Re: [videoblogging] Turnhere free videos

[Patrick Delongchamp]

It looks like video production is going the way of photography.  It will be
harder and harder to make a living from delivering high production quality
video when  it is increasingly in the hands of more people.

It also means we'll see larger sums of money traditionally paid to one
person be split up between a wider group of people.  (i.e. in the example of
this startup)  Competition is an exciting thing.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Rupert Howe  wrote:

> I agree with all of you.  $25-100 for 1-2 days work is not acceptable,
> and debases the market.  There are a lot of filler video content work
> for Q&A sites being parcelled out that pays appallingly, as I think we
> discussed before.
>
> On the other hand, the proposition that was offered by Turnhere was
> that you shouldn't spend more than 3-4 hours in total (pre-production
> to delivery) making each 1 minute video, for businesses in walking
> distance from your house.  They have a checklist, provide all the
> documents, etc.  They don't want anything fancy - just a basic to-
> camera interview with some cutaways and a clip of the company's
> signage. So it should work out as $50-70 per hour.  They also won't
> take on newbies or students - they require professional commercial
> experience.  And have QA standards for everything submitted.
>
> I'm not sure about the WMV thing.  They specify that you upload H264
> 3000kpbs 864x486, and talk about how they provide iPod/iPhone
> compatible files to show businesses.  Odd that they have a WMV
> download for their intro webinar.
>
> I'm not pimping them - I haven't even signed up with them.  The
> commoditization of video production concerns me because it affects the
> price and value of genuine creative filmmaking in this arena.  But I
> just wanted to put it out there for discussion and get some of the
> facts clear.
>
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.tv
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2010, at 04:12, Bohuš wrote:
>
> >
> > Hiya,
> >
> > Just a word of background, I do TV production for a living.  Mostly
> > independent stuff, but some broadcast stuff...
> >
> > I've been approached a lot by companies like this, especially start-
> > ups.
> > They want me to find ways to reduce costs, and still deliver a large
> > percentage of what I do to clients. The problem is that I do actually
> > have to make a living off of making video, and that's not going to
> > happen if each one takes a day or two to make and the most I can
> > hope to
> > get is $25-100.
> >
> > It's great if you're on vacation, take a few fun videos, and then
> > get a
> > check for $25... that's great.  The problem is when I'm asked to
> > create
> > videos with the same level of production that I usually charge many
> > time
> > more for. You're right... there are a lot of start-ups out there who
> > think that the best business model is to create a venue for other
> > people
> > to do all the work, and then they make their cash off the backs of
> > others.
> >
> > Ebay is a great example of that. They've created this quasi-community
> > (less and less these days) and behave as if they were a store like
> > Amazon (with special quasi-promotions, advertising, etc.), but they
> > don't actually stock anything or even lick a postage stamp.  They've
> > made their fortune by creating this virtual market. That's fair since
> > everyone is making a little something, but what do I get out of
> > making a
> > video review for $25-50?  It's fine if you're having fun, but how to
> > move to the next level?
> >
> > What affects me now is that many clients who approach me now think
> > that
> > this is the status quo for video production. I love the FLIP camera (I
> > have several of them, after all...), but its ease has made my clients
> > think that all video is just that easy. it's funny how shocked people
> > are when they call me for a gig, and I don't jump at the chance to
> > bring
> > thousands of dollars worth of gear to their $200 shoot.
> >
> > Oh well, these topics have been covered before here so I'll quiet
> > down.
> > I love the video revolution, and I love that more people are using
> > video
> > to communicate than ever, but I don't love opportunistic companies who
> > devalue the industries that they try to exploit.
> >
> >
> >>> TurnHere.com, who are an agency who match up filmmakers with small
> >>> businesses, have a new promo going for US & Canadian filmmakers.
> >>> You can offer free 1 minute videos to small businesses, and Turnhere
> >>> will pay you $200 to make them.
> >>> It's a very small amount of money, and is undercutting other people
> >>> who are trying to do the same thing on an individual basis.
> >>> But the requirements are much lower than your average bespoke video
> >>> job. It's pretty much video by numbers. Turn up for an hour, shoot
> >>> an interview with the proprietor, shoot some B roll, cut a 1 minute
> >>> film, get paid $200.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I looked into their business model. I'd want to here from video
> >> produc

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Windows Movie Maker---New Version

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Good revision. :)

I always found WMM 2.1 to be reasonably stable and used it for most of my
vlogs. People were always surprised which editor I used.  (
http://cookingkittycorner.blip.tv/file/44076/) Previous versions would crash
regularly but that was over 5 years ago.

As for Comic Sans Serif...I'm not sure that was ever a default font.  I
think you can blame general bad taste for that one.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Jay dedman  wrote:

>
>
>  > Aw man. You know what? I'm going to have to disagree with you guys. The
> same
> > way that Josh Leo can take a $2 camera and take awesome,
> thought-provoking
> > photos, a video editor can take a not-top-of-the-line video editor and
> make
> > a really kick-butt video.
> > ...and not to argue, but crappy movies on YouTube can be made with iMovie
> > and Final Cut Pro on their daddy's computer just as easy as they can on
> > Windows Movie Maker... just sayin.
> > I've made some fun videos with Movie Maker, like this set called "Kid
> Vids,"
> > some shorts all from one day last summer:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitykity/sets/72157606379352536
>
> I'll admit that I was probably over-aggressive to condemn Movie Maker.
> A talented video creator can make gems out of anything.
>
> I guess Im speaking from the experience of teaching many newbies how
> to edit for the very first time. More often than not, they have a
> PC...so Movie Maker is what we deal with. It's not the most intuitive
> program to start with. Hopefully this long-awaited update will bring
> improvements.
>
> Jay
>
> --
> http://ryanishungry.com
> http://jaydedman.com
> http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> 917 371 6790
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

As a Canadian, it seems hysterical to me as well.

If bandwidth concerns were in fact misleading than you would expect
countries with a lot of competition (e.g. UK) to have ISPs all offering
unlimited bandwidth at ultra low costs.  The opposite seems to be the case.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Jay dedman  wrote:

>
>
> > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe
> > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a
> > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere
> near
> > 100GB a month?
> > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme
> > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any
> > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest
> in a
> > rather hysterical way.
>
> Hmmmattention grabbing but not hysterical.
> Currentlya single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig.
> The size of files will only increase as quality gets better.
> Start doing the math based on the things you watch.
>
> we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for
> daily web use.
>
> If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor
> weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown.
>
> > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many
> > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity
> > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to
> > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using
> peer2peer
> > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a
> > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers
> > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net
> here,
> > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price
> structure
> > or quality of service as a result.
>
> Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded,
> I think this argument is specious.
>
> The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if
> people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they
> are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These
> companies are private and can charge 10 per GB if they want. But
> let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so
> consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to
> make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private
> companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers.
>
> Jay
>
> --
> http://ryanishungry.com
> http://jaydedman.com
> http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> 917 371 6790
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video blogging history/evolution

[Patrick Delongchamp]

...explain

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Rupert  wrote:

>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA
>
>
> On 1-Apr-09, at 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
> > Truth is a dead tree.
> >
> > On 1-Apr-09, at 1:18 PM, gintaras.miskinis wrote:
> > > Just wanted to add, that a qualitative/trusty source, is a source
> > > which is written by a scientist or other person who is accepted by
> > > the society, i.e. has a expertise in branch. As I see, he must at
> > > leased published a book? (nonsense). Anyway, starting to get a
> > > headache of this unique case...
> > >
> >
> > [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: Video blogging history/evolution

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Ah, the good old Wikipedia Vlogging article.  It actually got nominated for
deletion years ago due to a lack of reliable sources.  I decided to clean it
up and begin contributing sources to it and I managed to change the outcome
of the vote.  Let's just say it was a..uh..thankless job. :)

I haven't contributed to it in years though and I agree that it has gone to
shit. Pardon my merde.  Let us know what you find.

oh and watch out for Godwin's Law around this here town.

pd

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:26 PM, gintaras.miskinis <
gintaras.miski...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> Jay dedman  wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, "reliability" has been a point of contention. Some in
> > this group may remember the dramedy trying to write the wikipedia page
> > for videoblogging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoblogging
> > Newspapers/magazines must write about it for it to be "reliable".
> > Makes a certain kind of sense. You got to capture the mainstream to be
> > recognized. It's like a vetting process.
> >
> > Ive also learned that the "history of videoblogging" is wide and
> > varied depending on what community you look at. This group has its own
> > specific timeline that differs from people who began through Youtube
> > exclusively.
> >
> > I can scan the chapter I wrote in my book if you'd like and email it to
> you.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://ryanishungry.com
> > http://jaydedman.com
> > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> > 917 371 6790
> >
>
> Thank you for your reply too. It's an honor for me to be contacted from the
> book author :)
>
> I made some thinking after I had read your shared thoughts and just have to
> agree: it is sad, that sources, which are not mainstream, cannot be
> trusted..well, officially.
>
> But on the other hand, a year ago, when I was writing a term paper about
> "video blogging evolution" I used your mentioned wikipedia link, and this
> year, I thought that I could use my a year ago written info in the final
> paper, and when rechecked wikipedia - saw, that most of the facts where
> different then I had found a year ago...it was experience from practical
> side on my own..
>
> What connects to YouTube community, I think that those who started blogging
> didn't feel the real "joy" of the video blogging start, like felt you people
> (I guess), who had began from technical issues, and ending with
> philosophical. In a sense, Youtubers' generation had everything "put on the
> plate"..
>
> However, I would be very grateful if you could scan your mentioned chapter
> and send it to me (to this yahoo mail if possible). You would help me a lot.
>
> Thanks again and sorry for my English.
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty,
the trailing "..." seemed to show doubt and hesitation.  Just being
silly. ;)

Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist?  You would thoroughly enjoy it.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the
> same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are
> simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia
> streams that make ours look silly.
>
> I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no
> relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay
> for each separately.
>
> Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out.
>
> If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller
> footprint...
>
> It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD...
>
> peace,
> Ron
>
> On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote:
>
>> Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is
>> the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the
>> reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also
>> other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but
>> have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film
>> is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV
>> professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball
>> park.
>>
>> However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian
>> expression, stir up things if you like).
>>
>> I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated
>> as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data
>> and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring
>> that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the
>> majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my
>> work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of
>> rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is
>> constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a
>> width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs.
>> Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local
>> agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might
>> make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite.
>>
>> Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is
>> "bandwidth pollution". Emails with stupid large attachments, videos
>> that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance
>> is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil
>> is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in
>> spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it
>> is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More
>> cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for
>> us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's
>> facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that
>> water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they
>> started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people
>> used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden
>> why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive
>> infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage
>> water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with
>> substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend
>> billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead
>> of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I
>> live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now
>> are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias.
>>
>> The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth.
>> It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions)
>> which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly,
>> think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more
>> given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model
>> of "I should have as much as I want" translates poorly outside of very
>> specific cultural and political economies.
>>
>> On 05/11/2008, at 7:42 AM, Heath wrote:
>>
>> > I just did another post about this from another communications
>> > company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting
>> > bandwidthAT & T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle
>> > most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie
>> > over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo,
>> > will go awayit's scary.its real scary
>>
>> cheers
>> Adrian Miles
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> bachelor communication 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

For a long time, photos could be considered the smoking gun.  If you
were told: "John is gay."  You'd probably ask around before believing
it but if you saw a photo that's all you needed.

Photos have quickly become unreliable and we've had to go back to the
tried and true method of investigative citizen journalism.  Photos
just don't cut it anymore.  You have to see more than one photo from a
different source before believing the original photo.  The same is
happening with video.  (See this Microsoft Technology Demonstration
video for a peek at what's to come:
http://research.microsoft.com/unwrap/rkrf_short.wmv)

Photos and videos are now no more trustworthy than a regular story
about a fishing trip.

It's not so much scary as predictable.  inevitable.  Until a new
method of capturing an event appears that is too difficult to
manipulate, (holographic technology?) we'll have to just check
multiple sources.  BBC, Al Jazeera, Globe and Mail, New York Times,
Blogs, Vlogs, etc

What Bill said about a photo album of a party is an excellent example
of how one source can never be enough.  Russia vs. Georgia is an
excellent example of how twisted a story can get.  You'll want to read
about it or hear about it from sources you've grown to trust.  However
It's never enough to just ask one trusted source.  Ask your best
friend Sam.  The most educated, well informed guy you know and he'll
still have a skewed view of things.  Read the BBC, a well trusted
source and you'll still only get part of the story.

Even in the time before "photoshopping" produced realistic
photographs, that photo of John couldn't alone be considered the
smoking gun because it could have been John just fooling around,
making jokes.

There's no reason to fear what technology is capable of.  It's more
about fearing, or rather, expecting what people have always been
capable of.

p

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's because previously, we didn't have a choice.
>
> If the news told you that Cory Lidle's plane crashed into a building
> and that that building was currently on fire, you had no choice but to
> believe it. However, if I go down there and FILM the actual building
> with no flames coming from it and only smoke, and then I post that to
> the internet for all to see, when they turn on their televisions and
> still see images of a building burning, it becomes unbelievable.
>
> Fast forward a year, to today, and we have Qik and other on-the-fly
> services, where we can LIVECAST stuff mere seconds after they actually
> happen. So the problem is that there are checks and balances now.
> The News isn't the only source of footage or commentary.
>
> Just this morning, I found out that Brian Conley and Jeff Rae were
> detained in China YESTERDAY! That wasn't possible back in the day.
> There are too many people with too many eyes on too many things and
> too many outlets for immediately getting that information to others
> for journalists who specialize in spinning stories to remain credible
> if they keep it up.
>
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture,
>> etcthat holds true...however, I think it was always
>> a "spin"...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the
>> people who were delivering the news, in whatever form. Now we have
>> all become so jaded that we seem to always distrust what we see,
>> unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it.
>> Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone awayand
>> that's sad...
>>
>> Heath
>> http://batmangeek.com
>> http://heathparks.com
>>
>> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes. I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
>> > credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
>> > their information to be accepted and absorbed. This includes the
>> > commercials.
>> >
>> > I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
>> > purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still
>> > subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always
>> > ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing
>> > the video wanted to portray.
>> >
>> > For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits
>> actual
>> > huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major
>> city,
>> > they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to
>> > show. Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room
>> floor.
>> > Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might
>> hit
>> > the cutting room floor.
>> >
>> > I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do
>> > it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City,
>> > surrounded by high-rise buildings. OR... I could sta

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Congrats to Andrew and all involved!

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:36 PM, ractalfece <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What a hoax, this online video revolution. I thought it was supposed
> to be a new media world where you could get unlimited niche stuff for
> any niche itch. And all the niche content creators were supposed to
> have an easy time in this new landscape. It was supposed to be the
> giants who fell. It was a "revolution" right?
>
> So why is it that "unless you were one of the first few
>
> or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or
> personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term"?
>
> I talk about it in my new 39 minute video. I'm forwarding the torrent
> to your email. But here's my short answer: It's because people don't
> seem to understand, if they don't pay for the shit they enjoy, someone
> else is going to pay to have shit spoon fed to them. It's just the
> way the market works.
>
> - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne.
>> Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will
>> become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or
>> making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few
>> or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or
>> personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not
>> at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read!
>>
>> Heath
>> http://batmangeek.com
>>
>
> 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

amen to that.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On a more positive note, I think that even if we are forced into a tiered
>> situation, it probably won't last very long. People will be angry and
>> demand more bandwidth. Other companies could rise to the challenge and lay
>> bigger pipes and tubes to meet demand. We may see a temporary information
>> recession, but it's not the end of the world.
>
> Comcast and other broadband providers need to simply be transparent.
> they cant say they have "all-you-can-eat" service and then throttle
> back how much you actually get.
> this is the bait-and-switch method of business.
> If I'm only going to get 100GB of traffic a month, then tell me that.
>
> Broadband companies need to say what they are actually offering so
> customers can make educated decisions.
> unfortunately in the US, there is often only one broadband in a region
> (aka monopoly)
> This is why we must also have regulation to make sure that one carrier
> doesn't block certain technologies or websites arbitrarily.
> They must be neutral about what goes "through the pipes".
>
> Jay
>
> --
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Agreed.  Sorry Adam but that article was garbage.  No references and
pure fear mongering.  As i read Jay's first post I thought about how
we've moved away from uninformed fear mongering arguments about net
neutrality.  Does anyone remember the Rocketboom highway analogy
video? Anyone who's ever tried to do some work at 10 PM in a business
traveler's hotel understands how detrimental a lack of network
management can be.  While some guests are downloading films over bit
torrent, others are waiting 30 minutes just to check their email.

Network management isn't going to go away.  It's useful for multiple
reasons.  The primary reason being customer satisfaction.  However,
rules that discourage anti-competitiveness are necessary.  Obviously
ISP shouldn't be aloud to completely block content, only modify it's
priority. i.e. Prioritize VOIP packets while delaying bittorrent
packets.  The best solution I can imagine would be in the form of
network management transparency with the public or a government
agency.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They try this, they won't know what hit them.
>
> I like how the article says Canada is a good test case because
> Canadians are more laissez faire and less politically motivated. Not
> my experience of Canada so far. They might seem laid back, but poke
> them with a stick and they're like hornets. And people here seem
> more reliant on the internet for communication and information than
> those in countries with greater population density.
>
> Britain would be a better test case. People are less gung ho about
> new technology & computers there. Except there are 1000s of ISPs,
> and they all compete to offer more freedom and goodies.
>
> And even in Britain, when 3 mobile tried to do this with internet
> access on their 3G phones in England, it didn't work and they had to
> open it up so they could compete with Vodafone & O2. AOL died in the
> UK for much the same reason.
>
> Wherever it's tried where there's competition, it won't work. Where
> I am on Vancouver Island, Telus and Shaw compete pretty aggressively
> with both rival ADSL & Cable services available to most households.
> Whoever tries to introduce this kind of bullshit will lose most of
> their customers to a competitor who offers a better deal.
>
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.tv
>
> On 22-Jul-08, at 9:56 AM, Adam Quirk wrote:
>
> Another doomsday scenario:
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20330.htm
>
> *Adam Quirk* / Wreck & Salvage  /
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim)
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still
> worry.they may
>> > not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are
> paying
>> > for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner,
>> > AT&T etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith
>> > consumption and making deals with other content providers who only
>> > produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen
>> > content
>>
>> yeah...I probably spoke too soon:
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-martin-be-damned-
> cable-isps-want-network-management-freedom.html
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://jaydedman.com
>> 917 371 6790
>>
>> 
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 

Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Interesting indeed.

I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video.  They never
should have had to buy Youtube in the first place.

I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money.

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very instering article on cnet today
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
>
> The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know
> that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they
> can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I
> think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean
> for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens.
>
> Read below..
>
> Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private
> company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up
> there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically
> bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of
> a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they?
>
> Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a
> veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years
> ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge
> lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue.
>
> And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no
> idea what to do about it.
>
> Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it "seemed obvious"
> that Google should be able to generate "significant amounts of money"
> from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do.
>
> "The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the
> case of YouTube we might be wrong," he said. "We have enough leverage
> that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not
> have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and
> judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can
> change it."
>
> But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired
> YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something,
> anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has
> failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll'
> advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure.
>
> And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a
> profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get
> a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do
> something drastically different?
>
> Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my
> editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about
> it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service
> continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention
> spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating
> a valuable revenue stream?
>
> Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over
> the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it
> is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube
> is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In
> other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't
> even matter.
>
> Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and
> regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's
> no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads
> on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old
> men mooning a parade.
>
> As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going
> to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are
> regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained.
>
> How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but
> it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select
> few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and
> the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser
> want to send cash to a service like that?
>
> Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in
> online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. But
> doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make
> people want a given product? It's as if Google believes that sheer
> popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start
> throwing cash around.
>
> But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about
> hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at
> the right time?
>
> Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that YouTube won't find
> itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more
> than happy to spend money on YouTube, but what kind exactly? Will
> YouTube become the dump of advertising where strip clubs and brothels
> will advertise on sexually-oriente

Re: [videoblogging] Re:From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

true, but we're talking about notebook computers.  I think we would
both agree that Mac notebooks are generally much more expensive
(though a better value) than notebook PCs available in Best Buy for
example.  Macbooks start at 1099 USD, whereas Bestbuy Notebook PCs
start at half the price.

I think it was a pretty reasonable statement.

