemTube or TheirTube or OwnedBySomeoneElseTube. It seems that YouTube got 'lucky' and came up with a TOS that would force major corporations to sue kids on skateboards that have no earning potential but the very least internet literacy to be able to copy a video from one location and repost it in another location. It's a sweet deal. It's not YouTube's fault that the pirated videos are on the site. The only people liable for the videos being there are broke penniless. Even if Viacom wanted to sue, they had to issue Cease Desist orders (I believe) which would allow the offender time to remove the material or face the consequences. I had an interesting situation happen to me. A dance group performed at a festival. The dance group was given two feeds from two different cameras of
[videoblogging] Videoconference in 15 minutes
http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/64cbe5-7673 J -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube sued for 1 billion dollars.....(Insert doctor evil laugh)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure how many times I can say this but I am not defending the uploading of copyrighted worksThe way the current law reads, the DMCA (and yes the law sucks but for right now it's still the law) the way the law reads is if they take down the material once they are notified they are following the law. Unfortunately, those are the perils of carrying on a non-realtime discussion on an internet message list. People post simultaneously, so sometimes, you end up having to repeat yourself. :) And as I stated a minute ago in another thread of know of no company or software that can completly stop copyrighted material from being uploaded. Do it on the front end? How big a staff would you need for that? You couldn't do it. That is why the law reads the way it does. It provides somewhat of a safe harbor to allow you to operate legitimatiley. I agree with you that dealing with it on the front end is costly. How much does it cost Revver to review your videos before they're approved? The point isn't the small stuff. The point is when a group says to you that there are thousands upon thousands of instances of infringement of their material going on and insisting that you do something about it. YouTube has already settled lawsuits for the EXACT SAME THING! :D How many times do you need to get sued before you change your policies.. Unless. The amount of money that you're making by placing ads on the pirated videos that you're NOT removing from your site outweighs the amount of money that you eventually pay out in settlements.. hmm... You mentioned someone, somehow, someway petiotined and had your video taken down. If you own it, it shouldn't have happened No. I didn't own it. The dance company was given the tapes by whomever was in charge of such things at that festival. I had the actual raw feeds from two cameras... NOT what was shown on television. My point in bringing that up was that *I* was not consulted... The dance company was not consulted... Just like you say below, someone claiming some sort of connection to the festival served YouTube notice and the video was removed. Similarly, Viacom demanded over a month ago http://newteevee.com/2007/02/02/viacom-demands-youtube-pull-its-clips/ that YouTube pull over 100,000 clips. Where's the action? Make it happen. Obviously, they don't need to consult the posters, so what's the holdup?.. Unless. The amount of money that you're making by placing ads on the pirated videos that you're NOT removing from your site outweighs the amount of money that you eventually pay out in settlements.. hmm... but to use that and say that they can therefore find all pirated content, I don't see the connection. They received a notice and took down the clip per the DMCA, and by law they have to, they can't ask questions, they have to do it as soon as they receive a take down notice. It's the way the law reads (again part of the reason the law sucks because legit clips get taken down all the time in error) As far as the dog thing goes a more accurate portrayal would be some guy with a dog comes on to my property and bites you. Am I as the home owner responible or the guy who brought the dog? I didn't know this guy and I didn't know this dog, how is that my fault? Especially if I wasn't there? hahaha OK. Fine. :D hahaha The fact remains that YouTube knew damned well they were at fault, and they've settled similar cases in the past and were in negotiations to settle this one too. This fight has to go on now, because they have to set precedent for when Joost rolls out and Viacom clips are duplicated on YouTube, undermining their value as a content producer for Joost. Yeah, people are uploading which brings me back to the point of there being no known way of stopping pirated content at this time. You mean like using the YouTube _search_box_ and deleting the content with the names that Viacom told you to delete? I mean let's be honest here what video site would NOT want a way to stop pirated content, at least those that are trying to be legit I agree that if a site is trying to be legit, they're going to take whatever steps they can to get rid of pirated content AND THE PIRATES. However... When the amount of money that you're making by placing ads on the pirated videos that you're NOT removing from your site outweighs the amount of money that you eventually pay out in settlements, the bottom line dictates that you take your chances with getting sued. In a perfect world no, none of us would have to search to find violations of our content, tell me how it can be done, heck if you can do it, you will be a rich man. I've never considered that. It's not my problem. :D I can't tell you how that can be done. I CAN tell you that if Viacom tells you to take down over 100,000 clips that
[videoblogging] Re: Videoconference in 15 minutes
Once a year I try to go into the video conference and bada bing, I crash out. Can't blame the computer this time. Oh well, I'll give it a go again in a bit. Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/64cbe5-7673 J -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] How often do you post new videos?
