[videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?

[Marco Raaphorst]

I totally agree! 

Creative Commons would help YouTube. I hope they can understand that
as well.

Regards,

Marco Raaphorst

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "JD Lasica" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jan wrote:
> 
> > Nothing stopping YouTubers from putting a cc license in and around
their
> > works. We don't NEED to have point-of-upload cc options to claim 'em.
> > Do we?
> > Naw.
> 
> And Jay wrote:
> 
> >you are absolutely correct.
> >it would of course be easier if yoiutube et al helped educate people
> >by offering the choice in their process. But anyone could insert a
> >video post-roll of the CC license.
> 
> While I agree with the sentiment -- and indeed, that's exactly what
> I've done, uploaded my videos to YouTube with CC post-rolls -- I think
> we should all keep in mind that by uploading to YouTube, you're
> agreeing to their Terms of Service, which supersedes any conditions
> you may or may not include as part of your video.
> 
> In other words, if you include a Creative Commons noncommercial
> license when you upload to YouTube, YouTube still has the right to
> license your video to its business partners to show off on their
> sites. As attorney Colette Vogele told me in a different context:
> "Creative Commons licenses are essentially nonoperational on Yahoo!
> Video." Same goes for YouTube.
> 
> (TOS comparison: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/283309)
> 
> Perhaps the members of this list, together with Creative Commons,
> should launch a petition campaign to persuade YouTube to include CC
> licenses as an option when we upload to YouTube.
> 
> jd lasica
> ourmedia.org
> socialmedia.biz
>

[videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Bill had a good point. iTunes *directory* is opt in. Most of us did it
> by default when setting up our feedburner feeds. I don't recall ever
> agreeing to any terms of service with apple though that compromised my
> god given right to my permalinks back to my blog, or supplanted my
> creative commons. Do any of you remember agreeing to anything when you
> opted in through feedburner?
> 
> And then there is also another point  I must point out to Bill.
> 
> I am NOT talking about the itunes directory.
> 
> I'm talking about the business end of iTunes where you go to watch
> your podcasts and video on a regular basis. iTunes IS absolutely,
> fundamentally and aggregator, so bill is only half right. Wether you
> "opted in" to the itunes directory or not... anyone can place your
> feed in iTunes... and therfore there is a certain agreement... a
> certain expectation that must be met.
> 
> -Mike
> he who loves to write even if he can't do it that well and has no time
> to proof read. Sorry for any errors.
> 
> mmeiser.com/blog
> mefeedia.com

Fantastic! :D

I don't know about your feedburner point, but I'll take your word for
it.  The only reasons I got involved with feedburner was to format my
feed to go to iTunes and for (24-hour after the fact) stats.

That's a great point you have about iTunes! :D  I hadn't ever
considered, and probably wouldn't ever have considered that someone
else might go around making accounts for blog feeds they don't own in
iTunes, MeFeedia, Fireant... whatever.  You're absolutely right.

It's not like Technorati, which requires you to prove that you own a
site before they'll mark you as the site owner.  As unlikely as I
consider the situation to be, it's absolutely true that someone,
anyone... could submit a feed to iTunes without the site owner's
knowledge, necessarily making iTunes an aggregator, even if it's an
unwitting participant in someone else's plan.

Of course, if other people can post your blog to iTunes, Apple can
post your blog to iTunes, which would put them in the same boat as
"the usual suspects". :D

--
Bill C.
http://ems.blip.tv

Re: [videoblogging] Is Creative Commons just bullshit?

[trine bjørkmann berry]

Jay, you might find this interesting.

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/commons_without_commonality/