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Roxanne Darling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Macs are not much more expensive. Sorry to challenge that one! Just do a
> google search and read some of the posts. (Again, we use both in our
> office. People on this list have agreed that PC's are harder to use.)
> iMovie and iPhoto and iTunes come free - and Rocketboom used those tools and
> so did Beach Walks for well over a year before switching to FCP. You CAN
> produce a professional, highly edited product using the FREE software.
> (iMovie 6 is great editor - iMovie 8 not so much but that is another
> thread).
>
> Mac monitors have a more humane "flicker rate" so you won;'t go insane
> sitting in front of one all day. Already insane? Fine, get a Mac Mini for
> only and use your old Dell monitor and keyboard and being able to run Mac
> and PC on that sweet little box.
>
> Macs by default have better video cards. Most PC people I know end up
> upgrading the default card. Makes sense - most office workers (PC's largest
> target market) don't need good video cards, they are supposed to be writing
> Word docs and crunching Excel worksheets all day, so why load up a PC with
> one? But (snark alert) last I checked, this is a list for video creators.
> Do you tools support you or frustrate you?
>
> Here is a side by side chart:
> http://www.myspace-modifier.com/macintosh/the-mac-is-more-expensive-thats-crap/#
>
> Of course Macs are not perfect. No machine, no company, no person is. I've
> used them for over 20 years and had great response from them. But then
> when something goes wrong, I call calmly assuming it will be fixed not
> ranting that it should never have broken in the first place. (Hint hint -
> how to get good customer service)
>
> This message started off with a comparison from a very old Mac to a brand
> new top of the line Mac. Yes, you are going to spend some bucks taking that
> route. But that doesn't mean Macs are more expensive. It means you have
> champagne taste, and I will be the first to raise a glass to that! I always
> buy the best computer I can possibly afford at each new milestone, knowing
> it will last me longer. I still have a 12" G4 laptop and it serves as a
> great bookkeeping and surf-while-watching-TV machine. We just gave a 6-year
> old eMac running Tiger to a friend for her 3-year old. The thing only cost
> $899 when it was brand new, it still looks great and performs just fine if
> you are not in a big hurry.
>
> I rarely choose to rant on this list. It's kinda fun to get out of my box
> though. :-)
>
> Aloha and thanks for listening,
>
> Rox
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Patrick Delongchamp
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Another thing to definitely consider.
>>
>> but getting back to the topic at hand, i'd summarize the conversation
>> as the following:
>>
>> Mac - It's much more expensive but a better value and you'll be very happy
>> PC - You'll be reasonably happy and have more money in your pocket but
>> you'll have a higher learning curve.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Jake Ludington
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> I can agree that purchase one..maybe two warranties on products can be
>> >> a wise choice. This is especially true if you are in a financial
>> >> situation where you shouldn't be purchasing the product in the first
>> >> place.
>> >
>> > Or if you're in a situation where wasting your time on downtime would be
>> a
>> > greater inconvenience than being out the money. For instance, with
>> > AppleCare, the inconvenience on the iPhone might have been $60 had it
>> > not
>> > paid off. Without it, the inconvenience would have been no phone until
>> the
>> > warranty repair turned it around in a couple of weeks (and/or buying
>> another
>> > phone). In that case, the potential of losing $60 was lower risk than
>> > the
>> > risk of being out a phone for 2 weeks. The added bonus of having a new
>> phone
>> > in under 15 minutes made the $60 an easy decision.
>> >
>> >> It's just important to remember that either decision you make is a
>> >> "bet" a

Re: [videoblogging] Re:From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Another thing to definitely consider.

but getting back to the topic at hand, i'd summarize the conversation
as the following:

Mac - It's much more expensive but a better value and you'll be very happy
PC - You'll be reasonably happy and have more money in your pocket but
you'll have a higher learning curve.

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can agree that purchase one..maybe two warranties on products can be
>> a wise choice. This is especially true if you are in a financial
>> situation where you shouldn't be purchasing the product in the first
>> place.
>
> Or if you're in a situation where wasting your time on downtime would be a
> greater inconvenience than being out the money. For instance, with
> AppleCare, the inconvenience on the iPhone might have been $60 had it not
> paid off. Without it, the inconvenience would have been no phone until the
> warranty repair turned it around in a couple of weeks (and/or buying another
> phone). In that case, the potential of losing $60 was lower risk than the
> risk of being out a phone for 2 weeks. The added bonus of having a new phone
> in under 15 minutes made the $60 an easy decision.
>
>> It's just important to remember that either decision you make is a
>> "bet" and the one that gives you the better odds is the decision of
>> *not* buying extended warranties. Not the other way around.
>
> That entirely depends on what you're factoring for. Time is way more
> important to me than the extra $100 or $200 for bigger ticket items. If I
> spend $100 to insure against losing both the item and my time, the $100 is a
> no brainer.
>
> Does that mean you should buy an extended warranty for everything? Certainly
> not.
>
> Jake Ludington
>
> http://www.jakeludington.com
>
> 

Re: [videoblogging] Re:From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I can agree that purchase one..maybe two warranties on products can be
a wise choice.  This is especially true if you are in a financial
situation where you shouldn't be purchasing the product in the first
place.

It's just important to remember that either decision you make is a
"bet" and the one that gives you the better odds is the decision of
*not* buying extended warranties.  Not the other way around.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've heard a lot of talk of Extended Warranties in this thread so I
>> just want to throw in that people should never buy extended
>> warranties. Manufacturing defects will appear within the manufacturer
>> warranty period. The only reason anyone offers an extended warranty
>> is because it's a guaranteed money grab. People buy extended
>> warranties because they believe that the odds are in their favour that
>> they'll save money in the long run. This is categorically incorrect.
>> The complete opposite is true.
>
> I was of this same opinion and am for most products. Having said that, I
> bought one on a laptop once and it paid off. The laptop died due to a heat
> issue. I got it replaced without hassle. Because the entire laptop cycle had
> revved, I got a newer laptop with current features. The second laptop died
> too and that was replaced by the warranty as well, again with a newer laptop
> with better features. The lesson learned was I'll never buy Toshiba again,
> but if I hadn't had the extended warranty, they would have repaired my
> existing laptop, not replaced it.
>
> I also purchased the AppleCare on an iPhone and had it pay off by having the
> iPhone swapped out no questions asked.
>
> I still don't buy extended warranties for most things because in many cases
> they are overpriced, but in the two cases I've cited here, I'm definitely
> ahead of the game for buying them. An extended warranty is an insurance
> plan. They are betting most won't pay off to come out ahead. If you buy it,
> you're betting it will pay.
>
> Jake Ludington
>
> http://www.jakeludington.com
>
> 

Re: [videoblogging] Re:From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I've heard a lot of talk of Extended Warranties in this thread so I
just want to throw in that people should never buy extended
warranties.  Manufacturing defects will appear within the manufacturer
warranty period.  The only reason anyone offers an extended warranty
is because it's a guaranteed money grab.  People buy extended
warranties because they believe that the odds are in their favour that
they'll save money in the long run.  This is categorically incorrect.
The complete opposite is true.

and if the product you're buying actually *needs* an extended warranty
that isn't already provided by the manufacturer?  Definitely do not
purchase this product.

This is of course my own opinion but I thought it was important to
throw in seeing that you'll almost never hear anyone say "thank GOD i
didn't buy the extended warranty" because obviously it doesn't work
that way.

That being said, I can't imagine that Macs actually need extended
warranties...do they?

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:50 PM, missbhavens1969
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Same here. I'm a overheating/no second memory slot victim, too. But I
> had Applecare and after some prodding and tears they did cover the
> repair (more like a replacement, really). I was *so* grateful for
> Applecare when my Powerbook fried out. I'd nevernevernever buy another
> laptop without it.
>
> I actually always buy extended warantees for expensive
> electronics/appliances that I don't plan on upgrading soon. Computers,
> cameras, dishwashers. Clock radio? Not so much.
>
> I think warrantees are always worth it. Peace of mind. Granted,
> Applecare ain't cheap, but neither is a new computer. Free repair vs
> $2000? No contest.
>
> Bek
> --
> http://www.missbhavens.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, B Yen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I have the Powerbook G4 1.5Ghz, & I got Good Guys extended warranty
>> (2 yr). Good thing I did, the HD died at the end of 2 yrs.
>>
>> This laptop had the infamous "missing memory slot" that affected tens
>> of thousands of users..there's a class-action lawsuit. Basically,
>> the "cool thin ness" violates the Law of Physics (Thermodynamics):
>> the heat kills the logicboard..which creates the "missing memory
>> slot" bug. Apple refuses to acknowledge this problem.
>
> 

Re: [videoblogging] From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I love PCs and I would never give up my Windows Media Center for a Mac
but in your case I would still maybe recommend Mac.

When comparing hardware, Macs actually do come out cheaper.  If price
is a big issue, you can find a much cheaper PC notebook and you will
probably be quite satisfied with it.  XP is a great OS.  (and Vista
isn't bad, it's just not what it should have been. don't buy into
apple's FUD) Just know that you'll be dealing with a slower system if
you go the PC route.  In the case of Macs, you do get what you pay
for.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Stan Hirson,  Sarah Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a long-time Apple user. I started with them on a II+ with
> incursions into DOS and Windows, but for almost 10 years now I have
> been using Apple and editing on FCP. I have been a satisfied Mac user
> until a couple of years ago when I had various issues with upgrade
> policies and software glitches caused by upgrades of various Apple
> programs.
>
> I won't go into my list of issues, but in sum I have been less than
> satisfied with Apple in both depth and candor.
>
> I need a new laptop. My 17" PB G4 needs to be upgraded and replaced.
> I just priced a new MacBook Pro 17" and it really comes out to about
> $4,000 with AppleCare, some software I'll need, etc,. I took a look at
> one yesterday and was impressed. With everything but the price.
>
> Up until I no longer trusted Apple, I would have gone for it even at
> that price.
>
> I'm thinking of moving to a PC and using XP Pro and possibly Vegas or
> even Premiere for all my web editing and production. (Pretty much
> straight cutting, no FX.) How bad can a PC be? There are a lot of
> people using them. And there is a broader source of support.
>
> But I live in the country, about a 2 hour drive or train from NYC, so
> it is a pain for me to browse around different computer stores to get
> a hands on feel for screen quality and software options.
>
> I'm wondering if I can get any experience of this group... I've never
> used Vegas or Avid Express and I'm wondering about the difference
> between that option and Final Cut Express -- I do not need or intend
> to shell out for Final Cut Pro.
>
> Just exploring the options. I'm finding Apple and its store staff
> arrogant and obnoxious. Is it something I just have to live with? Or
> do some of the other companies that actually have to compete with each
> other provide better products and service?
>
> Frustrated in the stix...
>
> Stan Hirson
> http://hestakaup.com
>
> 

Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to Video Blogging and in Search for a Converter, FFMPEG

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Streamclip: http://www.squared5.com/

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Patrick Delongchamp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try using WinFF.  It's a windows front-end for ffmpeg.  It's free and
> easy to use.
>
> http://www.winff.org/
>
> According to freevlog, you could alternatively use Streamclip to
> convert mov files to avi.
>
> Here's a tip, it's faster to convert from mov to "DV AVI" files than
> to convert from mov to wmv but you'll get HUGE video files and you'll
> need lots of hard drive space.  Additionally it'll be easier to edit
> those huge DV AVI files in Windows Movie Maker compared to editing
> compressed wmv video files.  Compressed video files require more
> processor power.
>
> Good luck!
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Sakuto Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Okay, I downloaded FFmpeg-svn-12810.7z but I don't understand how you use
>> it.
>> Do you have to use somethign like Command Prompt or do I require another
>> software entirely?
>> Please forgive my ignorance...I'm new to the whole Vlogging thing.
>>
>> - Original Message 
>> From: schlomo rabinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:14:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to Video Blogging and in Search for a
>> Converter, FFMPEG
>>
>> I found a Windows version here: <http://www.videohel p.com/tools/ ffmpeg>
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM, sakuto.no_sai 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay here's my current situation. I use Windows XP, I'm Sixteen, I
>>> heading to college next fall and I'm starting a video blog at last this
>>> summer. I have a camera that records in Quick TIme Movie files .MOV,
>>> but to edit them I have to convert them to .WMV (I guess windows Media
>>> Video) and then edit them in Windows Movie Maker. The finish edited
>>> video is then made as a .WMV but I want to podcast my blog over Blip.Tv
>>> but I haven't a way to convert the finished files into a quicktime of
>>> iTunes readable format like .MOV or .MPEG 4.
>>> I'm fan of a Video Blogger name Bre Pettis, in his Podcast "I make
>>> things" during "Video Blogging Week 2007" he had to convert .WMV files
>>> into a .MOV files using a program called FFMPEGX0.0.9X. Well I
>>> contacted him, he says it's only for MAcs but told me that there is an
>>> FFMPEG that is made for WindowsPLEASE HELP ME! I have no idea where
>>> to find such a thing!
>>>
>>> ~ Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Schlomo Rabinowitz
>> http://schlomolog. blogspot. com
>> http://hatfactory. net
>> AIM:schlomochat
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
>> Messages | Links | Polls
>>
>> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
>> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format
>> to Traditional
>> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
>> Recent Activity
>> *  4
>> New MembersVisit Your Group
>> All-Bran
>> Day 10 Club
>> on Yahoo! Groups
>> Feel better with fiber.
>> Everyday Wellness
>> on Yahoo! Groups
>> Find groups that will
>> help you stay fit.
>> Moderator Central
>> Get answers to
>> your questions about
>> running Y! Groups.
>> .
>> __,_.._,___
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> 
>

Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to Video Blogging and in Search for a Converter, FFMPEG

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Try using WinFF.  It's a windows front-end for ffmpeg.  It's free and
easy to use.

http://www.winff.org/

According to freevlog, you could alternatively use Streamclip to
convert mov files to avi.

Here's a tip, it's faster to convert from mov to "DV AVI" files than
to convert from mov to wmv but you'll get HUGE video files and you'll
need lots of hard drive space.  Additionally it'll be easier to edit
those huge DV AVI files in Windows Movie Maker compared to editing
compressed wmv video files.  Compressed video files require more
processor power.

Good luck!

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Sakuto Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I downloaded FFmpeg-svn-12810.7z but I don't understand how you use
> it.
> Do you have to use somethign like Command Prompt or do I require another
> software entirely?
> Please forgive my ignorance...I'm new to the whole Vlogging thing.
>
> - Original Message 
> From: schlomo rabinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:14:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to Video Blogging and in Search for a
> Converter, FFMPEG
>
> I found a Windows version here: 
>
> Good luck!
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM, sakuto.no_sai 
> wrote:
>
>> Okay here's my current situation. I use Windows XP, I'm Sixteen, I
>> heading to college next fall and I'm starting a video blog at last this
>> summer. I have a camera that records in Quick TIme Movie files .MOV,
>> but to edit them I have to convert them to .WMV (I guess windows Media
>> Video) and then edit them in Windows Movie Maker. The finish edited
>> video is then made as a .WMV but I want to podcast my blog over Blip.Tv
>> but I haven't a way to convert the finished files into a quicktime of
>> iTunes readable format like .MOV or .MPEG 4.
>> I'm fan of a Video Blogger name Bre Pettis, in his Podcast "I make
>> things" during "Video Blogging Week 2007" he had to convert .WMV files
>> into a .MOV files using a program called FFMPEGX0.0.9X. Well I
>> contacted him, he says it's only for MAcs but told me that there is an
>> FFMPEG that is made for WindowsPLEASE HELP ME! I have no idea where
>> to find such a thing!
>>
>> ~ Brent
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Schlomo Rabinowitz
> http://schlomolog. blogspot. com
> http://hatfactory. net
> AIM:schlomochat
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Links | Polls
>
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format
> to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
> Recent Activity
> *  4
> New MembersVisit Your Group
> All-Bran
> Day 10 Club
> on Yahoo! Groups
> Feel better with fiber.
> Everyday Wellness
> on Yahoo! Groups
> Find groups that will
> help you stay fit.
> Moderator Central
> Get answers to
> your questions about
> running Y! Groups.
> .
> __,_.._,___
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 

Re: [videoblogging] Fair Use?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

WOW!

You can tell the creators really love disney movies.  If only they
loved the company as much.  Unfortunately, that's not as easy.

What an incredible idea and quite a watchable one too.  Something i
wouldn't have expected.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Richard Amirault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Found this YouTube video on the Slice of SciFi website. 27 Disney films were
>  used to create a tale of Copyright law and fair use.
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
>
>  Richard Amirault
>  Boston, MA, USA
>  http://n1jdu.org
>  http://bostonfandom.org
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Ah, a common misconception.

Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their
beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say
which is the true religion.  On the other hand, because I'm not
religious I can criticize religion as much as I want.

For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a)
theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b)
there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true.  That's
perfectly ok.  Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their
astrological beliefs is just being an idiot.  However if I have my own
set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off
from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) my
beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more
accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my
irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat
others the same.

If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an
intellectually stimulating conversation.  Not an intolerant attack.
It all depends on what you base your beliefs.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> diveristy and tolerance goes both ways.....
>
>  Heath
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably means
>  > the online video community is rational and intelligent. If
>  > republicans can't speak freely it means that people are upset about
>  > the actions of the current republican party. and if gays can't
>  speak
>  > freely it means people are religious or not well educated from a
>  human
>  > rights and diversity perspective.
>  >
>  > or it just generally means that a lot of 10 years olds use the
>  internet.
>  >
>  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>  wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Patrick,
>  > >
>  > > What does it say about the online video community that we can't
>  talk
>  > > about politics, religion, etc. without vile things being said
>  and that
>  > > certain groups need to create niches because of it?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  > >  wrote:
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > > > The U.S. is very polarized at the moment. Americans like to
>  think a
>  > > > Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is
>  right.
>  > > > The reality is that neither are right or wrong. However those
>  > > > representing the republican ideology have done a lot of
>  terrible
>  > > > things which leads voters to believe that they themselves no
>  longer
>  > > > identify with this ideology. Unfortunately, because it is a two
>  > > > party system, voters must now switch and call themselves
>  Democrats.
>  > > > In reality, it's not that these voters don't have republican
>  values,
>  > > > it's that they don't have corrupt values.
>  > > >
>  > > > It may appear that people on youtube are all democrats and
>  they may
>  > > > think they are but the reality is that they simply don't like
>  the
>  > > > current republican representatives. In the future, once the
>  party has
>  > > > had a chance to clean out the corruption going on, many young
>  > > > americans might realize they prefer the republican ideology.
>  > > >
>  > > > So I'd say it's perfectly o.k. for people to want a comfort
>  zone or an
>  > > > easy spot to find piles of videos that peak their interest. As
>  a gay
>  > > > man, i think it would be neat to have a site (or youtube
>  category)
>  > > > dedicated to gay issues. I think it's probably a similar
>  situation
>  > > > for the faithful or republicans. Perhaps if there were a
>  youtube
>  > > > category for these topics, these other sites wouldn't be as
>  popular.
>  > > >
>  > > > For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Chris
>  > > > Crocker, who gets about 100,000 gay hate comments on each of
>  his
>  > > > videos, to prefer posting on a gay friendly site.
>  > > >
>  > > > I wouldn't crucify

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Higher-Resolution YouTube Videos Currently In Testing

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I was just going to say that your messages look better already.
Thanks for posting the link.  videohelp.com is a great site.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh I forgot to post a link to forum where this was discovered and
>  discussed at length, people working out what the best format to upload
>  is, stuff like that:
>
>  http://forum.videohelp.com/topic346256.html
>
>  Oh and also apologies to everyone that my posts have had annoying line
>  breaks in them for months, I was posting using safari 3 via yahoo
>  groups web interface, which I guess was causing the problem. I didnt
>  notice it until Patrick pointed it out to me, cheers to him for that,
>  I'll use Firefox 3 beta to post and hopefully no more badly formed
>  messages from me.
>
>  Steve Elbows
>
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>  >
>  > Good :) The fmt=18 ones appear to be h264 .mp4's 480x360, being played
>  > through flash. It is possible to download them, they may be the same
>  > versions curently being used on apple tv or iphone/ipod touch youtube
>  > feature, not sure.
>  >
>  > The fmt=6 one (of the dog skateboarding at least) appeared to be some
>  > sort of higher quality .flv, I havent tried to work out what codec
>  or res.
>  >
>  > Cheers
>  >
>  > Steve Elbows
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  >  wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Some great news, Youtube is taking early steps at providing higher
>  > > quality videos.
>  > >
>  > > By adding a parameter onto the end of a video's URL you're able to
>  > > watch it in a higher quality (in terms of audio and video) that is
>  > > actually quite noticeable though not all videos have been converted at
>  > > this point.
>  > >
>  > > About 15% have been converted apparently and new uploads get converted
>  > > after a few hours.
>  > >
>  > > To view the higher quality versions, just add &fmt=6 onto the end of
>  > > any YouTube URL. Using the skateboarding dog as an example you would
>  > > take the normal URL:
>  > >
>  > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0
>  > >
>  > > and add the &fmt=6 onto the end:
>  > >
>  > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0&fmt=6
>  > >
>  > > If the YouTube video just sits there loading then that is a sign that
>  > > the video has not been converted to the higher resolution yet. To
>  > > really see the difference you should view the video in full screen
>  > > mode.
>  > >
>  > > Note: Alternatively you can add &fmt=18 and it will play the
>  > > high-resolution version when available, otherwise it will play the
>  > > regular version. Here's a Greasemonkey script
>  > > (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/23366) that will automatically
>  > > add &fmt=18 onto the end of each YouTube URL.
>  > >
>  > > Source:
>  > >
>  http://cybernetnews.com/2008/02/29/watch-high-resolution-youtube-videos/
>  > >
>  >
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Crossposting Services: blip.tv & HeySpread

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I've been using the Personal Free service for a few days now and I'm
very happy with it as well.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We've been using TubeMogul daily for Rocketboom for a couple of
>  months now, its really great.
>
>  Its super fast too.
>
>  On Mar 2, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Sheila English wrote:
>
>  > I have a preference to TubeMogul as well. I see they just added
>  > Viddler. And though I've not seen anything official, I have a hunch
>  > they will add imeem. I've seen that site mentioned on the TM site
>  > lately.
>  >
>  > They added Sclipo, but Sclipo is so niche.
>  >
>  > If you haven't seen TubeMogul's blog you might want to check that
>  > out. Very good information there.
>  >
>  > Sheila
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "danielmcvicar"
>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > I like the tubemogul!
>  > >
>  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  > 
>
>
>  > > wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > I was looking for other crossposting services and found HeySpread.
>  > > >
>  > > > http://heyspread.com/
>  > > >
>  > > > It supports the video sharing sites listed below but,
>  > unfortunately,
>  > > > it's not free. Is anyone aware of other services that allow you to
>  > > > upload content for multiple video sites?
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > Sites supported by HeySpread:
>  > > > * Sclipo (tutorials) NEW
>  > > > * Sumo.tv NEW
>  > > > * sevenload
>  > > > * youtube
>  > > > * google
>  > > > * dailymotion
>  > > > * blip
>  > > > * metacafe
>  > > > * yahoo
>  > > > * facebook
>  > > > * myspace
>  > > > * vimeo
>  > > > * revver
>  > > > * veoh
>  > > > * vsocial
>  > > > * photobucket
>  > > > * putfile
>  > > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  

[videoblogging] Higher-Resolution YouTube Videos Currently In Testing

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Some great news, Youtube is taking early steps at providing higher
quality videos.