This is something I would really like to know. For me I do a big show once per week (5-7 minutes) and now I am doing a 30 second mobile video each day (the quality isn't so hot though, but it is what it is!) What I want to know is how often everyone puts up a new video or how many you post per week, and also teh approximate length of your videos? I want to get a good ballpark figure so that I know what a good number would be for me! Thanks! Shawn C. http://spcbrass.blogspot.com http://loudtourtv.blip.tv
[videoblogging] Re: How often do you post new videos?
It can be whatever you want it to be...no rules.. Me, personaly, I try to average once a week around the 5 minute or under mark. But sometimes more or less depending on what I feel like doingthe beauty of net video, no rules. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is something I would really like to know. For me I do a big show once per week (5-7 minutes) and now I am doing a 30 second mobile video each day (the quality isn't so hot though, but it is what it is!) What I want to know is how often everyone puts up a new video or how many you post per week, and also teh approximate length of your videos? I want to get a good ballpark figure so that I know what a good number would be for me! Thanks! Shawn C. http://spcbrass.blogspot.com http://loudtourtv.blip.tv
Re: [videoblogging] How often do you post new videos?
We do shows that last anywhere from 2 to 15 minutes, but because of our extremely busy schedules and because there's often a fair amount of editing involved, we're doing good if we get out a post every other week. We're considering a quality over quantity step, though, where we post more like once a month and try to have a little better creative focus. We have a new vlog on the way and we plan to post on that once a week, but that will be closer to a true vlog-- shot mostly at home, with us talking about ourselves and our lives. The production of that kind of video is much easier for us to sustain. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime http://www.weatherlight.com/blog Shawn Carpenter wrote: This is something I would really like to know. For me I do a big show once per week (5-7 minutes) and now I am doing a 30 second mobile video each day (the quality isn't so hot though, but it is what it is!) What I want to know is how often everyone puts up a new video or how many you post per week, and also teh approximate length of your videos? I want to get a good ballpark figure so that I know what a good number would be for me! Thanks! Shawn C. http://spcbrass.blogspot.com http://loudtourtv.blip.tv Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: How often do you post new videos?
In a perfect world I release a hour and 40 min long episode (including usually a 10 min or so intro and sketch and a 1 to 1 1/2 hour B-movie once every two weeks-ish. Rev Chumley http://www.cultofuhf.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is something I would really like to know. For me I do a big show once per week (5-7 minutes) and now I am doing a 30 second mobile video each day (the quality isn't so hot though, but it is what it is!) What I want to know is how often everyone puts up a new video or how many you post per week, and also teh approximate length of your videos? I want to get a good ballpark figure so that I know what a good number would be for me! Thanks! Shawn C. http://spcbrass.blogspot.com http://loudtourtv.blip.tv
[videoblogging] dan rather
Go listen to Dan Rather's keynote at SXSW. http://2007.sxsw.com/blogs/podcasts.php/2007/03/13/ dan_rather_keynote_interview jen Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jensimmons.com http://milkweedmediadesign.com 267-235-6967 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: how to do stop motion
Heath, does your video camera take stills? I just do what Schlomo said: string a whole mess of stills together. And I mean a whhhole mess of them. This was a lot easier to do before there was a cat in the house...she gets off on disturbing objects on tables. Takes forever. But the end result is so fun! I'm psyched about the software suggestions. It never occured to me there was software for it. I'm duncey that way. Can't wait to see what you come up with (will it involve action figures? Hmmm?) Bekah -- http://www.missbhavens.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know this has been dicussed before and I know how to do it with a video camera, but I think that there is a way to take digital still and then combine them to create stop motion as well. Is that correct? and if so could someone please point me into the right direction? I am on a PC not a mac. Thanks! Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
Re: [videoblogging] bad news spam
Not sure why this grab my attention however it did, and curious to see if anyone else noticed... today a lot of spam got into my comments that read bad news and the url linked back to the nytimes.com website... the youtube lawsuit article was front page... funky...hmmm... nathan miller www.bicycle-sidewalk.com
