[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I dunno. This is how the world works. I should know this by now. > It bothers me. Not that he is doing it but he feels the need to > create his own world by harvesting knowledge without attribution. Or > saying the other ex

[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Well, maybe, except that if he stopped by Freevlog and OurMedia he had to learn a thing or two from the top half of the screen. I think it provides a strong case of those that have the time to find different ways of spreading the word outside of tech ready people. I'm not angry at the guy. But it

[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Hey Terry, Do you mean "insulated", or "inculcated" or "indoctrinated"? I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I'm just not sure what you might mean by becoming insulated by this group. I think it's interesting that it took so long for you to discover vlogs. In my case, I discovered them early thi

[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Terry, > > Do you mean "insulated", or "inculcated" or "indoctrinated"? I'm not > trying to be a smart-arse, I'm just not sure what you might mean by > becoming insulated by this group. Actually, all three of

[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Gena wrote:> > I'm not angry at the guy. But it does say a lot about how one group> > will do the figuring out and others come by to adapt and appropriate.> > It is capitalism 101. Not saying it is good or bad. > >

[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "anonperson1969" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Hey Terry, > > > > Do you mean "insulated", or "inculcated" or "indoctrinated"? I'm not > > trying to be a smart-arse, I'm

[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Ludington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the NerdTV Show #6 > Interview with Dave Winer, http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/shows/ , Dave > talks about how Netscape first took his idea of RSS and didn't c

[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jake Ludington wrote: > > > >>It hasn't happened to videoblogging yet. It will. > > > > But what will happen? What exactly will get co-opted from Video Blogging > > that didn't originate somewhere else? > > What

[videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

It is not impossible to keep this community of personal people going. This specific community will change soon, and will have to be redefined in other ways for those seeking the personal connection. It will possibly have to split into smaller groups that maintain communication with one another.

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

> I'm not angry at the guy. But it does say a lot about how one group > will do the figuring out and others come by to adapt and appropriate. > It is capitalism 101. Not saying it is good or bad. Except for the RSS enclosure piece, everyone on this list is treading the same ground that guys like

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Gena wrote: > I'm not angry at the guy. But it does say a lot about how one group > will do the figuring out and others come by to adapt and appropriate. > It is capitalism 101. Not saying it is good or bad. I can honestly say that sometimes I get really sick of always being in the first group,

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

In the NerdTV  Show #6 Interview with Dave Winer, http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/shows/ , Dave talks about how Netscape first took his idea of RSS and didn't compeletely implement it and then Dave released a new, better version with his features added to  Netscapes' implementation t

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Jake Ludington wrote: > In the NerdTV Show #6 > Interview with Dave Winer, http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/shows/ , Dave > talks about how Netscape first took his idea of RSS and didn't compeletely > implement it and then Dave released a new, better

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

> It hasn't happened to videoblogging yet. It will. But what will happen? What exactly will get co-opted from Video Blogging that didn't originate somewhere else? Jake Ludington http://www.mediablab.com http://www.podcastingstarterkit.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Jake Ludington wrote: > >>It hasn't happened to videoblogging yet. It will. > > But what will happen? What exactly will get co-opted from Video Blogging > that didn't originate somewhere else? What will happen is that videoblogging will change from being a nice friendly little community we are

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

On Nov 1, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Pete Prodoehl wrote: > What will happen is that videoblogging will change from being a nice > friendly little community we are used to seeing here, into one where > people treat it like a competition for viewers, become obsessed with > stats and popularity, insult othe

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

> What will happen is that videoblogging will change from being a nice > friendly little community we are used to seeing here, into one where > people treat it like a competition for viewers, become obsessed with > stats and popularity, insult other videobloggers, find ways to make > money withou

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

On 11/1/05, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What will happen is that videoblogging will change from being a nicefriendly little community we are used to seeing here, into one wherepeople treat it like a competition for viewers, become obsessed with stats and popularity, insult other vid

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Deirdre Straughan wrote: > On 11/1/05, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>What will happen is that videoblogging will change from being a nice >>friendly little community we are used to seeing here, into one where >>people treat it like a competition for viewers, become obsessed with >>s

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Jake Ludington wrote: > > In the context of companies who use video blogging to further their cause > without giving anything back to the video blogging community; Microsoft > already does that with Channel 9. The upside of Channel 9 to Microsoft the > corporate entity is creating a warm fuzzy fee

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

On 11/2/05, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > LOL. Seems to me it has already happened, as it was bound to. A technology> can either be a big success or can be a nice little community - not both at> the same time.Please define "big success" as the term may have different meanings to dif

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Deirdre Straughan wrote: > On 11/2/05, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>LOL. Seems to me it has already happened, as it was bound to. A >>technology >>>can either be a big success or can be a nice little community - not both >>at the same time. >>Please define "big success" as the te

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

On Nov 1, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Pete Prodoehl wrote: > What will happen is that videoblogging will change from being a nice > friendly little community we are used to seeing here, into one where > people treat it like a competition for viewers, become obsessed with > stats and popularity, insult other

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

LOL. Seems to me it has already happened, as it was bound to. A technology can either be a big success or can be a nice little community - not both at the same time. Technologies don’t create communities, people do. It’s up to the people in a community whether they nurture it through

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

On 11/2/05, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Please define "big success" as the term may have different meanings to>>different people.> Used by millions of people worldwide. Whether anyone is making money off it> or not is immaterial (to me, anyway). Ok... We definitely have different

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

On 11/3/05, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: LOL. Seems to me it has already happened, as it was bound to. A technology can either be a big success or can be a nice little community - not both at the same time. Technologies don't create communities, people do. It's u

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Deirdre Straughan wrote: > On 11/2/05, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please define "big success" as the term may have different meanings to different people. >> >>>Used by millions of people worldwide. Whether anyone is making money off >>it or not is immaterial (to me, anyway

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Ah, I see where the confusion comes in. I was talking about the success of videoblogging in general as a technology/technique/medium - not anyone's specific videoblog, let alone my own! Success for any individual's vlog is best defined by that person, of course!-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanw

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videomaker's Vidcaster.Net - Seen but not Seen

Deirdre Straughan wrote: > Ah, I see where the confusion comes in. I was talking about the success of > videoblogging in general as a technology/technique/medium - not anyone's > specific videoblog, let alone my own! Success for any individual's vlog is > best defined by that person, of course! No