By adding a parameter onto the end of a video's URL you're able to
watch it in a higher quality (in terms of audio and video) that is
actually quite noticeable though not all videos have been converted at
this point.

About 15% have been converted apparently and new uploads get converted
after a few hours.

To view the higher quality versions, just add &fmt=6 onto the end of
any YouTube URL. Using the skateboarding dog as an example you would
take the normal URL:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0

and add the &fmt=6 onto the end:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0&fmt=6

If the YouTube video just sits there loading then that is a sign that
the video has not been converted to the higher resolution yet. To
really see the difference you should view the video in full screen
mode.

Note: Alternatively you can add &fmt=18 and it will play the
high-resolution version when available, otherwise it will play the
regular version. Here's a Greasemonkey script
(http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/23366) that will automatically
add &fmt=18 onto the end of each YouTube URL.

Source:
http://cybernetnews.com/2008/02/29/watch-high-resolution-youtube-videos/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Crossposting Services: blip.tv & HeySpread

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I can't imagine they get many sales with the "Order Now" button on page 12.

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LOL!
>
>  As a geek trying to turn entrepreneur I have great compassion on people
>  building something great and then pondering the "how do I let people
>  know about this???" challenge.
>
>  That site looks like some affiliate marketing service said to the
>  client: we can sell anything!
>
>  I guess entrepreneurs need to learn to sell and fast before sinking
>  and/or creating more unitended parody sites like this...
>
>  I feel their pain.
>
>  Chuck
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jill Golick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  wrote:
>
>  >
>  > I took a look at the VideoPostRobot site. Talk about hard sell. I
>  > thought they were trying to sell me Ginsu knives for a second there.
>  > It's $19.95 but there's something really sketchy about the site. If
>  > anyone's tried it, I'd like to hear about the experience.
>  >
>
>  

[videoblogging] Re: Crossposting Services: blip.tv & HeySpread

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Ah ha! I found two more.

VideoPostRobot (software, not free) http://videopostrobot.com/
TubeMogul (web service, 150 free uploads per month) http://www.tubemogul.com/

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Patrick Delongchamp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was looking for other crossposting services and found HeySpread.
>
>  http://heyspread.com/
>
>  It supports the video sharing sites listed below but, unfortunately,
>  it's not free. Is anyone aware of other services that allow you to
>  upload content for multiple video sites?
>
>
>
>  Sites supported by HeySpread:
> * Sclipo (tutorials) NEW
> * Sumo.tv NEW
> * sevenload
> * youtube
> * google
> * dailymotion
> * blip
> * metacafe
> * yahoo
> * facebook
> * myspace
> * vimeo
> * revver
> * veoh
> * vsocial
> * photobucket
> * putfile
>

[videoblogging] Crossposting Services: blip.tv & HeySpread

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I was looking for other crossposting services and found HeySpread.

http://heyspread.com/

It supports the video sharing sites listed below but, unfortunately,
it's not free. Is anyone aware of other services that allow you to
upload content for multiple video sites?



Sites supported by HeySpread:
* Sclipo (tutorials) NEW
* Sumo.tv NEW
* sevenload
* youtube
* google
* dailymotion
* blip
* metacafe
* yahoo
* facebook
* myspace
* vimeo
* revver
* veoh
* vsocial
* photobucket
* putfile

Re: [videoblogging] Not an example of transparency

[Patrick Delongchamp]

that's a lot of laughing

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Patrick Delongchamp
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > lol. pretty smart.
>
>  so is rigging elections.
>  i know the Kenyans have been laughing for over a month now.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Not an example of transparency

[Patrick Delongchamp]

lol.  pretty smart.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Brook Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Disgusting.
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  >
>  > 
> http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/25/comcast-blocking-first-the-internet-now-the-public/
>  >
>  > There was huge turnout at today's public hearing in Boston on the future
>  > of
>  > > the Internet. Hundreds of concerned citizens arrived to speak out on the
>  > > importance of an open Internet. Many took the day off from work —
>  > standing
>  > > outside in the Boston cold — to see the FCC Commissioners. But when they
>  > > reach the door, they're told they couldn't come in.
>  > > ..
>  > > Comcast — or someone who really, really likes Comcast — evidently bused
>  > in
>  > > its own crowd. These seat-warmers, were paid to fill the room, a move
>  > that
>  > > kept others from taking part.
>  > >
>  >
>  > It turns out that Comcast admits they paid people to fill seats:
>  >
>  > 
> http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/02/26/Comcast-FCC-Hearing-Strategy
>  >
>  > Comcast spokewoman Jennifer Khoury said the company paid some people to
>  > > arrive early and hold places in the queue for local Comcast employees
>  > who
>  > > wanted to attend the hearing. Some of those placeholders, however, did
>  > more
>  > > than wait in line: they filled many of the seats at the meeting,
>  > according
>  > > to eyewitnesses. As a result, scores of Comcast critics and other
>  > members of
>  > > the public were denied entry because the room filled up well before the
>  > > beginning of the hearing.
>  > >
>  >
>  > Can't these companies just be open about what they want and convince
>  > people
>  > honestly?
>  > One this is clear:
>  >
>  > > Comcast wants<
>  > 
> http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/15/comcasts-closed-internet/>the
>  > former — to dictate which Web sites and services go fast, slow or don't
>  > > load at all. And they're backed by the other would-be gatekeepers<
>  > 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080219-cable-and-telcos-side-with-comcast-in-fcc-bittorrent-dispute.html>at
>  > AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner.
>  > >
>  > Jay
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > http://jaydedman.com
>  > 917 371 6790
>  >
>  >
>  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>  --
>  ___
>  Brook Hinton
>  film/video/audio art
>  www.brookhinton.com
>  studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
>
>
>
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] this is refreshing (Growing gonads)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Amen to that.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080225/wr_nm/internet_fcc_dc
>  > The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission said on Monday
>  > he is "ready, willing and able" to stop broadband providers that
>  > unreasonably interfere with subscribers' access to Internet content.
>
>  Yeah, transparency is really the key:
>
>  Martin acknowledged that broadband network operators have a legitimate need
>  > to manage the data flowing over their networks. But he said that "does
> not
>  > mean that they can arbitrarily block access to particular applications or
>  > services."
>  >
>  > The hearing, which included testimony from officials with Comcast and
>  > Verizon, is aimed at determining what network management techniques are
>  > reasonable.
>  >
>  > Martin called for "transparency" in the way the companies manage their
>  > networks, and in the prices and services they provide.
>  >
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Pakistan Blocks YouTube

[Patrick Delongchamp]

A wise man once said: "Religion poisons everything."

I didn't quite understand what it meant until I tried logging onto
Youtube Sunday.

I'm calling it right now folks.

Worst. Sunday. Ever.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Deirdre Straughan"
>
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > ...which, for some mysterious reason, apparently messed up access in
>  other
>  > parts of the world, including Italy.
>
>  ... which is distressing the Pope to no end, because now he can't get
>  his daily fix of 2 Girls 1 Cup reaction videos.
>
>  Chris
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: we should all enter this one

[Patrick Delongchamp]

What the fuck?? An interminably long psychedelic fly-over of Jupiter?!?

*rolls eyes*

Fuck you Chris.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Artsy people watch 2001: A Space Odyssey over and over and over and
>  > when you ask questions about what the hell is going on, they roll
>  > their eyes.
>
>  I could watch 2001 over and over and over again, but I'd seriously
>  have to take the scissors to that interminably long psychedelic
>  fly-over of Jupiter (or wherever the hell it was supposed to be).
>
>  The rest of the movie - even the inscrutable stuff - is great fun. :)
>
>  Chris
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I am confused.  i think we both agree that transparency is necessary.

On Feb 16, 2008 12:38 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
>  > somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do
>  > find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible
>  > though.
>
>  Patrick, you are always interested in facts...which is great.
>  I feel you're now tending towards the passionate.
>
>  Please go back and read my last email.
>  Its disrespectful for the broadband companies to tell its customers
>  that its unlimited and then its not.
>  Its respectable to actually have transparent limits so customers can
>  make a choice.
>
>
>  > I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is
>  > irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom &
>  > Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation?
>
>  absolutely incorrect.
>  you do not blame the customer. what bad business practices.
>  if you say "all you can eat"then its all you can eat.
>  don't get all moral on us now.
>  If an "all you can eat" buffet has problems with people eating too
>  much...then they should advertise "all you can eat for one hour".
>
>  Patrick, why is this so confusing?
>  Broadband companies have consistently oversold their capacity.
>  "hey we got everything you want. dont go to our competitors. we let
>  you have as much as you want!"
>  Now they've shown their network vunerabilities.
>  One solution is to blame the customers who are just using what was sold to
> them.
>  Another solution is to lay down clear and reasonable limitations that
>  is transparent (not hidden behind an asterisk in small writing).
>
>  If the limit of 100GB of bandwidth a month, then say so.
>  Im sure most customers will be fine.
>  And this then allows other companies a reason to offer more to be
> competitive.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Irresponsible?

No more irresponsible than a local "all you can eat" restaurant
"crying foul" if 5 out of 100 guests were to eat 50% of the food
served.  All the while, slowing down service for the rest of the
guests.  Would it be that 'evil' for the restaurant to ask guests who
have had one serving already to go to the back of the line when two
people present themselves at the buffet at the same time?

Zero limits may be allowable for a period of time but when restaurant
traffic is increasing by 40% every year, eventually Mom & Pop will
have to place limits or "cry foul".  This isn't irresponsible, it's
very reasonable.  The amount of money they are making is irrelevant.
They are trying to maintain quality of service for their guests and
they're not about to double the size of their restaurant for the
greedy 5% when they can place reasonable limits on them.

Of course there has to be transparency but an asterisk will do if
we're only talking about 5% here.  I don't need to visit an "All you
can eat but you can't shove stuff into your Purse" restaurant.  An
"All you can eat(*) " restaurant will do.

Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
somewhere.  No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable.  I do
find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible
though.

I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is
irresponsible.  Even disrespectful.  If you wouldn't do it to a Mom &
Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation?

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In
>  > fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They
>  > limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
>  > users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.
>
>  you are correct Patrick. very good point.
>  Lets put aside Network Neutrality, discussion around monopolies and
>  vertical integration.
>
>  US broadband providers have advertised "unlimited" bandwidth.
>  "Hey we got a great deal...please use Cable and not DSL" (or vice versa)
>  Then when 5% of their users actually do the all you can eat, they cry foul.
>  This is HUGELY irresponsible on their part.
>
>  These companies need to not blame their users, or punish everyone by
>  limited certain technologies.
>  If they cant offer unlimited bandwidth, then they should openly
>  advertise the actual limits that we are purchasing so we can make
>  informed choices as consumers. So far, its only secrets that the
>  public must uncover themselves through independent tests.
>
>  As Charles Hope (and Canadian Charles) advocate, this will allow
>  competition to rise...and consumers to support the businesses they
>  want.
>  Companies that blame their customers are creating their own demise.
>  Like RIAA suing their music fans.
>  even if you think you're right, you're wrong.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits.  In
fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense.  They
limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.
Additionally, there will always be a 5% that uses more bandwidth than
the general public.  Of course an ISP is going to upgrade it's
networks in preparation for increased usage but it isn't going to do
so solely for the 5% of users who are using 50% of the bandwidth.  How
can you argue that it doesn't make sense to charge these users more
money?  This is what bandwidth limits do, they allow you to pay more
if you want to use more.

I'll also point out that bandwidth limits do not fall under net neutrality.

In canada, I have no doubt that Rogers places their VOIP phone service
packets ahead of regular internet traffic.  I think it's great.  It
allows people in Ontario to experience cheaper telephone services with
high call quality.  Innovation would suffer without this ability.  If
our health care board wanted to set up long distance surgery with
specialists in other provinces or countries, I think it would be great
to be able to be able to use the 2nd tier and ensure a low latency
connection.  A second tiered internet allows for things like this.  If
it's anti-competitive, let the courts deal with it.  Don't just stifle
it completly "just in case" when there's absolutely no evidence nor is
there even reason to believe the internet would slow down.  Who would
you rather use 50% of your bandwidth, people who aren't paying for it,
or people who are?  In what scenario would you get a faster network?
In what scenario would there be reason to invest large amounts of
money in making your clients happy?  They're not going to improve
their network to make 5% of their clients happy who aren't paying a
penny more than the other 95%.  They're going to improve it for those
paying more.  They're also not going to allow the 95% to deal with a
slow connection.

Because of Comcasts bandwidth management, your videoblogs (that aren't
distributed via torrents) load faster.  Rogers manages torrent traffic
in Toronto and I don't experience a connection that is any slower than
when I am traveling to the states.  Bell Canada (when i was using it
last year) didn't manage torrent packets and it wasn't any faster.

You shouldn't legislate out of fear.  Especially when it stifles the
economy and innovation.



On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to
>  > upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any
>  > business sense.
>
>  this just might be where you and I disagree.
>  I contend (as does most of the industry) that tomorrow's 95% will be
> today's 5%.
>  Broadband companies MUST expand the network.
>
>  Putting false limits based on bandwidth now stifles innovation.
>  again, i think we just read the situation differently.
>
>
>  >It makes more sense to place limitations or charge
>  > more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but
>  > they're really high. I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry
>  > about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently,
>  > they have the same in the UK. These aren't evil practices. They make
>  > a lot of sense.
>
>  as i said, as a customer, Id love to hear what these companies have in
> mind.
>  so far, all their thinking and decisions are being made behind closed
> doors.
>  they are not encouraging our trust.
>
>  If the limit is 200GB each month. I can live with that.
>  but the dark part of me imagines their accounting offices crunching
>  the numbers to see what the pain point is.
>  how much will people pay and not complain?
>  ever look at your bank/credit card fees? (probably not...too small)
>
>  But Patrick, I will be positive like you. we'll wait and see.
>  lets remember this conversation when the details come out.
>
>
>  > As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet
>  > would slow down. Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down
>  > traffic for the general public. Once again, comcast has already
>  > demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC
>  > torrents so that people could surf and read email faster) With a
>  > second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better
>  > infrastructure.
>
>  cool. then there's nothing to worry about.
>  we just trust them.
>  (have they earned your trust?)
>
>
>  > Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers,
>  > there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to
>  > pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download
>  > faster. At the worst, they would probably download at the same
>  > speeds.
>
>  sounds good.
>  is this in writing somewhere?
>
>  All anyone wants is a

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to
upgrade their system for 5% of users.  That just doesn't make any
business sense.  It makes more sense to place limitations or charge
more for special cases.  In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but
they're really high.  I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry
about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently,
they have the same in the UK.  These aren't evil practices.  They make
a lot of sense.

As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet
would slow down.  Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down
traffic for the general public.  Once again, comcast has already
demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC
torrents so that people could surf and read email faster)  With a
second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better
infrastructure.

Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers,
there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to
pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download
faster.  At the worst, they would probably download at the same
speeds.




On Feb 13, 2008 3:28 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of
>  > bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation
>  > and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
>  > build better networks for those paying for it.
>
>  i know you like objective proof, Patrick, so can you point to me where
>  broadband companies are not making enormous profits already?
>  you're text reads as if these companies are barely keeping afloat and need
> help.
>
>
>  > If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I
>  > have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and
>  > therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise,
>  > they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more
>  > now before we all become the 5%.
>
>  hmmyou keep acting like the current network is as fast as it can
>  be...so we must limit.
>  again, lets see some numbers showing that broadband networks arent
>  already making huge profits to reinvest in infrastructure.
>  i have no doubt that rates will keep going up anyway.
>
>
>  > NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line
>  > because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc
>  > *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create
>  > a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it.
>  > Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to
>  > ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS
>  > would probably be illegal)
>
>  its called the highest bidder.
>  If TimeWarner is a private company, they can do what they want.
>  and currently where are there any rules saying that my videoblogs need
>  to "transmit fine"?
>  what is the definition of "transmit fine"? 56k 128k 512k where is the
> standard?
>  you assume the these broadband companies work in good faith.
>  recent history shows that they seem to only become "transparent" when
>  forced to in a court of law (as you showed in the Vonage case).
>
>  again, i want s all to be happy and free...but usually you got to
>  fight for what that means.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps.  If you use a lot of
bandwidth, you should pay more for it.  This will encourage innovation
and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
build better networks for those paying for it.

If your grandmother wants to download movies every night.  Why do I
have to deal with a slower network.  She should have to pay more and
therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network.  Otherwise,
they're not going to do it for the 5%.  Better to begin charging more
now before we all become the 5%.

NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line
because then everyone would ask for the same thing.  Are NBC, CBS, etc
*all* going to be at the front of the line?  ISPs will have to create
a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it.
Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to
ensure better quality at a higher cost.  (and asking to slow down CBS
would probably be illegal)

As for anti-competitive stuff.  The article that began this discussion
talks about how an ISP blocked Vonage but was forced to stop.  Of
course I wouldn't be in favour of this being legal.



On Feb 13, 2008 3:01 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
>  > service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
>  > though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering
>  > high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a
>  > hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
>  > (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.
>  > This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.
>
>  agreed.
>  They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher
>  upload speed)
>
>  I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will
>  certainly stifle innovation and commercialism.
>  Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having
>  to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio?
>  every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play.
>  (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic
> limit)
>
>
>  > It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
>  > else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is
>  > already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are
>  > offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
>  > in order to provide better service for the general public.
>
>  what is NBC tells Comcast, "yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to
>  give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?)"
>
>
>  > If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
>  > anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?
>
>  great question.
>  I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now.
>  They are private company and can do anything they want.
>  (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me)
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would
be great to have more transparency.  Even enforced transparency if it
makes sense to do so.

Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though?  Should you be
fighting for this instead of net neutrality?  It seems like if this
isn't possible, net neutrality is a bad but necessary plan B but not
something anyone should truly set their sights on.

So you're saying if Comcast is sending torrents to the back of the
line, another ISP can't open up beside comcast to offer the opposite
using the same infrastructure?  That's bad.

On Feb 13, 2008 2:48 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
>  > has increased by 40% each year.
>  > Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
>  > new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
>  > internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
>  > BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
>  > This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
>  > facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
>  > offer a solution to these issues.
>
>  i see several of us giving solutions (richard especially)
>  I think you simplify the problem though.
>
>  What happens when even Grandma is using daily skype, video iChat, and
>  downloading movies every night from iTunes?
>  suddenly we all become that 5%.
>
>  So these companies should be thinking of how to expand their network,
>  rather than limiting usage, or denying certain technologies.
>  if they want to raise their rates or shape traffic, these
>  conversations should be done out on the open.
>  if these companies didnt have regional monopolies, i would just go to
>  another competitor.
>
>  A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
>  This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
>  depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
>  Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
>  would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric
>  companies get). This is not a new practice.
>  In return, there would be heavy investment is expanding the network
>  and open access to these lines.
>  People who want to get rich will get rich. The people who want free
>  speech and competition online, get free speech and competition online.
>
>  Currently, broadband providers are pretty much a monopoly.
>  Usually just one or two carriers in each area.
>  They are investor owned, so do not have to share any info with the public.
>  they also can do pretty much what they want just by adding some
>  legalese in their TOS (or not).
>
>  Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN,
> etc.
>  so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies,
>  the also owned the movie theaters.
>  It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers
> movies.
>  Called "Vertical integration", or a monopoly.
>  The studios eventually had to sell their theaters.
>  Independent film and theaters could then flourish.
>
>  I dont want rules.
>  I want everyone, including companies, to be free.
>  But there must be a level of transparency and guarantee that the
>  network is also open.
>  I crave the day when Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner voluntarily say,
>  "we promise to not slow down anyone's traffic even if it competes with
>  our own media". Suddenly we have a conversation amongst a company and
>  its customers. everyone feels good.
>
>  Instead, its silence, and mystery, and their lawyers affecting laws
>  with lobbyists.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Excellent post Richard.  I didn't realize some net neutrality bills
being pushed allowed for that.

Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
though?  For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering
high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a
hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
(telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.

This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.

It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
else just because certain companies want better service.  Comcast is
already demonstrating that the opposite is true.  TV networks are
offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
in order to provide better service for the general public.

If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?


On Feb 13, 2008 1:54 PM, Richard H. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pat,
>
>  I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to
>  be "smart" and take into account different data types and route/shape
>  accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally
>  conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that.
>
>  Here's the deal/misunderstanding.
>
>  According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one
>  specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can
>  totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type -
>  they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for
>  example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me).
>
>  About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has
>  a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you,
>  gets the same priority as a phone call from one AT&T executive to another),
>  then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups
>  with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen
> this
>  a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY
>  curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl
> companies
>  do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet.
>  So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the
>  lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building
>  them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them).
>  Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building
>  lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable
>  and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of
> ISP
>  if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial
>  up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely
>  one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US
>  compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you
>  have a service monopoly on the lines already built.
>
>  ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what "network
>  neutrality" is, and why it came into being ... Richard
>
>  On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>  wrote:
>
>  > Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
>  > has increased by 40% each year.
>  >
>  > Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
>  > new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
>  > internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
>  > BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
>  >
>  > This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
>  > facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
>  > offer a solution to these issues.
>  >
>  >
>  > On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>  > wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Sorry about that.
>  > >
>  > > Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Tim Street
>  > > Creator/Executive Producer
>  > > French Maid TV
>  > > Subscribe for FREE @
>  > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
>  > > MyBlog
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Verizon... Old News but frustrating...

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Sounds like you're well within their terms of use.  Could it be your
location?  I would speak to my neighbors to find out if they're
getting more reliable connections from different providers.

On Feb 12, 2008 10:33 AM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.wireless-weblog.com/50226711/
> verizon_wireless_unlimited_evdo_data_plan_is_limited.php
>
> I'm getting kicked offline continuously these days. I wonder if this
> is affecting me.
>
> I'm not using much bandwidth, but I sure am doing more than checking
> email and surfing the net.
>
> I'm connecting to my host server and uploading 50+ MB weekly. I'm not
> DL much, as it's too friggin' slow out here in the sticks. I'm online
> constantly developing my sites and my connection is on nearly all the
> time.
>
> I don't think I'm using the internet inappropriately.
>
>  From the Man:
> "Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess,
> BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY
> be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i)
> Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including
> access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity
> applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and
> field service automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY
> NOT be used for any other purpose. Examples of prohibited uses
> include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading,
> downloading or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii)
> server devices or host computer applications, including, but not
> limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds,
> automated machine–to–machine connections or peer–to–peer (P2P) file
> sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or
> dedicated data connections. This means, by way of example only, that
> checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired
> songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but
> downloading movies using P2P file sharing services and/or redirecting
> television signals for viewing on laptops is prohibited. A person
> engaged in prohibited uses, continuously for one hour, could
> typically use 100 to 200 MBs, or, if engaged in prohibited uses for
> 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GBs in a month.
> For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to
> protect our network from harm, which may impact legitimate data
> flows. We reserve the right to limit throughput or amount of data
> transferred, and to deny or terminate service, without notice, to
> anyone we believe is using an Unlimited Data Plan or Feature in any
> manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network
> or service levels. Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given
> month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited
> above, and we reserve the right to immediately terminate the service
> of any such person without notice. We also reserve the right to
> terminate service upon expiration of Customer Agreement term. Verizon
> Wireless Plans, Rate and Coverage Areas, rates, agreement provisions,
> business practices, procedures and policies are subject to change as
> specified in the Customer Agreement. Last Update 03/15/07 link:
> http://b2b.vzw.com/broadband/bba_terms.html";
>
> I guess it's time to ditch Verizon.
>
> Anyone have any suggestions for cellular internet?
>
> A friend told me about Alltel. Perhaps Chad will be better to me than
> the 'can you hear me now guy.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron Watson
> http://k9disc.blip.tv
> http://k9disc.com
> http://discdogradio.com
> http://pawsitivevybe.com
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Bill Cammack wrote:
>
> > While I respect what he's saying, because he's the one with the
> > company that deals with the business end of making money off of people
> > that make videos, I don't think "lack of content" is the problem here.
> >
> > The problem *now* is what I've BEEN saying the problem is, which is
> > that without a way to figure out whether suburban males with lawns
> > that are likely to buy a lawnmower are tuning in to your show, you
> > can't sell advertising to lawnmower manufacturers.
> >
> > To say that there isn't enough content for companies to advertise on
> > doesn't take into account that there's tons of content that NOBODY
> > wants to advertise on because of lack of perceived ROI.
> >
> > That's what's so funny about this video "boom". People are rushing to
> > make a site where people are going to get on the bandwagon and upload
> > UGC and they think they're going to make all this money from it, when
> > in reality, they don't know JACK about video, they don't know JACK
> > about building, growing and maintaining an audience, they don't know
> > JACK about creating, advertising or moderating a social site... All
> > they know is that "there's gold in them thar hills"! :D
> >
> > Get them a pan.
> >
> > There'

Re: [videoblogging] HD quality on YouTube

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I've heard that you can actually upload a video in flash format and it
won't get transcoded.  It'll maintain whatever quality in which it was
uploaded.

On Feb 13, 2008 11:19 AM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This link is NSFW, but anybody have any ideas how to get higher bitrate
>  encodes out of YouTube. The video quality is amazing compared to everything
>  else on YouTube:
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/user/nudisthdtvcom
>
>  Jake Ludington
>
>  http://www.jakeludington.com
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
has increased by 40% each year.

Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
internet to slow down because of 5% of users?  The creator of
BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.

This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
facing as bandwidth use increases.  No one here seems to be able to
offer a solution to these issues.

On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry about that.
>
>  Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
>
>
>  Tim Street
>  Creator/Executive Producer
>  French Maid TV
>  Subscribe for FREE @
>  http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
>  MyBlog
>  http://1timstreet.com
>
>  On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:
>
>  > that url doesnt work for me.
>  >
>  > On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > > Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
>  > >
>  > > Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
>  > >
>  > > http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Tim Street
>  > > Creator/Executive Producer
>  > > French Maid TV
>  > > Subscribe for FREE @
>  > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
>  > > MyBlog
>  > > http://1timstreet.com
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  > --
>  > http://www.DavidMeade.com
>  >
>  >
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Comcast officially admits to throttling bandwidth use

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Wrote something inspired by the day's discussions on which we can all mediate..

Religious beliefs,
Conspiracies, Idiot.
Always ask for proof.



On Feb 10, 2008 4:04 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is evidence for all of those things, often not a single smoking
>  gun, but plenty all the same. And I concede that there is obviously
>  some indication of how some net providers would like to behave in
>  future.
>
>  What I am suggesting is that Ive yet to see a decent explanation of
>  just why the indy video producer, or the person that wants to watch,
>  need to be crushed in order for corporations to reap large profits.
>
>  Im quite sure they can go about putting big media content on the net
>  in various ways, without needing to hamper others in order to be
>  sucessful.
>
>  Any signs that coprorations, or governments for that matter, see the
>  people as 'the enemy' needs to be balanced witht he fact that they
>  derive their power and profit from people. If they fear people, its
>  because they need people, and whilst they often get away with going
>  too far, there are limits.
>
>  Its not that I trust all will be well in future, or that everyone has
>  our best interests at heart, its that I dont believe that crying wolf
>  now is good. If there were an actual vlogging movement that had a
>  leader, would you want him or her going on talkshows and telling the
>  world how the little guy is being crushed? That would make me groan
>  and whilst it may stirr a minority to the cause, would it not cause
>  the masses to write that movement off as paranoid?
>
>
>
>  Cheers
>
>  Steve Elbows
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Please show me the evidence that Big Oil and the Big 3 were
>  creating
>  > an exponential profit situation with the stubborn refusal on CAFE
>  > standards and greenwashing of Global Warming.
>  >
>  > Please show me the evidence that Big Media was creating a
>  > oligopolistic market with their sponsorship of politicians and
>  > legislation.
>  >
>  > Please show me the evidence that Big Insurance was creating a
>  medical
>  > system that trades profit for people's health.
>  >
>  > Please show me the evidence that Big Power has been stymying
>  > renewable energy.
>  >
>  > It's not easy to find that evidence, Steve, although I bet you'd
>  > agree that all of those things were happening.
>  >
>  > I'm not talking about some nefarious plot against vloggers.
>  >
>  > I'm talking about control over markets and the flow of information
>  > and a profit motivated quid pro quo between like institutions.
>  It's
>  > just business.
>  >
>  > Cable companies want more profit. Big media will pay more for
>  > transmission of content than independent producers will. Look at
>  the
>  > TV market - it's dying. People are moving to the internet for
>  media.
>  > Right now they're accessing free content, or content that does not
>  > move ad revenue to the establishment media.
>  >
>  > If you don't think that issue is being worked on, and that big
>  > players are not trying to win more marketshare, I think you're
>  crazy.
>  >
>  > The best way to gain control over a market is to use your
>  strategic
>  > advantages. In this case, I'm suggesting that the strategic
>  advantage
>  > that is being leveraged is money. They are competing with
>  independent
>  > content creators who have no capital assets. influxxmedia can't
>  > afford (probably can but is not willing to) to pay a few hundred
>  > bucks to have a website coded. I can't afford a decent boom mic.
>  I'm
>  > sure this list is saturated with people that are in a similar boat.
>  >
>  > It's simply good business to raise the barrier of entry into the
>  market.
>  >
>  > This is not quite the argument that the Comcast situation is
>  bringing
>  > up, but it is closely related. Content like ours will be capped
>  and
>  > managed, and there will be a new web based cable media
>  subscription
>  > service that will exist outside of the caps.
>  >
>  > I've had this argument before on other topics, and the evidentiary
>  > request has been thrown at me before. Take Iraq, for instance...
>  > October 2001, I made the argument that we would be going into
>  Iraq,
>  > and that we would enter into a perpetual war situation. I said
>  that
>  > we would be there for decades and that the invasion was designed
>  to
>  > control the flow of Oil coming out of Iraq. Where do I find
>  evidence
>  > of that?
>  >
>  > Dismissal of my arguments based on lack of evidence were very
>  common.
>  > The establishment line was always swallowed and mine was always
>  spit up.
>  >
>  > Giant corporations don't care. They don't like people. People are
>  > problematic. I believe that giant corporations look at people as
>  the
>  > enemy. The needs of people negatively impact their profit. It's
>  not
>  > some kind of nefarious plot, it's just business.
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: National Protests of Scientology by Anonymous this Sunday

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I was out and about Sunday around town and saw about two dozen people
wearing masks scattered around the city throughout the day.  Two
walking by during brunch, a few on the subway, a few on the streets
here and there.  It took all day before it this thread clicked in my
head and I realized what they had all been doing.

On Feb 10, 2008 12:08 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just a reminder about 11am on Sunday around the world. Would love to
>  see some footage from anyone who can make it out.
>
>  Ive been reading the forums and here in NYC it looks like its going
>  to be huge, I cant believe how many people are participating.
>
>  Andrew
>
>
>  > On Feb 7, 2008 7:42 PM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > This Sunday there will be an amazing protest of Scientology by the
>  > > Anonymous group. If anyone in the US can make it out to capture
>  some
>  > > footage in your own locale and would be willing to sync up, please
>  > > email me off-list.
>  > >
>  > > Thanks!
>  > >
>  > > Map of Protests around the country
>  > > http://harbl.wetfish.net/cosplay/
>  > >
>  > > Anonymous makes it on to NPR:
>  > >
>  > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18764756
>  > >
>
>  > > The anti-Scientology group "Anonymous" told NBC11 Monday it
>  expected
>  > > more than 300,000 people to join protests worldwide on Feb. 10th at
>  > > 11am.
>  > >
>  > > "The campaign is going amazingly -- swimmingly at the moment. We
>  are
>  > > in the organizational stages," a woman who would not give her name
>  > > told NBC11. "We are having members of Anonymous from all over the
>  > > world join the protest at their local church of Scientology at 11
>  > > a.m. local time."
>  > >
>  > > Other people claiming to be members of Anonymous told NBC11 that
>  the
>  > > actual number of Scientology protesters worldwide will not reach
>  > > 300,000. The actual number of people who show up for the rallies
>  > > could be much less, they said.
>  > >
>  > > The group members said out of the 24 time zones, there are 17 that
>  > > have Churches of Scientology.
>  > >
>  > > "Of the 24 time zones there are 17 that have a church located in
>  them
>  > > and we believe our protesting is happening in 15 of those 17," said
>  > > the group member. "We have a map that people can log in to and say
>  > > what protest they're going to at the current moment. At last
>  count we
>  > > expect 300,000 at all the protests. Everyone in the world is
>  invited.
>  > > We're trying to get support from local organizations."
>  > >
>  > > Anonymous claims the Church of Scientology forces members to have
>  > > abortions as well as sign over their bank accounts.
>  > >
>  > > "We think it's wrong that they have tax exempt status," the member
>  > > told NBC11. "We want to to see if we can get that looked into by
>  the
>  > > IRS -- who ever we can gain the ear of. Are they really a religious
>  > > organization or a business?"
>  > >
>  > > The member of Anonymous said her organization is attempting to
>  change
>  > > its approach because it first gained attention as a group of
>  > > "hackers" and "pranksters."
>  > >
>  > > The group said it now plans to engage in activities that fight
>  > > against Scientology, but are not considered illegal by the U.S.
>  > > government. The member told NBC11 that she is not an actual hacker
>  > > herself, but rather someone providing other means of support to
>  > > Anonymous.
>  > >
>  > > The member said Anonymous is planning to hold large monthly
>  protests
>  > > against Scientology at its churches each month until May.
>  > >
>  > > She said the group is drawing up plans for more protests after
>  that.
>  > >
>  > > The group member said Anonymous would hold another large protest
>  two
>  > > days after church founder L. Ron Hubbard's birthday on March 15.
>  > >
>  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Remember when someone here said something about paranoia ...

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Kid Rock Starves To Death
MP3 Piracy Blamed

May 17, 2000

LOS ANGELES–MP3 piracy of copyrighted music claimed another victim
Monday, when the emaciated body of rock-rap superstar Kid Rock was
found on the median of La Cienega Boulevard.

"How many more artists must die of starvation before we put a stop to
this MP3 madness?" asked Hilary Rosen, president of the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA). "MP3s of Kid Rock's music were
so widely traded and downloaded by Napster users that he was driven
back to the mean streets from whence he came, dying bankrupt and
penniless in the gutter."

When found by police, the 28-year-old Kid Rock, born Bob Ritchie in
Detroit, was still clutching the cardboard "Devil Without A Place To
Sleep Or Anything To Eat" sign that had been his trademark ever since
the rise of Napster's MP3-sharing software bankrupted him in January.

Rosen said the RIAA would prosecute the music-piracy firms that are
responsible "to the fullest extent of the law."

"Napster killed Kid Rock, there's no doubt about it," Rosen said. "As
soon as that web site went up last October, people stopped buying his
music. It's not surprising, either: Why would anyone in their right
mind pay $12.99 for a CD with artwork when they could simply spend
seven hours downloading the compressed MP3 files of all the album's
songs onto their home computer's desktop, decompress it into an AIFF
sound file, and then burn the data onto a blank CD?"

"If we don't do something, this technology is going to destroy the
record industry," said Nathan Davis, vice-president of Atlantic
Records, Kid Rock's label. "Just imagine if the oil-change industry
allowed the public to have direct access to oil and oil filters,
enabling them to change their car's oil themselves without going
through Jiffy Lube or Kwik Lube. People would stop going to oil-change
shops, and the entire industry would collapse. We can't let that
happen to us."

The home page of the web site Napster, which has cost numerous rock
stars their lives.

According to post-autopsy analysis of Kid Rock's stomach contents by
the L.A. County coroner's office, his last meal consisted of
newspapers, cigar butts, old CD liner notes, and the partial remains
of sidekick Joe C., who had been missing since May 15.

Thus far, relief efforts on behalf of afflicted artists have met with
little success. In January, Metallica, System Of A Down, and Powerman
5000 teamed up for a concert tour known as "Us Aid," but the rockers
were forced to cancel when concertgoers at the kickoff show in Tempe,
AZ, showed up with MP3 recording equipment. An all-star fundraiser CD
featuring Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, and Korn was similarly scrapped when
an individual known only by the user name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
acquired a promotional copy and made it available to millions of fans
over the Internet.

"This is exactly the kind of thing we've been warning our fans about,"
James Hetfield, the lone surviving member of Metallica, told reporters
during a press conference at Hollywood's Grace Church Homeless
Shelter. "First, they found Madonna dead of a crack overdose in the
alley behind Liquid. Then my best friend and bandmate Lars is killed
by cops during a botched hold-up of a liquor store. Now, Kid Rock dies
of starvation like a filthy dog in the street. My God, people, didn't
we learn the lesson of Elton John?"

John, the British rock star who went bankrupt in 1976 before private
ownership of music-pirating cassette decks was made illegal, died of
exposure on a Welsh moor that year after creditors repossessed his
clothing.

On Jan 24, 2008 6:31 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Okay ... this is a few weeks old. Maybe seen by many. Worth a repos ...
>
>  Monday, December 31, 2007 by: Mike Adams
>
>  On the heels of the RIAA's recent decision to criminalize consumers
>  who rip songs from albums they've purchased to their computers (or
>  iPods), the association has now gone one step further and declared
>  that "remembering songs" using your brain is criminal copyright
>  infringement. "The brain is a recording device," explained RIAA
>  president Cary Sherman. "The act of listening is an unauthorized act
>  of copying music to that recording device, and the act of recalling or
>  remembering a song is unauthorized playback."
>
>  The RIAA also said it would begin sending letters to tens of millions
>  of consumers thought to be illegally remembering songs, threatening
>  them with lawsuits if they don't settle with the RIAA by paying
>  monetary damages. "We will aggressively pursue all copyright
>  infringement in order to protect our industry," said Sherman.
>
>  In order to avoid engaging in unauthorized copyright infringement,
>  consumers will now be required to immediately forget everything
>  they've just heard ... MORE :-) 
>
>  "Permission is granted to make copies of this story, redistribute
>  it, post it 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Or you could try enjoying video in a whole new way.

at your local gay video dance bar.

http://www.sfbadlands.com/

On Jan 17, 2008 3:19 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 17.01.2008 kl. 16:05 skrev Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>  > So how about Lumish... stuff that is inspired by and deeply related to
>  > Lumiere, but may
>  > break a rule here or there.
>
>  Go nuts. For something somewhat related that predates my own lumiere
>  videos: http://blandlands.com/
>
>
>  --
>  Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
>  http://www.solitude.dk/
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert

[Patrick Delongchamp]

"is proper acknowledgment not a fair request?"

I'm surprised you think this is the issue.  Of course it's a fair
request.  The problem Andreas is the way in which you requested the
acknowledgment.  An apology in order and you have yet to offer one or
address the issue.  That would have cut this thread short.  It's that
simple.

On Jan 17, 2008 12:07 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this
>  thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he
>  has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for
>  discussion. It's just a statement of fact.
>
>  I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been
>  read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't
>  want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already
>  pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if
>  you would address the original point of my participation in this thread
>  ("is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?")
>
>  From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions
>  - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I
>  can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous
>  interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun "we" because there are two
>  authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of
>  videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions
>  that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I
>  repeated myself again.
>
>  - Andreas
>
>  Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
>  > Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas "solution" to not
>  > wanting to be associated with his site
>  >
>  > What I find interesting in this discussion, is that Andreas said he
>  > wanted to create discussion and yet, for the most part he has not
>  > participated in this discussionthere are valid questions and
>  > concerns being raised and he and Brittany are silentI find that
>  > very telling
>  >
>  > Heath
>  > http://batmangeek.com
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Moon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> I have produced over 30 Lumiere videos that are linked on the site.
>  >> When I started, there was no manifesto, just 6 simple
>  >> rules/guidelines. I create Lumieres with the challenge of those six
>  >> restrictions... 60 seconds max, Fixed camera, No audio, No zoom, No
>  >> edit, No effects, and I enjoy it.
>  >> To me, it's a fun vlogging challenge.
>  >>
>  >> With that said, I have a couple concerns.
>  >>
>  >> I was never asked about agreeing with the manifesto (that was added
>  >> after I started creating Lumiere videos), but by the way it was
>  >> written, it certainly seems like I've agreed to it with the usage of
>  >> the word "we" throughout the document.
>  >>
>  >> I think it was mid-December when I really sat back and thought about
>  >> the Lumieres that I created and felt that my work was contradictory
>  > to
>  >> the Manifesto mainly (Quote from manifesto) "We do not believe
>  > in
>  >> artificially assembled scenes or scripted action.".
>  >> I set up my camera and change a tire...that's scripted.
>  >> http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/25/lumiere-detire/
>  >> I set the tripod up and cut the grass...that's scripted.
>  >> http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/13/lumiere-lawn-boy/
>  >> My point is, I read the Manifesto and honestly felt that for me to
>  >> post Lumieres, I had to agree with the manifesto.
>  >> I was saddened by the manifesto and felt I couldn't continue as I
>  >> wasn't sure I could abide by the added philosophical views of the
>  >> manifesto, even though I was still within the 6 rules initially
>  > outlines.
>  >> Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer, University Professor or
>  >> philosopher that is able to dig deep into the interpretations of the
>  >> document, I just kept seeing "we" throughout the document and felt I
>  >> was either in or out... no gray area.
>  >> I'm just Joe vlogger that enjoyed the 6 challenges that were
>  > original
>  >> setup and now felt there were more restrictions and beliefs that
>  > took
>  >> the fun out of it.
>  >>
>  >> After reading through this thread, I was pissed at the way Roxie's
>  >> oversight was responded by Andreas. We're all in the same world...
>  >> brothers and sisters of one species. There was no reason for such
>  >> anger and disdain and it certainly could have been responded to with
>  >> better tact.
>  >>
>  >> Adrian:
>  >> To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The
>  > only
>  >> solution Andreas has responded with is to "delete the video". Delete
>  >> it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or
>  >> whatever storage location) and lose all links including t

Re: [videoblogging] It begins...

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Just because the article uses the word "tiered service" doesn't mean
this is in any way related to Net Neutrality.

In Toronto, Rogers provides internet services and charges different
prices based on the amount of bandwidth you want.  i.e. If you're only
going to surf email, you get "Rogers Ultra-Lite Internet" or if you're
going to watch Youtube videos you'll want "Rogers Lite Internet".

It means I don't have to pay as much and certain people can still
leave bit torrent download/upload 24/7 at 400 KB/s and pay an
appropriate amount for that level of bandwidth.

There's no discrimination of packets in either of these tactics.
Period. This has *nothing* to do with Net Neutrality.

Yes, this does however have everything to do with TV over the internet
but it's a method of ensuring that bandwidth can be appropriately
distributed across their customer base and allows them to invest in
better technology for customers that are interested in IPTV etc.

On Jan 17, 2008 8:35 AM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Information Super Highway 1996-2008 RIP
>
>  Ron Watson
>  http://k9disc.blip.tv
>  http://k9disc.com
>  http://discdogradio.com
>  http://pawsitivevybe.com
>
>
>
>  On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Heath wrote:
>
>  > So it begins... http://tinyurl.com/393qmk
>  >
>  > NEW YORK - Time Warner Cable will experiment with a new pricing
>  > structure for high-speed Internet access later this year, charging
>  > customers based on how much data they download, a company spokesman
>  > said Wednesday.
>  >
>  > The company, the second-largest cable provider in the United States,
>  > will start a trial in Beaumont, Texas, in which it will sell new
>  > Internet customers tiered levels of service based on how much data
>  > they download per month, rather than the usual fixed-price packages
>  > with unlimited downloads.
>  >
>  > Company spokesman Alex Dudley said the trial was aimed at improving
>  > the network performance by making it more costly for heavy users of
>  > large downloads. Dudley said that a small group of super-heavy users
>  > of downloads, around 5 percent of the customer base, can account for
>  > up to 50 percent of network capacity.
>  >
>  > Dudley said he did not know what the pricing tiers would be nor the
>  > download limits. He said the heavy users were likely using the
>  > network to download large amounts of video, most likely in high
>  > definition.
>  >
>  > It was not clear when exactly the trial would begin, but Dudley said
>  > it would likely be around the second quarter. The tiered pricing
>  > would only affect new customers in Beaumont, not existing ones.
>  >
>  > Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., the world's
>  > largest media company.
>  >
>  > Heath
>  > http://batmangeek.com
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Rox Lumiere for Rupert

[Patrick Delongchamp]

lol, i'm sorry.  I don't even know what that meant.  I bring nothing
to this discussion.  Please carry on.

On Jan 14, 2008 4:39 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas,
>
> We should totally start up a Videoblogging 'Burn Book'.
>
> "Roxanne is too gay to function."
> "Robert Scobble made out with a hot dog."
>
> On Jan 12, 2008 7:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rox,
> >
> > I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they
> > don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but
> > it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. Lumiere
> > videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the beginning it
> > has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been collecting the
> > videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our reasoning
> > for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on the
> > front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/
> >
> > You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters missing
> > from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this very
> > basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people behind the
> > project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8
> > months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the
> > lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting to
> > both of us.
> >
> > The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos from 78
> > different people. You can jump straight to the videos at
> > http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an
> > amazing repository of creativity.
> >
> > - Andreas
> >
> > Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> > > A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I learned
> > > about Lumiere from Rupert.
> > > I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, Rupert, (and
> > > Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form.
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere-for-rupert/
> > >
> > > Love,
> > >
> > > Rox
> >
> > --
> > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > http://www.solitude.dk/
> >
> >
> > 
>

Re: [videoblogging] Rox Lumiere for Rupert

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Andreas,

We should totally start up a Videoblogging 'Burn Book'.

"Roxanne is too gay to function."
"Robert Scobble made out with a hot dog."

On Jan 12, 2008 7:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Rox,
>
> I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they
> don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but
> it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. Lumiere
> videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the beginning it
> has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been collecting the
> videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our reasoning
> for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on the
> front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/
>
> You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters missing
> from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this very
> basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people behind the
> project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8
> months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the
> lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting to
> both of us.
>
> The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos from 78
> different people. You can jump straight to the videos at
> http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an
> amazing repository of creativity.
>
> - Andreas
>
> Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> > A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I learned
> > about Lumiere from Rupert.
> > I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, Rupert, (and
> > Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form.
> >
> >
> http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere-for-rupert/
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > Rox
>
> --
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/
>
>
> 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

The question isn't whether or not Net Neutrality is good or bad, it's
whether or not TV networks are using net neutrality to crush this
community.

That's what I mean when I say we should stick to the topic at hand.

On Dec 31, 2007 1:11 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>  You said "last time I checked neither NBC nor videobloggers used
>
>  torrents very often to distribute content"
>
>  I was simply pointing out that there was an error in that statement,
>  because bittorrent has many deals with content partners to distrubute
>  content. And on a side note it could be very useful to vloggers who
>  are working on HD projects to use torrents to distribute their
>  content, as a matter of fact it's probably the best way right now.
>
>  The fact is that Comcast traffic shaped, they lied about it and then
>  when they were caught, they danced around it. They did the very
>  thing they and all other ISP's said that they wouldn't do. They
>  treated traffic differently for different entities, thus violating
>  the principles of a Netural Net. And if given the chance they will
>  do it again and if they can make money by doing it, you can belive
>  that they will. And let's remove youtube and blip and so on from the
>  equation, becaue what about a guy who is paying for his own
>  bandwith? Like a lot of people do, I doubt that they could afford to
>  pay to get priority traffic.
>
>  And as far as Canadian ISP's were going I was just basing that on the
>  various articles I have read from Cnet, Wired, etc who have talked
>  and written about ISP traffic shaping. Glad to hear you arn't
>  affected.
>
>
>  Heath
>  http://batmangeek.com
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > So you're saying that thanks to Comcast...NBC's torrent traffic is
>  > actually being hindered? Once again, this is still not evidence
>  that
>  > TV networks are trying to crush us. Obviously.
>  >
>  > btw, I'm Canadian and I use torrents. i also frequently travel to
>  > different areas of the US for work. I've never noticed that it's
>  > slower in Canada.
>  >
>
>  > On Dec 31, 2007 12:31 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Actually, bittorrent does have a distrubution deal with many
>  partners
>  > > including NBC.
>  > >
>  > > Talk to people from Canada whose ISP's have been traffic shaping
>  for
>  > > a while now, let them tell you how bad it is.
>  > >
>  > > Heath
>  > > http://batmangeek.com
>  > >
>  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  > >
>  > >  wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush
>  us.
>  > > The
>  > > > last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used
>  torrents
>  > > very
>  > > > often to distribute content. i.e. this community probably
>  benefited
>  > > > from this move. (i'm not saying I think comcast was right or
>  wrong,
>  > > > just saying that the transmission speed of vlogs probably got
>  faster
>  > > > because of this)
>  > > >
>  > > > Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it
>  would
>  > > > slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services
>  that
>  > > > pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become
>  > > > faster, not slower.
>  > > >
>  > > > No one here is "dead on." Net neutrality is a complicated
>  issue.
>  > > All
>  > > > i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks
>  are
>  > > > trying to crush us.
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > > > On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath  wrote:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has
>  admitting
>  > > to
>  > > > > traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download
>  speeds to
>  > > > > users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith.
>  So
>  > > how
>  > > > > much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So li

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

This discussion is primarily about whether or not TV networks are
trying to crush bloggers.

and like I said, net neutrality isn't a simple issue.  With a
saturated market, ISPs have less reason to invest in new technologies.
 Additionally, it would be difficult to fight against spam and hacker
attacks within the confines of net neutrality.  Just an argument to
say that there are dangers on both sides of the issue.  Let's stick to
the topic at hand.

On Dec 31, 2007 12:45 PM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it would
>  > slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services that
>  > pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become
>  > faster, not slower.
>
>  Some of us don't want to hang our hopes on "likely" and "probably"
>  when our access to information and freedom to disseminate it hang in
>  the balance.
>
>  Chris
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

So you're saying that thanks to Comcast...NBC's torrent traffic is
actually being hindered?  Once again, this is still not evidence that
TV networks are trying to crush us.  Obviously.

btw, I'm Canadian and I use torrents.  i also frequently travel to
different areas of the US for work.  I've never noticed that it's
slower in Canada.

On Dec 31, 2007 12:31 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually, bittorrent does have a distrubution deal with many partners
>  including NBC.
>
>  Talk to people from Canada whose ISP's have been traffic shaping for
>  a while now, let them tell you how bad it is.
>
>  Heath
>  http://batmangeek.com
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush us.
>  The
>  > last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used torrents
>  very
>  > often to distribute content. i.e. this community probably benefited
>  > from this move. (i'm not saying I think comcast was right or wrong,
>  > just saying that the transmission speed of vlogs probably got faster
>  > because of this)
>  >
>  > Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it would
>  > slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services that
>  > pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become
>  > faster, not slower.
>  >
>  > No one here is "dead on." Net neutrality is a complicated issue.
>  All
>  > i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks are
>  > trying to crush us.
>  >
>
>  > On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting
>  to
>  > > traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to
>  > > users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith. So
>  how
>  > > much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is
>  > > uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large
>  files
>  > > because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be
>  > > an "abuser". Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it
>  > > walks and quacks like a duck
>  > >
>  > > Heath
>  > > http://batmangeek.com
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is that
>  the
>  > > > tiered internet concept changes the way content can be
>  received.
>  > > >
>  > > > So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips and
>  > > > revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing access for
>  > > NBC,
>  > > > Viacom, TW/AOL, etc.
>  > > >
>  > > > It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their bandwidth,
>  it
>  > > > matters how the traffic cops route their information.
>  > > >
>  > > > I have no problem with people making money.
>  > > >
>  > > > I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of money.
>  > > Good
>  > > > for them. I'd like to do that some day too.
>  > > >
>  > > > I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene
>  > > amounts
>  > > > of money leveraging their economic might against people like me
>  > > and
>  > > > smaller entities like Blip that are trying to compete against
>  them.
>  > > >
>  > > > The tiered internet scheme to replace net neutrality does just
>  that.
>  > > >
>  > > > It allows the ISPs to limit the freedom to receive information
>  by
>  > > end
>  > > > users. It limits access to information by the user. Limiting my
>  > > > access to information by choking off traffic that ISPs deem
>  > > inferior
>  > > > is unacceptable.
>  > > >
>  > > > My understanding is that it would work like this:
>  > > > Verizon Wireless, my ISP would say that Blip traffic does not
>  make
>  > > > them as much money as NBC's traffic. So blip traffic will be
>  > > pushed
>  > > > into a tiny little trickle so that NBC's info can flow li

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush us.  The
last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used torrents very
often to distribute content.  i.e. this community probably benefited
from this move.  (i'm not saying I think comcast was right or wrong,
just saying that the transmission speed of vlogs probably got faster
because of this)

Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it would
slow down.  It would likely only speed up for certain services that
pay more.  blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become
faster, not slower.

No one here is "dead on."  Net neutrality is a complicated issue.  All
i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks are
trying to crush us.

On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting to
>  traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to
>  users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith. So how
>  much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is
>  uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large files
>  because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be
>  an "abuser". Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it
>  walks and quacks like a duck
>
>  Heath
>  http://batmangeek.com
>
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is that the
>  > tiered internet concept changes the way content can be received.
>  >
>  > So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips and
>  > revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing access for
>  NBC,
>  > Viacom, TW/AOL, etc.
>  >
>  > It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their bandwidth, it
>  > matters how the traffic cops route their information.
>  >
>  > I have no problem with people making money.
>  >
>  > I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of money.
>  Good
>  > for them. I'd like to do that some day too.
>  >
>  > I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene
>  amounts
>  > of money leveraging their economic might against people like me
>  and
>  > smaller entities like Blip that are trying to compete against them.
>  >
>  > The tiered internet scheme to replace net neutrality does just that.
>  >
>  > It allows the ISPs to limit the freedom to receive information by
>  end
>  > users. It limits access to information by the user. Limiting my
>  > access to information by choking off traffic that ISPs deem
>  inferior
>  > is unacceptable.
>  >
>  > My understanding is that it would work like this:
>  > Verizon Wireless, my ISP would say that Blip traffic does not make
>  > them as much money as NBC's traffic. So blip traffic will be
>  pushed
>  > into a tiny little trickle so that NBC's info can flow like a
>  raging
>  > river.
>  >
>  > Given that blip is a small start up, and doesn't have the
>  tremendous
>  > assets that an NBC has, NBC could afford a giant subscription cost
>  > that blip could never hope to cover. This happens all the time in
>  > unregulated markets. Big players who can afford it, will push the
>  > costs up, pricing smaller competitors out of the game.
>  >
>  > That can happen at the transition end, and already did. I watched
>  > bandwidth triple as the Information Superhighway was turned into
>  > eCommerce. Things have settled on that end a bit, but now the move
>  is
>  > to actually limit access to information by the enduser if the
>  content
>  > provider doesn't pony up big money for preferred traffic
>  treatment.
>  > This means that all of us on this list, would be relegated to to a
>  > trickle while NBC would get the raging river.
>  >
>  > That's what the big scare is from people who steadfastly support
>  Net
>  > Neutrality.
>  >
>  > Nobody's saying that bandwidth should be free, only that it should
>  be
>  > treated the same by those entities who route the traffic.
>  >
>  > I hope this makes sense, and I hope that someone will either
>  support
>  > me on this or check me.
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  >
>  > Ron Watson
>  > http://k9disc.blip.tv
>  > http://k9disc.com
>  > http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
>  > http://pawsitivevybe.com
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:20 AM, P

Re: [videoblogging] Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

 implied that the streaming media was a sign that
> > they were on our side. That they were supporting this community. I
> > was the one saying it was a business decision in the first place.
> >
> > > Streaming video allows them to sell ads. If nobody watches it,
> > nobody
> > > gets paid. Give it up for free and you get more viewers.
> >
> > If nobody buys the oranges in the fruit stand, the fruit seller
> > doesn't get
> > paid either, however, if he gave it away for free he'd simply go
> > broke. Your
> > statement makes the leap of faith that no indie video maker (not
> > Corporate
> > Media) wants to get paid for what they do.
> >
> > I happen to need an income of some kind in order to meet my basic
> > needs of
> > food, shelter, new video equipment, luxury suite at the Bellagio, etc.
> > (maybe you are independently wealthy?) as I assume is true of most
> > people on
> > the list. If I can get paid to make video or blog or anything else
> > that I
> > happen to enjoy, I'll actively seek ways to get paid to do something I
> > enjoy, rather than doing something I hate and making the thing I
> > enjoy a
> > sideline.
>
> Apples and oranges, Jake, and I believe that it proves my point.
>
> If they charged for their streaming video and nobody watched it,
> they'd make no money, 'they'd sell no oranges and not get paid.' By
> giving it up for free and selling ads on it, they get to sell their
> oranges.
>
> Once again, you are mistaking the product being sold by the corporate
> media. The NYT is selling their viewers to the advertisers. The
> viewers are the oranges in this metaphor, and the pay to play model
> did exactly what you described in this metaphor.
>
> >
> > Jake Ludington
> >
> > http://www.jakeludington.com
>
> Patrick,
>
> I'm sure there are several reasons you find my words so unpalatable.
> I think there is one part that is political and one part that is
> based upon how each of us think.
>
> There are people who like to deal with the concrete, the step by
> step, the details.
>
> Others like to deal with the big picture, the connections, the abstract.
>
> The meyers briggs (sp) test for personality types breaks this down
> into Subjective (the former) and Intuitive (the latter), and I think
> that's a huge part of our problem in communicating.
>
> I believe you are a strong S. You think subjectively.
>
> I believe that you find Jake's step by step so refreshing because it
> gives you a solid roadmap to follow. You make the mistaken assumption
> that it's based in fact because you can follow it. It fits your
> method of thinking, so it's factual.
>
> I find it maddening because it leaves so much out. There are just as
> many assumptions in his statements as mine, but they're not active
> assumptions. They're omissions of fact. It's almost as if they exist
> in a vacuum.
>
> Some of the omissions include:
>
> Net Neutrality and a tiered internet.
>
> The idea that giant corporations are actively trying to price us out
> of the game, as we type, so they can give their content preferential
> treatment guaranteeing that they maintain the power over distribution
> of information.
>
> The recent actions of the FCC.
>
> Allowing further consolidation of distributive power over information.
>
> Corporate sponsorship of politicians, legislation, and regulation.
>
>   This leads to corporate sponsored public policy.
>
> Absent these understandings, and I find them to be quite factual, I
> think Jake's arguments make quite a bit of sense.
>
> Add these understandings and I find it that it leads to truthiness
> and lacks critical thinking.
>
> I don't think I'll be participating any longer in this conversation,
> but who's to say.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron Watson
> http://k9disc.blip.tv
> http://k9disc.com
> http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
> http://pawsitivevybe.com
>
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:
>
>
> > Some may lean towards an opinion of 'you were both right' but I think
> > this was an example of truthiness vs. critical thinking.
> >
> > I have no doubt that the majority of this community is capable of the
> > latter. They're just less often heard.
> >
> > It was interesting to see my original argument take human shape in
> > Ron's email. It was even more interesting to hear Jake's response.
> > These are the kinds of responses that are often lacking from our
> > heated threads. Much of wh

Re: [videoblogging] Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Some may lean towards an opinion of 'you were both right' but I think
this was an example of truthiness vs. critical thinking.

I have no doubt that the majority of this community is capable of the
latter.  They're just less often heard.

It was interesting to see my original argument take human shape in
Ron's email.  It was even more interesting to hear Jake's response.
These are the kinds of responses that are often lacking from our
heated threads.  Much of what Scoble is referring to might have been
avoided had the community stood up for itself when confronted with
these kinds of conspiratorial opinions.

What do we want more?  A long list of 'People who hate and/or pity
this group' or rational, evidence based discussions?

On Dec 30, 2007 5:18 PM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Great post, Jake.
>  I wish we could talk. I'm sure it'd be far more productive.
>
>  This is not a very efficient way to communicate, and there's a lot
>  left out that takes too damn long to write, and then there's even
>  more spaces open for misunderstanding.
>
>  I'm going to bow out now.
>
>  Cheers,
>  Ron
>
>
>
>  On Dec 30, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Jake Ludington wrote:
>
>  > I've been offline for a bit and I'm not trying to drag this thread out
>  > further, but felt like I should respond:
>  >
>  > > Jake
>  > > You obviously care about distributed media.
>  > >
>  > > You want to help people do that. So your beliefs have something
>  > to do
>  > > with being on this list.
>  >
>  > I want to help people get from whatever their vision is to something
>  > approximating that vision, whether that's something as simple as
>  > recording
>  > video from their webcam or something complex like figuring out the
>  > right
>  > tools for some grand video project. It is my belief that everyone
>  > who wants
>  > to make video (whether it be for their family and friends, or for
>  > everyone
>  > on the planet) should be able to harness all the tools available to
>  > do so.
>  > So I suppose in that sense, my beliefs come into play.
>  >
>  > I do not, however, have any kind of us versus them agenda, because
>  > it is
>  > also my belief that the corporate machine being raged against here is
>  > equally entitled to making video and distributing it however they
>  > want to. I
>  > don't have to like the end result, but I "vote" for what I like by
>  > watching
>  > it or tuning out.
>  >
>  > > I, want help with media. That's why I'm on this list.
>  >
>  > I get the sense that many people are on the list for this same
>  > reason, in
>  > spite of the original thread all this discussion evolved out of.
>  >
>  > > I think you are missing an important point. the Corporate Media
>  > would
>  > > like to coopt this space to make it stream profit to them.
>  >
>  > Then my interests and the Corporate Media (as described by you) have
>  > something in common. I enjoy making videos. Sometimes making videos
>  > means
>  > streaming profit to me. When I get paid for doing something I
>  > enjoy, it
>  > means I have more freedom to continue doing that thing I enjoy.
>  >
>  > If by co-opting this space, you mean Corporate Media want to
>  > distribute
>  > videos via RSS, rise to the most popular spots in iTunes,
>  >
>  > > We are basically stealing their profit by giving people another
>  > > outlet for their media consumption.
>  >
>  > This is where you get off track a bit...
>  >
>  > Every person on the planet has a finite amount of time to do
>  > anything. We
>  > all make tradeoffs and choices about how we spend that time -
>  > especially the
>  > time allotted as "free time" throughout the day. Networking
>  > programming
>  > competes with sporting events which compete with the arts which in
>  > turn
>  > compete with taking the kids to soccer practice, which competes with
>  > millions of other options like podcasts, videoblogs, etc.
>  >
>  > > How much has Youtube taken from
>  > > their bottom line?
>  >
>  > YouTube and the rest of the video sharing sites are taking from
>  > Corporate
>  > Media's bottom line by leveraging the expensive content created by
>  > Corporate
>  > Media. If you look at what is consistently among the most viewed
>  > shows on
>  > YouTube, etc., it's stuff uploaded from places like Comedy Central,
>  > ABC,
>  > NBC, etc., not from indie content creators.
>  >
>  > I personally think it's a lousy deal for the content creators for
>  > Joe Smith
>  > YouTube user to upload Corporate Media content and the content
>  > creator get
>  > nothing for it. YouTube makes ad money (even if it's less than a
>  > penny per
>  > view). The creator gets nothing. If you set aside WHO the content
>  > creator
>  > is, it's not a real stretch to empathize with the content creator
>  > who makes
>  > money from making content when someone else is making money from their
>  > efforts while they get nothing.
>  >
>  > > TV is going down the toilet.
>  >
>  > TV was never great, it was me

Re: [videoblogging] Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Jake, just shut up. ..you had me at 'hello'.

On Dec 28, 2007 3:39 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > They care about crushing distributed media, just as power companies
>  > care about crushing distributed power.
>
>  > We are here because we believe in distributed media.
>
>  Please do not use the universal 'We' to sum up everyone on the list. I'm
>  here to get help with videoblogging and help others. My beliefs have
> nothing
>  to do with my participation/lurking on the list.
>
>
>  > We're not targets at a personal level. We're targets at a conceptual
>  > level. And the corporate media is coming after the concept of
>  > distributed media.
>
>  I get contacted regularly by people in mainstream media companies who want
>  my involvement in projects because of my background in independent online
>  publishing. They aren't trying to target anything conceptual that I'm
> doing;
>  they want to understand it. Corporate media is trying to figure out how to
>  embrace what the little guy is doing in a way that maintains their
> relevance
>  while not eroding shareholder value in the process.
>
>
>  > If I had to guess, I'd say their going have their way with net
>  > neutrality, flood the tubes with content then price us out of the
>  > game. That way they get us to put our money into their wallets and we
>  > just go away.
>
>  That must be why NYTimes.com decided to offer their product for free - to
>  flood the tubes and make us go away; not because they realized they could
>  make more money doing things the way indie publishers were already having
>  success.
>
>
>  Jake Ludington
>
>  http://www.jakeludington.com
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Patrick Delongchamp]

lol, well said.

On Dec 28, 2007 3:39 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly
>  > the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group
>  > down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This
>  > kind of stuff only starts flame wars.
>
>  I was validating your point by not commenting on things I agree with. ;)
>
>  I have no interest in starting a flame war.
>
>  Jake Ludington
>
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

A good argument.  I reread the posts a bit a I understand what is
meant by "the viewer is the product".

I think everyone here seems to be saying the same thing in a different way.

It's hard to argue that money isn't at the root of everything.
Because of this, it's hard to say "at the root of it, it's about
making the viewer happy" because, of course, it isn't.  At the root of
it, it's the money.  Executives may hold a passion for making great
entertainment (keyword: may) but in the end they're going to work
everyday to put food on their families.

Ok, so i'm willing to agree that viewers are the product but I'd have
to say it's Network execs that control TV, not the advertisers.
There's always a way to make more money.  It's the execs, not the
advertisers that are the ones aiming to high.  Advertisers will
purchase viewers but the viewers will always be *somewhere* to
purchase.  It's the executives that have created a model where all the
eggs go into a few select baskets.  TV could be riskier, but it's the
greed of execs, not advertisers that makes it bland.  Reality TV is a
perfect example of how to make riskier, better TV without having to
worry so much about Advertisers because they can be made on the cheap.

Anyway, now I'm just rambling.  This is a really interesting
conversation though.



On Dec 28, 2007 2:45 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of content risky
> to them, and so
>  if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting effect.
> We now live in an
>  era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the possibility to
> make stuff that is
>  free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people see it.
> This has not thus far
>  lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so
> advertising is far from the
>  only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be considered
> to be asleep,
>  and why there are not all that many people making compelling content to
> wake them up.
>
>  I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a peak of
> free speech. The
>  barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be, but its
> not much of a
>  threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free ears and
> free minds to
>  do anything with the free speech.
>
>  If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and will be
> crushed using
>  all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up on
> consumption, so its
>  easier to ignore than crush.
>
>  If people are having a nice dream, why would they want to be woken up? When
> the
>  nightmare arrives, they will be desperately seeking a saviour to wake them.
> I dread to
>  think what & who they will end up listening to, hopefully some people will
> be talking a lot
>  of sense and wont get eliminated. Maybe the net will be a tool that
> sometimes helps
>  humanity make the right decisions in a difficult era, maybe it will end up
> a mess of
>  competing propaganda, time will tell.
>
>  Better Bad News seems to cover several of the themes at hand, including
> being a show
>  that isnt 'safe', being political, being very worried about the future, and
> in the latest video
>  mentioning Scoble, in relation to Obama and the S-1959 bill which is seen
> as a an anti-
>  thought crimes on the net thang! Anyway that particular bill is probably
> worthy of its own
>  conversation.
>
>  http://www.betterbadnews.com/
>
>  Cheers
>
>  Steve Elbows
>
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Sinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>  >
>  > Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
>  > misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz:
>  >
>  > 1) Ratings are king.
>  > 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers.
>  >
>  > Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is
>  > going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
>  > advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding
>  > what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of
>  > the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to
>  > watch that influences these decisions.)
>  >
>  > The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with
>  > audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if
>  > they think there will be an audience or not.
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  > -Frank
>  >
>  > http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
>  > wrote:
>  > >
>  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
>  > > >
>  > > > Frank,
>  > > >
>  > > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate
>  > media a
>  > > > bit here.
>  > > 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Patrick Delongchamp]

At this point, I'd like to thank Brooke and Steve for responding to my comments.

Steve, I hope you can appreciate the comments I made about how when
people begin to agree, they stop contributing.  If your posts feel
ignored as you've often stated, please take into consideration.  Even
when you disagree with me, I still find your comments refreshing.

I agree that people should comment where they feel they have something
to say but I think that, in order to move a conversation forward, it's
important to include concessions in responses.  (e.g. the way i
started off this paragraph) When members simply jump onto the first
thing they disagree with, discussions tend to spiral down into
bickering.

Additionally, straw man arguments should be avoided...


On Dec 28, 2007 2:41 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, give me a break, seriouslysomeone question's Wikipedia, which
>  Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they
>  are, in your opinion, wackos.give me a break
>
>  Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia
>
>  Heath
>  http://batmangeek.com
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>
>  > Perhaps I should have said "people that distrust the Wikipedia
>  model."
>  > Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an
>  > important part of anything you read online. The threshold for
>  > inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much
>  easier.
>  > Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken
>  with
>  > a grain of salt. The content should of course be scrutinized in the
>  > same way anything you read should be scrutinized.
>  >
>  > Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been
>  > found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your
>  > distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's
>  > policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth.
>  >
>  > Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what
>  scientific
>  > journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of
>  > certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant
>  > viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original
>  > research and synthesis of published material. This would
>  necessarily
>  > lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it
>  > less trustworthy.
>  >
>  > It's important to understand something before discrediting it.
>  > However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others
>  that
>  > universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own. They
>  > are:
>  > - creationists
>  > - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories
>  > - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution
>  > - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and
>  movies
>  > like "What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole."
>  >
>  > ...etc
>  >
>  > On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it
>  reveals a lot.
>  > >
>  > > It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than
>  one
>  > > article
>  > > and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some
>  cases,
>  > > attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those
>  accuracies is shut
>  > > down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with
>  > > irrefutable
>  > > scientific proof in hand.
>  > >
>  > > Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting
>  anything
>  > > else.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Jake Ludington
>  > >
>  > > http://www.jakeludington.com
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I have to agree with Frank here.  I don't believe sitcom writers sit
down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters
strudel.  I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic
shows, etc. (keyword: try)  Shows that are likely to get good
ratings/demographics get picked up.  I'd be interested in hearing a
specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples
showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content.

People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on
the demographics they seek.

On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
>  misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz:
>
>  1) Ratings are king.
>  2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers.
>
>  Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is
>  going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
>  advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding
>  what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of
>  the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to
>  watch that influences these decisions.)
>
>  The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with
>  audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if
>  they think there will be an audience or not.
>
>  Regards,
>  -Frank
>
>  http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>  wrote:
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
>  > >
>  > > Frank,
>  > >
>  > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate
>  media a
>  > > bit here.
>  > >
>  > > There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with
>  > > the one shot nature of the movies.
>  > >
>  > > They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales
>  > > models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the
>  > > movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by
>  corporations.
>  > > Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement
>  and
>  > > such, but it's still quite true.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > > In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that
>  the
>  > > viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate
>  > > advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's
>  why
>  > > we have more and more commercials and less and less content.
>  >
>  > I agree. It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the
>  > televison model. The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards
>  > video production.
>  >
>  > The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get. You
>  > get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint
>  > in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go
>  > for vacation. You can't serve an "advertisement channel", because
>  > nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people
>  > to sit there and watch your advertisements.
>  >
>  > The content is made by a production team. The production team gets
>  > its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on. To sell
>  > a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also
>  > to run by focus groups. You play your pilot for viewers, but, again,
>  > they don't give the production team any money towards the creation of
>  > their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid
>  > attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens with
>  > the show.
>  >
>  > So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the funds for
>  > the show. Plus they have to pay for their real estate, electricity,
>  > lights, equipment, staff Where does this money come from?
>  > Advertisers. While you're pitching shows to stations, they're
>  > "pitching" advertising time to advertisers based on the demographic
>  > that they feel are going to tune in to your show. Of course, there
>  > are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production
>  > teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep the
>  > lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money affecting
>  > decision-making around shows.
>  >
>  > Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO
>  > monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is nowhere
>  > you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to see.
>  > Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on. All of a
>  > sudden, marketing teams start "selling you" the show. You see stuff
>  > on the internet. They use commercial space on popular shows to
>  > publicize the upcoming shows. The buzz is cr

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Patrick Delongchamp]

And just to bring things back to the topic at hand.  This is exactly
the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group
down.  Where was the comment on everything else I brought up?  This
kind of stuff only starts flame wars.

On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot.
>
>  It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one
> article
>  and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases,
>  attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut
>  down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with
> irrefutable
>  scientific proof in hand.
>
>  Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything
>  else.
>
>
>  Jake Ludington
>
>  http://www.jakeludington.com
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Perhaps I should have said "people that distrust the Wikipedia model."
  Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an
important part of anything you read online.  The threshold for
inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much easier.
Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken with
a grain of salt.  The content should of course be scrutinized in the
same way anything you read should be scrutinized.

Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been
found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your
distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's
policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth.

Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what scientific
journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of
certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant
viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original
research and synthesis of published material.  This would necessarily
lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it
less trustworthy.

It's important to understand something before discrediting it.
However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others that
universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own.  They
are:
- creationists
- people who easily buy into conspiracy theories
- people who don't believe in the theory of evolution
- people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and movies
like "What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole."

...etc

On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot.
>
>  It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one
> article
>  and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases,
>  attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut
>  down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with
> irrefutable
>  scientific proof in hand.
>
>  Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything
>  else.
>
>
>  Jake Ludington
>
>  http://www.jakeludington.com
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I realize that this topic is dying so I thought, what better time to
jump in?  I have to say that, Robert, I agree with a lot of what you,
Andrew, Schlomo, etc have said over the last week.

If it's of any consolation, there's something I realized when dealing
with the Wikipedia issue:  When people begin to agree with the person
that is being attacked, they stop contributing to the thread because
a) they want it to die off, and b) they don't want to say anything
supportive because they know their words will be twisted and picked
apart, consequently prolonging the discussion and making things worse.

That's the reason you don't hear as many supportive comments.  I know
as I write this that though I may be lending you a word of support I
might attract an additional few negative responses.

The more vocal people in this group seem to think that someone is
constantly out to get them, control them, crush them.  To them,
collaboration means fake, gatekeepers only exists when more than one
person produces a vlog, and doing something you love for a living
means selling out.

The roots of their often hypocritical views of mass media contributed
to their distrust in Wikipedia.  I am always wary of people that
distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot.

I think this problem in combination with the fact that this group is
less relevant everyday is what sent the community downhill so fast.
It's hard to argue that this group is dying.

Anyway, that's my rant.  If the list gets started again, feel free to
add my name below scoble and schlomo.

On Dec 26, 2007 2:13 AM, Robert Scoble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gena,
>
>  Thanks, this was a very nice Christmas present and a nice way to end a
>  really great day. Someone just forwarded me your email and I appreciate
> that
>  too.
>
>  I haven't been able to respond over on the Cheryl page because it keeps
>  saying my comments are spam, which is funny too. Oh well.
>
>  One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a
>  million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired
>  dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people
>  who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here
>  paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was
> born.
>
>  Part of my frustration is that the community, rather than cheering on
>  businesses that are trying to put food on videoblogger's tables, actually
>  turn and attack and not in a helpful way and when someone is under attack I
>  don't see many in this community come and stand up against the mob.
>
>  I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and I see pretty
>  predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How
> many
>  of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the
> dead
>  pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag
>  printed attacks against me? Not many.
>
>  Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away
>  from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it
>  definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to
> take
>  risks on behalf of the community.
>
>  That's why Cheryl's post about Epic-FU rubbed me the wrong way. I can bite
>  my lip when it's me under attack (although, no, it's not fun) but when I
> see
>  a repeated pattern I felt I needed to speak out about it and this community
>  has often not been friendly to those of us who are trying to make
> businesses
>  that get more of us paid.
>
>  Let's turn it away from PodTech.
>
>  Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated
>  Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked
> for
>  him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the
>  other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are
>  dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee
>  industry.
>
>  How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte,
>  or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to
>  distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who
>  gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising
>  deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you
>  remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy
>  businesses here.
>
>  There's tons of others, too.
>
>  As to PodTech's run-in with Lan Bui, there's a reason why we were arrogant
>  in response: those pictures were taken at our party: the Vloggies. An
>  employee used them without checking because she assumed that the community
>  would support us and that pictures taken at our own event could be used
>  without worrying too much and it was on a sign, not something that would
>  make us tons of money. Turns out she w

Re: [videoblogging] Disgusting article about "viral video marketing"

[Patrick Delongchamp]

You've got to give props to someone who can get his client's video to
be most viewed on one of the most visited sites on the internet.  I
imagine from his methods that he makes a pretty hefty margin on it
too.

It's Marketing 2.0.

Unfortunately, if everyone did this, youtube wouldn't be much fun
anymore.  As more people are using these methods you can see the
content on the most viewed page going downhill especially in the last
few months.

He was pretty good at getting himself this far, i'm sure he'll learn
to adapt and move on to something no one else is yet trying.  Don't
discount him yet.

On Nov 23, 2007 12:00 PM, Frank Sinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was hesitant to give this guy more attention than he already has,
>  but thought it would be very relevant to see what is happening "out
>  there":
>
>
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/the-secret-strategies-behind-many-viral-videos/
>
>  Many of us knew that the "Top Viewed Videos" on YouTube was 90% crap
>  already honestly, i wasn't at all surprised - except that this guy
>  is a TA at Stanford! Is this what our "Nation's Best" are being taught
>  nowadays?
>
>  Why doesn't Mefeedia have a Videos tab with "Most Viewed Videos"? It
>  is not a popularity contest - we want it to be about REAL people
>  having REAL conversations. This reinforces that belief.
>
>  Regards,
>  -Frank
>
>  Frank Sinton
>
>  http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Patrick Delongchamp]

dubious cultural value?

lol, Brook, it's just a joke.  If people want to participate, they'll
do it because it's funny.  No cultural value implied. :P

On Nov 16, 2007 12:22 PM, Brook Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Well...
>
>
>  On 11/16/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > No vlogs yet? Someone *has* to be up for the challenge.
>
>  Maybe the fact that it's been done quite a bit already, as you
>  described, limits the appeal. What do further "responses" add to
>  anything? And why would we want to use our navlopomo videos to
>  publicize some external commercial project of dubious cultural value?
>
>  Actually there hasn't been any shortage of ideas with navlopomo'ers at
>  all. No one seems to be having any trouble coming up with their own
>  ideas from what I've seen. The emphasis on the personal in the group
>  might also be a factor in the lack of participation in this
>  "challenge".
>
>  For me, the problem hasn't been ideas, but time.
>
>  Brook
>  ___
>  Brook Hinton
>  film/video/audio art
>  www.brookhinton.com
>  studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Patrick Delongchamp]

No vlogs yet?  Someone *has* to be up for the challenge.

On Nov 16, 2007 7:57 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The reactions are so funny ... I could only imagine because of teh
>  music that it might be something like a wedding or other normal scene
>  and ... maybe someone puked, then another ... retching is contagious
>
>  Gotta give them some credit for originality ... in this game of
>  getting eyeballs and ad dollars ... I am not sure if this is a sad
>  commentary on consumerism ...
>
>  or maybe I am way wrong and this is a new kind of Survivor pilot
>  reality TV mix ... BM meets ER ... BM'ER coming in 2008 on Fox
>
>  Maybe it is a "cautionary tail" ... the future "MTV Jack ASS" ...
>  Xtreme Recycling ...
>
>  I have been told my posts can be too long ... I'll get to the nitty
>  gritty ...
>
>  
>  "If you are interested in bringing some traffic to your website,
>  consider advertising with 2girls1cup.com"
>
>  The real stories ...
>  What did the "Want Ad" read ... Wanted two actresses with
>  experience/no experience ...?
>
>  Where was the "Want Ad" placed?
>
>  What was for dinner the night before?
>
>  who will be first to advertise (besides "fling")?
>
>  Exactly how much crack did it take?
>
>  Who cleaned up afterwards?
>
>  Is the Number One fan, a fan of number two too, or the only fan?
>
>  Was an exhaust fan used in the making of Two Girls One Cup?
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "pdelongchamp"
>
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > So...um...has anyone heard of the youtube phenominon of vlogging your
>  > reaction to watching '2 Girls 1 Cup' for the first time?
>  >
>  > Three things I want to mention.
>  >
>  > 1. Definitely watch the reaction videos below, they're very funny.
>  > 2. DO NOT WATCH 2 GIRLS 1 CUP!
>  > 3. *If* you do watch it, you *HAVE* to vlog yourself watching it for
>  > the first time. See below for details on where to find it.
>  >
>  > These are a couple of my favourite reaction videos, they may contain
>  > vulgarity but are otherwise safe for work.
>  >
>  > "2 Girls 1 Cup Reaction #1"
>  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtRzf_ZcM0U
>  >
>  > "2 girls 1 cup reaction"
>  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI3Km0y1jWs
>  >
>  >
>  > So *if* you do decide to watch it, you can't be mad at me. It's your
>  > own fault. Do not watch this for the first time without vlogging your
>  > reaction. To watch the very unsafe for work video go to
>  > http://www.2girls1cup.com (I repeat, NSFW)
>  >
>  > and if you vlog yourself, even it's it's for NaVloPoMo, post your
>  > video in this thread. Oh and go search youtube for more reaction
>  > videos. There are hundreds. Each is priceless.
>  >
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Patrick Delongchamp]

...i meant to say "phenomenon"

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Bored

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Well, if we switch to a forum, those on email would never experience a
difference.

However, those that actually use the forum would be able to avoid
certain branches within a conversation.

I don't think we can realistically expect people to change email clients.

pd

On Nov 13, 2007 4:26 PM, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Patrick Delongchamp wrote:
>  > I'm definitely not a regular contributor but I agree with David.
>  >
>  > This format just doesn't seem to be working as people keep
>  > unsubscribing and whenever there *is* an interesting discussion, it
>  > ends in bitterness.
>
>  Perhaps people could use e-mail clients that support threads? And then have
>  the discipline (?) to avoid the threads they don't like?
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Bored

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I'm definitely not a regular contributor but I agree with David.

This format just doesn't seem to be working as people keep
unsubscribing and whenever there *is* an interesting discussion, it
ends in bitterness.

A forum would probably work much much better.  In order to properly
make the switch we could start a campaign where everyone mentions the
new forum in their latest vlog.  We could provide instructions on how
to forward all messages to your inbox.  I'd be happy to create a
tutorial.

Are there any forums that are ahead of their time that we can look at
and discuss?

Patrick

On Nov 13, 2007 4:02 PM, David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rather sad when a group that tries to push new media subscribes and
> restricts itself to old
>  technology like email.
>
>  If this was a forum, there would be post and threads. If there were
> personal attacks and
>  such, a moderator could delete the post or simply close the thread. That's
> the beauty of
>  forums. They are moderated. People would never get away with some of the
> crap that
>  goes on here. If someone slagged someone in one of the Help areas, a
> moderator would
>  just remove that post.
>
>  As I said way back when the forum idea was brought up, I prefer forums. My
> inbox is
>  already full of things that require my attention. I dont really want more
> email to distract
>  me or clutter up my mind. You say you would never go to a forum yet you
> visit your inbox
>  all the time? I dont understand that thinking. As Mr Meade said, you could,
> if you so
>  desired, have everything emailed to you anyways with a forum.
>
>  Of course...if nothing changes, then nothing changes I guess. I didnt start
> the group and
>  was not involved when the ground rules were laid out and will probably
> leave the group
>  long before it ceases to exist.
>
>  For what it's worth, and not like they matter at all, those are only my
> opinions.
>
>
>  David
>  http://www.taoofdavid.com
>  http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Rupert Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>  >
>  > Yeah, a lot of us read in threads anyway, in gmail or whatever.
>  >
>  > Even if each discussion was in its own 'room', with space to continue
>  > a discussion for longer than this list allows, those rooms/threads
>  > would still be poisoned and killed by personal slanging matches and
>  > shouting.
>  >
>  > I need my emails, too - I'd never visit a forum. But that's just me.
>  >
>  > I wonder if what we need is a Blog. Kind of like a Yahoo VB List
>  > Extra. Longer discussions could be taken out of the group and
>  > continued on a blog for discussion in text comments and video
>  > comments that we can subscribe to?
>  >
>  > Rupert
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Howell" 
>  > wrote:
>  > >
>  > > It's a real shame that this group never went the way of a "forum".
>  > Would could have all
>  > > those things you listed in different sections on the forum and then
>  > people could post in
>  > > the respective areas.
>  > >
>  > > Those looking for help wouldnt have to be inundated with things they
>  > have no interest in
>  > > and people that want to duke it out could do so off in a different
> area.
>  > >
>  > > Hindsight...
>  > >
>  > > David
>  > > http://www.taoofdavid.com
>  > > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
>  > >
>  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman"  wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > > We all get heated about issues - fine - but if people have got
>  > > > > something negative to say about another person, about their
>  > > > > motivations or anything that's likely to lead to a personal
>  > slanging
>  > > > > match, perhaps they could show us the courtesy of having their open
>  > > > > and frank discussion on a blog and linking to it here.
>  > > >
>  > > > andrew did blog it here: http://dembot.com/post/19305296
>  > > > i hear you though. Substance in discussions is necessary.
>  > > > We are trying to help each other do better than before.
>  > > >
>  > > > after one of the blow-ups last year, I made a list last year of what
> I
>  > > > thought the Videoblogging list was for:
>  > > > 1. help new people to start videoblogging
>  > > > 2. discuss new tech and its implications
>  > > > 3. discuss what we need...and build it!
>  > > > 4. let new companies know what is expected community behavior (after
>  > > > we agree what it is)
>  > > > 5. discuss creator's rights
>  > > > 6. gossip and fight
>  > > >
>  > > > we are certainly a chaotic crowd and "gossip and fight" is just a
>  > group dynamic.
>  > > > doesnt mean we got to encourage or stand for itbut here we are.
>  > > >
>  > > > Jay
>  > > >
>  > > > --
>  > > > http://jaydedman.com
>  > > > 917 371 6790
>  > > > Video: http://ryanishungry.com
>  > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  > > > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  > > > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  > > >
>  > >
>  >
>
>
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Bored

[Patrick Delongchamp]

As much as people don't like seeing a thread derailed, I think people
also don't like seeing comments like "take it to your blog."

I'd rather see a message that expresses "please, no personal attacks"
than those that express "go back to where you came from."  I guess
what I'm saying is that if you see something you don't like you should
ignore it or talk about it.  I just don't think telling someone to
take it somewhere else is the appropriate answer.  (though I could
maybe be convinced otherwise, any thoughts?)

After all, this is a discussion group and discussions should flow
freely.  The linear thread style of gmail (which most of us probably
use) makes it difficult to ignore certain branches of a thread.  Until
the format changes, we have to accept that those branches will be
whipping us in the face once in a while.

On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Unsurprisingly I dont subscribe to the idea that arguments like these get in
> the way of
>  other discussions or devalue them. If that happens, its because people
> choose to let it
>  distract them.
>
>  Its fair enough that when things get nasty/ugly, some peoples reactions is
> to get the
>  negative poop out of their lives, either by trying to shut others up, or by
> leaving, or
>  whatever. Its some sort of natural internal defense I guess.
>
>  I was always up for forums rather than a signle list, though for different
> reasons, and not
>  optimistic about it actually ever happening. Even with forums, arguments,
> spill over to
>  other areas and the vibe-poisoning effect is stillt he same.
>
>  But would a world without such confrontations be a good thing? I think not,
> I think in a
>  strange way it is necessary for people to get ugly to get to the bottom of
> things. A world
>  in which nobody argues is a world in which unspeakable horrors are likely
> to go unchecked
>  because they are unpalatable to think about. If liberals save the planet
> then maybe I will
>  change my tune, and if everyone was as decent a human as you then this
> ugliness would
>  not be necessary (not being sarcastic there, I think you have a great
> personality), but for
>  now I remain sadly on the side that believes you get to learn a lot from
> uglyness.
>
>  Cheers
>
>  Steve Elbows
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Rupert Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>  >
>  > Great list of purposes for this group. Really well thought out.
>  >
>  > The last item is gossip & fight. Gossip can be positive, more often
>  > than fighting, and can lead to interesting discussions.
>  >
>  > And gossip is generally done here in a friendly spirit.
>  >
>  > Since the fighting is the last item, and when it happens it gets in
>  > the way of (and devalues) all the other 5/6 more important items, I
>  > think it's something we could encourage people to take to their blogs.
>  > And not duplicate it here, just link.
>  >
>  > (Unless someone else brings it as a matter of interest. Like happened
>  > with Lan & Podtech. He never brought it here, or discussed it here.
>  > And actually, the Podtech discussion, as heated as it got, stayed very
>  > impersonal and stuck to the issues, for the most part.)
>  >
>  > When I was a newbie here in spring/summer 05, I saw the fighting and
>  > thought 'these people are weird'. If No 1 is to help people start
>  > videoblogging, this kind of stuff is totally counterproductive. In my
>  > humble opinion ;)
>  >
>  > Rupert
>  > http://twittervlog.tv
>  > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman"  wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > We all get heated about issues - fine - but if people have got
>  > > > something negative to say about another person, about their
>  > > > motivations or anything that's likely to lead to a personal slanging
>  > > > match, perhaps they could show us the courtesy of having their open
>  > > > and frank discussion on a blog and linking to it here.
>  > >
>  > > andrew did blog it here: http://dembot.com/post/19305296
>  > > i hear you though. Substance in discussions is necessary.
>  > > We are trying to help each other do better than before.
>  > >
>  > > after one of the blow-ups last year, I made a list last year of what I
>  > > thought the Videoblogging list was for:
>  > > 1. help new people to start videoblogging
>  > > 2. discuss new tech and its implications
>  > > 3. discuss what we need...and build it!
>  > > 4. let new companies know what is expected community behavior (after
>  > > we agree what it is)
>  > > 5. discuss creator's rights
>  > > 6. gossip and fight
>  > >
>  > > we are certainly a chaotic crowd and "gossip and fight" is just a
>  > group dynamic.
>  > > doesnt mean we got to encourage or stand for itbut here we are.
>  > >
>  > > Jay
>  > >
>  > > --
>  > > http://jaydedman.com
>  > > 917 371 6790
>  > > Video: http://ryanishungry.com
>  > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  > >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Well, it was pretty awful and I too unsubscribed afterward.  ...but
there's just something about it that draws you in...  as I'm sure many
participants in this thread can attest to.

but boy is it nice to be on the sidelines.  which is why i'm going to
shut up now.

On Nov 13, 2007 1:51 PM, Rupert Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm amazed that you like it Patrick, as we all went to town about you
>  in April. It was enough to make me unsubscribe, because I got so
>  caught up with it.
>  I don't get the enjoyment of it.
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
>  > Wikipedia Storm of '07.
>  >
>  > Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
>  > be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is
>  > very much "the videoblogging group." :)
>  >
>  > I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this
>  > medium's moguls. I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert
>  > Murdoch contributes.
>  >
>  > As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's
>  > often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had
>  > stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the
>  > very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for
>  > for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source:
>  > Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are
>  > frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted.
>  >
>  > darn...151 words...now 156...
>  >
>
>  > On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be
>  > >
>  > > > selling out in the
>  > > > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs
>  > > > that Mr Baron was
>  > > > seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
>  > >
>  > > AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of
>  > > Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of
>  > > this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!
>  > >
>  > > Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread
>  > > on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
>  > >
>  > > Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
>  > >
>  > > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
>  > > identical knock off- Engagdget
>  > > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
>  > > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
>  > > broke)
>  > > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
>  > > 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
>  > > fired from AOL
>  > > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
>  > > likes.
>  > >
>  > > Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely
>  > > destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,
>  > > stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I
>  > > just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is
>  > > exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
>  > >
>  > > Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they
>  > > can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while
>  > > collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all
>  > > over everyone.
>  > >
>  > > Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause
>  > > others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the
>  > > reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:
>  > > When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being
>  > > brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage
>  > > and rubs off on the rest off.
>  > >
>  > > My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.
>  > > The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its
>  > > by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be
>  > > asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got
>  > > Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need
>  > > to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How
>  > > can you improve the show?
>  > >
>  > > We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to
>  > > receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>
>
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
Wikipedia Storm of '07.

Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is
very much "the videoblogging group." :)

I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this
medium's moguls.  I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert
Murdoch contributes.

As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's
often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had
stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the
very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for
for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source:
Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are
frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted.

darn...151 words...now 156...

On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
>
>  > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be
>
>  > selling out in the
>  > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs
>  > that Mr Baron was
>  > seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
>
>  AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of
>  Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of
>  this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!
>
>  Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread
>  on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
>
>  Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
>
>  1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
>  identical knock off- Engagdget
>  2. Not paying employees fair wages.
>  3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
>  broke)
>  4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
>  2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
>  fired from AOL
>  3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
>  likes.
>
>  Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely
>  destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,
>  stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I
>  just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is
>  exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
>
>  Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they
>  can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while
>  collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all
>  over everyone.
>
>  Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause
>  others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the
>  reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:
>  When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being
>  brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage
>  and rubs off on the rest off.
>
>  My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.
>  The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its
>  by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be
>  asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got
>  Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need
>  to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How
>  can you improve the show?
>
>  We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to
>  receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
>
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] "video blog", the term of choice

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Very interesting topic.  I ran a similar vlog/video blog/videoblog regular
google search after someone suggested renaming the WP article from vlog to
video blog.  After Youtube added a video blog genre the term exploded and
vlog began to plateau.  There was suddenly very strong reasoning to rename
it.

As for podcasts.  I would assume those who publish videos still refer to
their feeds as simply podcasts.  I also found that it was very difficult to
explain a podcast to people.

I think people do think of youtube and of someone sitting in front of a
webcam when you mention "video blog" but i think that's a good thing.  It's
understandable since it's still the most common type of video blog and it
gives you a simple base from which you can begin to explain how yours
differs.

As for RSS, I agree that most will probably never know term but I'm still
not sure it's the future. In my opinion as an adult educator, RSS is just
plain old not user friendly.  The term is obscure, having to copy and paste
links is a lot to expect of people, (i wish i were exaggerating on that one)
and, in regards to aggregators, people rarely download third party apps
anymore and having to visit an additional web site is counter intuitive to
reducing the amount of sites you need to constantly check.  The solution has
to be web based and it has to be something people are already using.  Right
now, that's facebook, youtube, and email.  If people aren't exposed to your
content through one of those three ...series of tubes(? :)... it will be
significantly harder to reach them.

So how far have we come in making video work fluidly on different mediums?
Quite far I'd say but unfortunately it hasn't been through an open standard
such as RSS.

As for blog, I'm pretty sure it's a household word.  I'll have to ask my mom
if she's ever heard of it and report back. :)

On 11/1/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   I hadn't thought to check into this in a long while.
>
> video blog vs. vlog vs. video podcast
>
> Which terms is winning out?
>
>
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=video+podcast%2C+vlog%2C+video+blog%2C+videoblog&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
>
> Alternate tiny url:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3b6j4u
>
> It would appear that "video blog" is THE clear term of choice, which
> makes me quite happy. The masses have pretty much spoken at this
> point. I think it's safe to say the dust is starting to settle and
> can't forsee anything changing the picture anytime soon.
>
> In fact the only thing more popular then "video blog" is simply
> "podcast", with an order of magnitude.
>
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=video+blog%2C+podcast
>
> On a side note it's interesting to note that while popularity the term
> podcast has obviously peaked the term videoblog continues to rise very
> steadily. Most interesting.
>
> I would think that podcast is the prefered term for audio specific
> media, but I could well be wrong, which brings me to my next point.
>
> **Google can't tell us what people thing these terms mean.**
>
> Do people think of podcasts as generally audio only?
>
> What percentage of these articles that are refering to "podcasts" are
> actually referring to video specific podcasts?
>
> When people here "video blog" what do they think?
>
> When people here "video blog" do they think simple "youtube"?
>
> or do they think "like a blog but instead of text primarily video"?
>
> Is blog itself yet a household term, or do people still think it means
> "to throw up"?
>
> And finally and most importantly... what is the state of RSS in all this?
>
> My guess is the vast majority will never know the term, RSS. Nor do
> they necissarily need to.
>
> They may understand two things: 1) subscribing, 2) syndication (if
> they make media).
>
> RSS is undisputeably and undeniably integral to this space. As 1) a
> subscription mechanism, 2) a serch mechanism, and 3) a syndication
> mechanism even though the vast majority of the public may not know it
> or even need to know it.
>
> What interests me though, is how far have we come in loosening media
> from the confines of the "web page" so it may flow freely beyond the
> boundries of the traditional web to set top boxes, portable devices,
> cell phones and such.
>
> How far have we really gotten in that big picture?
>
> What percentage of web originating video is viewed on a web page?
>
> What percentage is viewed on the web page it originated on, as opposed
> to through a syndication, reblog, or search site?
>
> Just some late night ramblings.
>
> -Mike
> mefeedia.com
> mmeiser.com/blog
> evilvlog.com
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Request for user ban on Wikipedia "videoblogging" article

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Hey everyone,

I know there's about zero interest left in this. (i feel the same way,
i would have dropped it a long time ago if it weren't for my wiki
account on the chopping block)

Just wanted to report that the Ban Request has been closed with
results pasted below.  Thankfully, if anything good came out of this
it's that there's some good discussions going on in the talk page and
the article has gained a lot of sources.  I'd like to get a third
party Admin to check out the article in a week or so and give us some
tips & comments.  Hopefully, someone'll throw in some book citations.
Good weekend and let's hope for a calmer Monday.

Community sanction discussion

"Well, what I see there, in for example this edit[1], is the example
of dictionary definitions and a link farm. I'm sure you were trying to
help, but that edit really *would* need a lot of improvement.
Wikipedia is not[2] the dictionary, though we do have a sister
project, Wiktionary,[3] which you might wish to look at if you want to
write dictionary definitions. Also, please note that, to be quite
frank, I couldn't care less who any of you are, up to and including if
you invented the Internet. We write from reliable sources,[4] never
our own knowledge, thoughts, or experience[5], so it really doesn't
matter a bit who an editor is. If Linus Torvalds[6] came along to edit
the Linux[7] article, he'd *still* be expected to source. (And deal
with me asking about a few bugfixes. But that's a different story.)
>From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping
laundry lists[8], dictionary definitions[9], material "sourced" to
blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly
to *listen to him*, and work at improving the article. Most of the
material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't
acceptable."
- Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=127290390&oldid=127280521
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAUNDRY
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DICDEF

"*Comments after looking at the evidence*
Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from
groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before
coming to Community sanction noticeboard? First off if members of the
yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:Meatpuppets[1] and a serious one - Single
purpose accounts[2] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp
didn't mention it there is a possible Conflict of interest[3] problem
here - authors or those associated with them should not be adding
their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion.
I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see
here[4] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of original
research[5]. The only issue I could have with Pdelongchamp is their
slight failure to assume good faith[6] but this is not a blocking
offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from
this version [7] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept "Citizens
do media for themselves, BBC Technology" "TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New
York Times" 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet
Journal" & "The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK" - but only
if they were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is no
malicous intent from, no wrong doing by and no need for sanction
against Pdelongchamp. However I do think there should have been more
of a compromise on both sides. Mmeiser was trying to improve the
article, he was going about it wrong but the edits seem to be good
faith
Mmeiser & the vloggers, you should have requested comment[8] in order
to build a consensus[9] on the talk page or in the very least Mmeiser
should have taken User:Adrian_M._H[10]. advice and created temporary
page[11] in their userspace. User:Adrian_M._H[10]. has made a trojan
effort to mediate between Pdelongchamp and Mmeiser I recommend that
this block request be withdrawn and Adrian_M._H's advice taken
forthwith. As an uninvolved party I would be happy to host a temp
rewrite page in my userspace if this is of assitance to both sides"
-Cailil talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
[4] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=next&oldid=106060604
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&oldid=104826246
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:R

Re: [videoblogging] Threats and male vloggers

[Patrick Delongchamp]

That's a great idea.  If some who owns any of the books wants to add
something, you can source it by including the code below at the end of the
information you're introducing.

For example:

It is common knowledge that Videobloggers do it daily.{{cite book
|coauthors= Michael Verdi, Ryanne Hodson, Diana Weynand, Shirley Craig
|title= [[Secrets of videoblogging]] |publisher= [[Peachpit]] |year= 2006
|isbn= 0321429176 }}

(naturally, you'll change the info if you're not using "Secrets of
Videoblogging") When you save your changes, you'll see a superscript
number[5] beside the quote and the reference will automatically be included
in the reference section at the bottom of the article.

pd



On 5/3/07, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   So who wants to go through the 3 vlogging books written by this
> community
> and then jsut cite them in the wikipedia entry. isnt that all we have to
> do?
> I am sure that they devine vlog in there along with some od the genres etc
> right?
>
> where are all those academic papers folks have written? arent those
> reliable
> sources?
>
> let's just cite the heck out of it with sources we actually trust instead
> of
> using a magazine article written in 5 minutes...
>
> let's work together to follow wikipedia's rules but keep what we as
> vloggers
> know this new medium to be
>
> On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > I don't have a vlog anymore but I used to do
> > cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com
> >
> > As you can see from the results from the ban attempt, I have in fact
> been
> > trying to stick up for the vlog article. It was changes i made to the
> > article nearly a year ago that saved it from getting deleted. (
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=70288801&oldid=70288758
> > )
> > Since then, I've asked people to source their contributions. (a
> wikipedia
> > core content policy) The vocal people in this group seem to be
> > misdirecting
> > their frustration with Wikipedia policy towards me.
> >
> > The content Mmeiser had been trying to reinsert (
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=125328951&oldid=124431636
> > )
> > into the article was the content that almost got the article deleted
> > nearly
> > a year ago.
> >
> > As much as Mmeiser is upset that I initially supported the deletion
> > (because
> > I agreed with the reasoning behind the nomination) I instead decided
> that
> > the information could actually be turned into something valuable and did
> > research and made changes. Changes that saved it from getting deleted. I
> > hate to say this but if I had left Mmeiser alone, the article would
> > probably
> > have been deleted over and over again since then.
> >
> > Wikipedia has policies. Anyone can edit it but there's only a select
> kind
> > of information that can go into it.
> >
> > People claim i've been making disruptive edits and "dicking" with the
> > article for a year now. I challenge them to read the wikipedia
> definition
> > of disruptive edits. (
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing) Has anyone
> > really looked at the evidence to determine if it is in fact Mmeiser who
> > has
> > been putting up with me for a year or if it is instead the other way
> > around?
> > (see my defense in the ban request)
> >
> > I would be happy to explain any specific edit I've made if a link of the
> > edit is provided. I can't really defend accusations that i've "deleted
> > everything for the last 2 years" which is terribly inaccurate.
> >
> > pd
> >
> > On 5/3/07, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  <
> markus.sandy%40mac.com>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > HI Patrick,
> > >
> > > When I saw your initial post, I thought "why is he posting in the
> wrong
> > > thread?" and then I looked more carefully and got your "joke".
> > >
> > > When you posted the "text version", I thought "is he now spamming?"
> > > But I assume you have a different default char set than me and hence
> > > the funny characters in the first version of that email.
> > >
> > > You've pissed off a number of group members and friends and so I can't
> > > help but wonder what kind of person you really are.
> > >
> > > Do you have a vl

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I know that sources that require subscriptions are heavily discouraged.
I've never looked up student newspapers though.  I'd say there's a good
chance they're ok.  You should check it out.

On 5/3/07, Nick Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   So does this mean I should post on Wiki bout my article in the Wall
> Street Journal
> <http://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.ht\
> ml?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidt&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month<http://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.html?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidt&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month>>
> . It is a creditable
> source, but in order for you to view the article you have to be a member
> of wsj.com.
>
> Also what about the article that Josh Leo, Ryann, Sunny, Jay, & I from
> the University of Illinois student newspaper
> <http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30\
> /News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814\
> 078.shtml<http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30/News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814078.shtml>>
> ? Is that creditable?
>
> So could I put those 2 sources on the vlog wiki?
> My guess is no, because of the WIKIPI Police.. but that is fine with me.
>
> This is just kind of funny to me...but interested subject.
>
> Nick
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Patrick Delongchamp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >--when you say "the need to cite content"must the sources be
> > > "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs?
> >
> > I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video
> blog
> > should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia
> has to
> > set a standard so how low should they set it?
> >
> > Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published
> sources
> > because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we
> lowered
> > the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves
> because
> > there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No.
> Blogs
> > can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable
> > source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is
> under
> > debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate
> is
> > notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as
> a
> > another source to give more examples.
> >
> > > --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the
> > > only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit
> > > of your background so we know where you're coming from. You
> > > are obviously very interested in defining the subject of
> videoblogging.
> >
> > I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main
> one.
> > And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress
> on it
> > and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and
> > hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with
> my
> > roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I
> > naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it.
> >
> > >I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very
> > >new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group
> > >since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You
> > >can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a
> > >traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add
> to
> > >the Vlog entry.
> >
> > >So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how
> > >what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the
> best
> > >wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and
> > >different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing
> > >points of view?
> >
> > Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition
> because
> > videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure.
> >
> > But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing
> and
> > doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my
> opinion
> > doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
> >
> > Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers

[Patrick Delongchamp]

She's right.  It's pretty mini.

On 5/3/07, missbhavens1969 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Crossing the line? Gee...Y'think?
>
> Well, since we've descended into the pit of juvenile name calling, I'd
> like to say that after the close following of these
> wikipedia/videoblogging threads I've come to the conclusion that a
> certain someone has a
>
> Teeny. Weenie. Peenie.
>
> Kisses,
> Bekah
>
> (I couldn't participate in the wikibanapalooza. I can't figure out how
> to edit them for the life of me, and I actually don't care for
> Wikipedia in the least although I respect those who do. Clearly it's
> best that I didn't vote: who wants to invite angry emails from someone
> with such a peenie problem?)
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Patrick Delongchamp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I apologize.
> >
> > I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David
> > Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys.
> >
> > pat
> >
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: Vlog wiki
> > To: David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade.
> >
> > I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry.
> > I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed
> > the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i
> > would have been crossing the line.)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > On 5/3/07, David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I apologize for the formatting.
> > >
> > > Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to
> > > Patrick Delongchamp.
> > >
> > > Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob.
> > >
> > > David Howell
> > > to Patrick
> > >
> > > show details
> > > 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago)
> > > You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are
> > > talking about.
> > >
> > > Quit emailing me.
> > >
> > > On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page.
> > >
> > > a) the discussion is closed
> > > b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet
> > > which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets
> > > c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by
> > > advertising and soliciting meatpuppets.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets
> > >
> > > Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at
> > > him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your
> > > house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to
> > > Wikipedia and ban me for no reason.
> > >
> > > I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of
> > > people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was
> > > to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as
> > > well have just said "You forgot Poland."
> > >
> > > pd
> > >
> > > On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hey Dave,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to
> > > change the
> > > > subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time.
> > > >
> > > > I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and
> > > read
> > > > some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting
> > > to see
> > > > the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the
> > > > difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself
> > > > compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere
> > > > when people don't resort to personal attacks.
> > > >
> > > > pd
> > > >
> > >
> > > --

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I apologize.

I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David
Meade.  Ugh.  This has not been a great week.  I'm genuinely sorry guys.

pat


-- Forwarded message --
From: Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Vlog wiki
To: David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Oh man.  Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade.

I guess i should take a step back for a bit.  I'm actually very sorry.
 I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset.  I crossed
the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i
would have been crossing the line.)
>
>

On 5/3/07, David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   I apologize for the formatting.
>
> Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to
> Patrick Delongchamp.
>
> Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob.
>
> David Howell
> to Patrick
>
> show details
> 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago)
> You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are
> talking about.
>
> Quit emailing me.
>
> On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page.
>
> a) the discussion is closed
> b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet
> which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets
> c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by
> advertising and soliciting meatpuppets.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets
>
> Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at
> him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your
> house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to
> Wikipedia and ban me for no reason.
>
> I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of
> people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was
> to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as
> well have just said "You forgot Poland."
>
> pd
>
> On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hey Dave,
> >
> > Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to
> change the
> > subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time.
> >
> > I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and
> read
> > some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting
> to see
> > the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the
> > difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself
> > compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere
> > when people don't resort to personal attacks.
> >
> > pd
> >
>
> --
> David Howell
> http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Patrick Delongchamp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Mike,
> >
> > I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry.
> >
> > It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics
> currently being
> > discussed in the group.
> >
> > pd
> >
> > On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please
> accept this
> > > > as humour with only a tinge of bitterness)
> > > >
> > > > "This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry.
> [...] It's
> > > > pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try
> work on
> > > > the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours."
> > > > -Michael Verdi
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well Patrick,
> > > I don't understand your subject line.
> > > What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my
> > > observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there
> > > are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not.
> > > Please fuck off,
> > > Verdi
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://michaelverdi.com
> > > http://spinxpress.com
> > > http://freevlog.org
> > > Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Threats and male vloggers

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Hi Markus,

I don't have a vlog anymore but I used to do cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com

As you can see from the results from the ban attempt, I have in fact been
trying to stick up for the vlog article.  It was changes i made to the
article nearly a year ago that saved it from getting deleted. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=70288801&oldid=70288758)
Since then, I've asked people to source their contributions. (a wikipedia
core content policy)  The vocal people in this group seem to be misdirecting
their frustration with Wikipedia policy towards me.

The content Mmeiser had been trying to reinsert (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=125328951&oldid=124431636)
into the article was the content that almost got the article deleted nearly
a year ago.

As much as Mmeiser is upset that I initially supported the deletion (because
I agreed with the reasoning behind the nomination) I instead decided that
the information could actually be turned into something valuable and did
research and made changes.  Changes that saved it from getting deleted.  I
hate to say this but if I had left Mmeiser alone, the article would probably
have been deleted over and over again since then.

Wikipedia has policies.  Anyone can edit it but there's only a select kind
of information that can go into it.

People claim i've been making disruptive edits and "dicking" with the
article for a year now.  I challenge them to read the wikipedia definition
of disruptive edits. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing)  Has anyone
really looked at the evidence to determine if it is in fact Mmeiser who has
been putting up with me for a year or if it is instead the other way around?
(see my defense in the ban request)

I would be happy to explain any specific edit I've made if a link of the
edit is provided.  I can't really defend accusations that i've "deleted
everything for the last 2 years" which is terribly inaccurate.

pd

On 5/3/07, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   HI Patrick,
>
> When I saw your initial post, I thought "why is he posting in the wrong
> thread?" and then I looked more carefully and got your "joke".
>
> When you posted the "text version", I thought "is he now spamming?"
> But I assume you have a different default char set than me and hence
> the funny characters in the first version of that email.
>
> You've pissed off a number of group members and friends and so I can't
> help but wonder what kind of person you really are.
>
> Do you have a vlog?
>
> Not a requirement of course. I'm just wondering if I can see you or
> your work anywhere.
>
> Markus
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:
>
> > Hey Mike,
> >
> > I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry.
> >
> > It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics
> > currently being
> > discussed in the group.
> >
> > pd
>
> --
> 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] Threats and male vloggers

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Hey Mike,

I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me.  Sorry.

It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being
discussed in the group.

pd

On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this
> > as humour with only a tinge of bitterness)
> >
> > "This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's
> > pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on
> > the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours."
> > -Michael Verdi
> >
>
> Well Patrick,
> I don't understand your subject line.
> What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my
> observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there
> are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not.
> Please fuck off,
> Verdi
>
> --
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://spinxpress.com
> http://freevlog.org
> Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Threats and male vloggers (plain text version)

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Hey group,

The results are back from Mmeiser's proposed Wikipedia ban of pdelongchamp.
See what each Wikipedia Administrator had to say about it:

"I fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced
material is not welcome on Wikipedia."
- EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Agreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like 'this person won't let me
put original research in the article and this is unfair'"
-Amarkov moo! 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Agreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let alone anything
that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable material or original
research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for anyone that upholds that."
-Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Is it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or isn't
User:MichaelVerdi very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an
11 hour old account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird
that User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's
suggestion. I hope they're aware of WP:MEAT. Apologies if I'm wrongheaded
here"
-Cailil talk 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is almost nothing but an attack. Close, and archive. I'm going to go
ahead and call a spade a spade, and point out that the poster of this
complaint has failed to assume good fiath."
—Eagle101 Need help? 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"See no reason for a ban. This is retaliation to the post above. Archive and
suggest they cool down and sort this issue out via dispute resolution."
-Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the full proposed ban here: http://tinyurl.com/2gnhld


I hope that we can put the issue to rest and consider that perhaps there's a
possibility that I perchance might have perhaps been trying to improve the
article and not the other way around.



and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as
humour with only a tinge of bitterness)

"This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's
pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the
article as his changes usually get deleted within hours."
-Michael Verdi



On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Hey group,
> The results of the Mmeiser’s Wikipedia ban are here. See what
> each Wikipedia Administrator had to say about it:
>
> “I fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban.
> Unreferenced material is not welcome on Wikipedia.”
> - EdJohnston  23:56, 2
> May 2007 (UTC)
>
> “Agreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like ‘this
> person won't let me put original research in the article and this is
> unfair’”
> -Amarkov  moo!
>  00:11, 3 May 2007
> (UTC)
>
> “Agreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let
> alone anything that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable
> material or original research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for
> anyone that upholds that.”
> - Seraphimblade  Talk
> to me  00:13, 3
> May 2007 (UTC)
>
> “Is it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or
> isn't User:MichaelVerdi 
> very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an 11 hour old
> account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird that
> User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's
>  suggestion. I hope they're
> aware of WP:MEAT  . Apologies if
> I'm wrongheaded here”
> --Cailil  talk
>  00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
>
> “This is almost nothing but an attack. Close, and archive. I'm
> going to go ahead and call a spade a spade, and point out that the
> poster of this complaint has failed to assume good fiath
>  .”
> â€"â€" Eagle101 
> Need help?  07:32, 3
> May 2007 (UTC)
>
> “See no reason for a ban. This is retaliation to the post above.
> Archive and suggest they cool down and sort this issue out via dispute
> resolution  .”
> --Kzrulzuall  Talk
>  • Contribs
>  07:37,
> 3 May 2007 (UTC)
>
> Read the full proposed ban here: http://tinyurl.com/2gnhld
> 
>
> I hope that we can put the issue to rest and consider that perhaps
> there's a possibility that I perchance might have perhaps been trying to
> improve the ar

Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Patrick Delongchamp]

lol, who knew lemonade was so controversial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lemonade

On 5/2/07, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Oh MY!!
>
> Wikipedia is being invaded by uncited articles! Quick Delete these too,
> they
> are unverifiable!:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_plant
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scone_%28bread%29
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choli
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade
>
> Someone save us!!!
>
> On 5/2/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > The response to Mmeiser's ban request:
> >
> > *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute
> > resolution* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR>* more productive than
> > requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe
> there's
> > abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing
> unsourced
> > information is not a negative action, content must be
> > **verifiable*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V>
> > * and **reliably sourced* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS>*. **
> > Seraphimblade* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade>* Talk
> > to me<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade>08:39, 2
> > May 2007 (UTC)
> > *
> >
> > On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/2/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  <
> jay.dedman%40gmail.com> <
> > jay.dedman%40gmail.com>>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was
> > talking
> > > about
> > > > > in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would
> > > rather
> > > > > make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic
> > > reasoning
> > > > > for my edits.
> > > >
> > > > yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this.
> > > > id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning.
> > >
> > > Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper.
> > > It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat
> > > and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was
> > > improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF.
> > >
> > > I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy
> > > that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the
> > > guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete
> > > past contribs and three articles.
> > >
> > > Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who
> > > thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit
> > > himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made
> > > it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of
> > > every contribution.
> > >
> > > Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to
> > > approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they
> > > reject 100% of edits.
> > >
> > > He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were
> > > mine... they absolutely are not.
> > >
> > > I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF,
> > > myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to
> > > collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the
> > > term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite.
> > >
> > > As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four
> > > books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had
> > > added them.
> > >
> > > He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before
> > > finally relenting.
> > >
> > > Quite the contrary to his "I never once deleted any of your
> > > information that was properly cited."
> > >
> > > Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how
> > > out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
> > >
> > > "Perfection is not required"
> > >
> > > Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an e

Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Hey Jay

Just wanted to make a quick reply.

Regarding the Star Trek article, there is a lot of discussion on the
article's talk page over notability and sources.  (just to say it's still an
issue even if it doesn't appear to be at first)  The fan made productions
seem to be notable as they have reliable sources in the main articles and
each item seems to somehow show that it's notable.  Considering the
discussions going on, there's definitely an ongoing group that assures
everything is in the article for a reason.

Regarding my contribution here are some of the links to content i've added
to the vlog article:

   - I created the references section and sourced the definition:
  - 17 August
2006,
  Edit Summary: (corrected and sourced the definition, cleaned up and
  corrected the name section. videoblog is not a portemanteau of video and
  log.)
   - Asked Steve to source his Timeline event then helped him properly
   reference it in the article
  - 31 August
2006,
  Edit Summary: (wikified the reference to steve, woohoo, sources!)
   - I searched and found a better source for the definition
  - 7 September
2006,
  Edit Summary: (rv def back to stevegarfield's edit - not sure why it was
  replaced, the other source didn't relate to the text)
   - I researched the use of the term vlog and initiated the request to
   have the article be renamed to Video blog
  - 21 February
2007,
  Edit Summary by GTBacchus: (moved Vlog to Video blog: per move
request; see
  talk page for discussion)
   - Added an explanation of vlog with source
(diff)

   - added sourced timeline event
(diff)

   - added sources to the timeline
(diff)

   - added source to timeline
(diff)


On 5/2/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   > I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking
> about
> > in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather
> > make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic
> reasoning
> > for my edits.
>
> yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this.
> id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning.
>
> > I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did
> initially
> > vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with
> the
> > reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and
> > source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the
> > article.
> > This was the initial reason for deleting it:
> > "Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does
> not
> > support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists
> of a
> > series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that
> does
> > not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that
> consists
> > of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to
> web
> > syndication."
>
> remember too that this deletion was proposed a while ago...when
> videoblogging was still really underground. I think by now...few
> people could say that a Videoblog was not an artform in itself.
> lets put this to rest.
>
> > It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still
> > plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article
> > since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to
> > start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to
> the
> > issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content.
>
> so before we move on, Id like to get your take on this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions
> Is this page valid to you?
> it has no mainstream citations, but seems neutral, valid, and is
> extremely useful.
> would you delete this page?
>
> I think if anything, we could at least document the debate...that i
> think we can agree on.
> Patrick, id like to see what you're contributing to the article. we
> got to start somewhere.
>
> Jay
>
> --
> Here I am
> http://jaydedman.com
>
> Check out the latest project:
> http://pixelodeonfest.com/
> Webvideo festival this June
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Patrick Delongchamp]

The response to Mmeiser's ban request:

*Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute
resolution* * more productive than
requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's
abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced
information is not a negative action, content must be
**verifiable*
* and **reliably sourced* *. **
Seraphimblade* * Talk
to me08:39, 2
May 2007 (UTC)
*



On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   On 5/2/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> wrote:
> > > I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking
> about
> > > in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would
> rather
> > > make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic
> reasoning
> > > for my edits.
> >
> > yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this.
> > id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning.
>
> Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper.
> It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat
> and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was
> improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF.
>
> I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy
> that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the
> guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete
> past contribs and three articles.
>
> Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who
> thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit
> himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made
> it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of
> every contribution.
>
> Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to
> approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they
> reject 100% of edits.
>
> He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were
> mine... they absolutely are not.
>
> I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF,
> myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to
> collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the
> term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite.
>
> As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four
> books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had
> added them.
>
> He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before
> finally relenting.
>
> Quite the contrary to his "I never once deleted any of your
> information that was properly cited."
>
> Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how
> out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
>
> "Perfection is not required"
>
> Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and
> that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can
> source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit.
> His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all
> other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia.
>
> But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on
> him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven
> wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an
> article that's more than a 500 word stub.
>
> > > I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did
> initially
> > > vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed
> with the
> > > reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article
> and
> > > source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the
> > > article.
>
> Hmm... Pat, you never nominated it... just wanted to know I'm
> listening... I must go back and review... not that it changes anything
> but if i accused you of nominating it and you didn't I'll be sure to
> appologize.
>
> > > This was the initial reason for deleting it:
> > > "Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that
> does not
> > > support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists
> of a
> > > series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that
> does
> > > not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that
> consists
> > > of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to
> web
> > > syndication."
> >
> > remember too that this deletion was proposed a while ago...when
> > videoblogging was still really underground. I think by now...few
> > people could say that a Videoblog was not an artform in itself.
> > lets put this to rest.
> >
> > > It's

Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about
in my last email.  It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather
make personal attacks than to actualy respond to the encyclopedic reasoning
for my edits.

i.e. "I'm not even going to respond to the suggestion that I have only
contributed one sourced thing because this isn't about me."

I never once deleted your cited contribution.  Nor do I get pleasure from
removing your unsourced personal research from the article.

I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially
vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the
reasoning.  That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and
source the definition.  In the end, the voting result was to keep the
article.

This was the initial reason for deleting it:
"Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not
support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a
series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that does
not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists
of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web
syndication."

It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still
plague the article.  However, we've been making progress on the article
since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to
start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to the
issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content.
Patrick

On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   It is not Mike.
>
> I submite the star trek fan made productions article and related star
> trek articles.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions
>
> The fact that said projects exists, and that they are noteworthy and
> being on wikipedia is in no way determined by the amount of mainstream
> articles on them.
>
> These articles are made possible by the small contribution of hundreds
> of editors working together as you can see on the history page.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_fan_productions&action=history
>
> When one editor dominates the discussion, particularly in deleting all
> contributions, discussion and collaboration fundamentally cannot
> happen.
>
> To put it quite simply... this is not a problem with original
> researcha and sources it's a problem with trolling.
>
> Make no mistake about it. If wikipedia has a fault it's that it
> doesn't have enough protections from trolling, specifically delete
> trolling.
>
> There are two things we can do about this.
>
> 1) persue banning of the troll... am working on it, and I encourage
> others to talk to wikipedia admins and others of experience on how to
> get the ball rolling on this
>
> 2) move the wikipedia article to pbwiki or some other place where we
> can protect it from trolling. I am waiting on this until we first take
> action with point #1.
>
> Peace,
>
> -Mike
>
> On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 5/1/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> wrote:
> > > Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> > > I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press
> > > doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a
> > > wikipedia entry about.
> > > am i reading this correctly?
> > >
> > > seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has
> > > developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the
> > > backstory.
> > >
> > > Jay
> >
> > This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather
> > request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to
> > wait for traditional media to call us up and misquote us so that the
> >
> fucked-up-I-just-had-48-hours-to-research-this-article-so-I-kinda-copied-that-other-article-and-made-some-shit-up
> > version is what ends up in wikipedia is perfectly absurd.
> >
> > I can hardly stand talking about this anymore.
> >
> > FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
> >
> > -Verdi
> >
> > --
> > http://michaelverdi.com
> > http://spinxpress.com
> > http://freevlog.org
> > Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Patrick Delongchamp]

>--when you say "the need to cite content"must the sources be
> "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs?

I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video blog
should to come from traditional media.  The idea is this:  Wikipedia has to
set a standard so how low should they set it?

Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources
because this involves a reliable publication process.  i.e. if we lowered
the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because
there's no reliable publication process.  So are blogs excluded?  No.  Blogs
can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable
source.  That means if I want to write about how the definition is under
debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is
notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a
another source to give more examples.

> --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the
> only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit
> of your background so we know where you're coming from. You
> are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging.

I contribute to a few articles.  The Video blog article being the main one.
And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it
and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and
hopefully this momentum will keep going.  I used to have a vlog with my
roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places.  I
naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it.

>I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very
>new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group
>since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You
>can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a
>traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add to
>the Vlog entry.

>So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how
>what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the best
>wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and
>different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing
>points of view?

Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because
videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure.

But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and
doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion
doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video.  Let's
take the dispute over the definition.  Though the dispute may seem notable
to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on
what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute,
we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care
about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic.  Until a
reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we
can use in the encyclopedia article.

I think that's the issue here.  People usually think that because Wikipedia
is online, you can make an article about anything.  What people may not
realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and
hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday.  Many more than
are actually kept.  I had my first article deleted.  I didn't agree with it
at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a
notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and
it's definitely a hobby of mine now.

So should reliable sources be defined differently?  Maybe.  There's
discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies.  but as it is, we have to go
with the current consensus on what is a reliable source.

On 5/1/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   > It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those
> of
> > Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I
> > assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by
> group
> > members earlier.
> > Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal
> attacks
> > don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic
> > content.
> > Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people
> contribute
> > encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself.
> For
> > the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more
> > happening to the article. Let's keep improving it.
> > I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've
> done
> > some work on it.
>
> hey Patrick--
>
> thanks for replying.
> here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing process.
> --when you say "the need to cite content"must the source

Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Sull,

It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had
conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability.  Yes,
I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion.  However, other editors voted and
agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any
sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the article
consisted entirely of original research.  (A violation of Wikipedia's core
content policies)

See the discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding

You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been deleted
on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of.

Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog article's
content for many of the same reasons.  For months I have tried to discuss
the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate
links, and the need to cite content from the article.  As responses, I
received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my
encyclopedic reasoning.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the help of a
Wikipedia Administrator.  The result was not surprising.

a) The administrator did not reinstate the content.

b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of verifiability
and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate page and
have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it into the
article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses
citations when making contributions)

I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together
constructively to reintroduce the content with sources.  (what i had been
trying to do all along)  He, once again, wrote a long rant, made personal
attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog
article.

To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of content
to the article. (which i have never deleted)

It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of
Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions.  This is what I
assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group
members earlier.

Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks
don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic
content.

Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute
encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself.  For
the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more
happening to the article.  Let's keep improving it.

I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done
some work on it.

Patrick


On 5/1/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article
> 'Crowdfunding'.
> and yes, meiser has been battling for months.
> fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games.
>
> On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly
> > fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic.
> I
> > can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article
> as
> > his changes usually get deleted within hours.
> >
> > - Verdi
> >
> > On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<
> jannie.jan%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Has rather been decimated.
> > >
> > > Wow.
> > >
> > > Anybody?
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Faux Press - better than real
> > > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> > > http://twitter.com/fauxpress
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://michaelverdi.com
> > http://spinxpress.com
> > http://freevlog.org
> > Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]