Trine




On 1/29/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LucasGonze said:
>  > The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly
>  > unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and
>  > movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of
>  > victimization and and righteous anger.
>  > Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to
>  > attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way
>  > which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights
>  > it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the
>  > public.
>  > And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of
>  > creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing
>  > up your video have just as much right to make art as you do. If
>  > what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why does your work
>  > trump theirs?
>
>  I agree that we can always tone down the outrage and drama when
>  discussing these aggregator sites that grab our videos...but let's not
>  lose sight of the real subject here.
>
>  CreativeCommons.org
>  is this just a noble experiment?
>  or is CC a real tool that can help make the web a healthy place.
>
>  Lucas, all I ask of MyHeavy.com, Magnify.net or any other site is that
>  they respect the CC license I have on my video. If they are pulling in
>  the Blip.tv feedthey can very well read the license in the feed.
>
>  Most videos I have are CC-Attribution
>  (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/).
>  Its very clear that anyone can put this on their site, remix, even use
>  commerically.
>  but they must link back to me.
>  period.
>
>  If I have an attribution-noncommerical license
>  (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), then any site should
>  respect this accordingly and not put ads around my video.
>  None of this is difficult to understand.
>  the question is...will these aggregators sites respect or not.
>
>  Lucas, I know you did a lot of work for CCmixter.org.
>  its an awesome place where people can put up music for sharing.
>  To use any of these songs, all most artists require is attribution.
>  But if I make a site, list of these songs and act like I wrote
>  themwhat kind of ecology are we creating? Instead of people
>  wanting to share their work, it'll just make people feel ripped off.
>
>  the only issue I have with Youtube.com and other similar sites is that
>  they do not allow creators to put a CC license on point of upload.
>  They help break the ecology. Nothing is clear. Confusion is ripe. A
>  lawyers dream.
>
>  So Lucas, I am not crying.
>  i want anyone to link to my videos, just give me a linkback.
>  Its so easy to do technically.
>  The difficulty here is sorting out people's motives and awareness.
>  If a funded company is building a business by grabbing content without
>  attribution, its simply ignorance, maliciousness, or laziness.
>  I would love for the Videoblogging Group to at least be able to
>  educate so we eradicate the Ignorance. Then its up to each site to
>  choose where they stand with the community.
>
>  is Creative Commons a noble experiment, or is it a real tool to help
>  create a healthy online ecology?
>
>  jay
>
>  --
>  Here I am
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  


-- 

+ http://www.davidandtrine.org +

Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Mike Meiser]

On 1/28/07, Lucas Gonze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/27/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Im not sure Id agree that a sense of victimization or righteous anger
> > are the primary driving forces behind such things, but they are in the
> > mix somewhere when it comes to reactions of music etc industry.
>
> When somebody  makes the argument that the profit of a third party is
> necessarily their loss, they are arguing from victimization.
>
> Let's say you argue that aggregated creators deserve a share of the
> profits of an aggregator.  That doesn't follow from economics.  The
> economic point of view is that investors in the aggregator, its
> owners, are the ones who deserve a share of the profits, because they
> also stood to lose money if it lost money.
>
> When I buy a house for $X, I stand to lose $X and also stand to gain
> whatever I can sell it for above $X.  If the value of my house goes up
> because my neighbor painted and fixed up their own place, my neighbor
> has no claim to my profit.

I COMPLETELY disagree with our house argument.

Instead let's talk roads.

Let's say I'm a private road builder... not many of those exist due
real world physical limitations but let's continue anyway.

If I build my road an I decide to charge 50 cents a truckful and your
watermellons you're giving away for free are traveling down that road
are you entitled to some of my money.

Fuck no.

In many respects this is all mefeedia, or webjay, or google search or
myheavy or any of these players are.

Now...  there's some funny lines if you start really getting into
it and I would love to get into it. But this is what we're talking
about... wether it's making playlists, or rolling your own feeds, or
remix, or aggregation... or just plain old SEARCH... these are all the
roads of the metaverse. They're the architecture of information.

Do to some seriously screwed up bacwards moves in copyright law this
space needs mass copyleft licensing before it can even function
and it stil exists in a grey legal area.


Right now we have road makers like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon thinking
they can charge the automanufacturers a tax for using their cars.
Why?  Because they figure they can make a lot more money off the
people already paying at the toll booth ... by hidding other hidden
costs in the network.

And meanwhile you have the content industry... these car makers...
thinking that they can not only tell car owners not only what roads
they can and cannot drive down... but installing GPS under every hood
that shuts the car off if it's off their predefined network of
roads but that's not all... to keep people from hacking these GPS
systems they're locking the hoods of the cars and trying to make it
illegal for anyone to own a key or use it but their dealerships.

And now everyone things they have it all figured out... but some of
those damn fucking anarchists socialist scumbags come along and say
you know the fuck what!  We don't need your goddam shiny fancy cars...
nor your fucking roads... we've got Linux, we have Podsafe music,
we've got RSS and blogging... we'll make our own damn cars... and
build our own roads.

And now these fascist road builders and car makers are starting to
understand the new world order of things. They're more terrified then
every... but as they're scratching their heads and shitting their
pants they looking around at these new netoworks and these new cars
and starting to realize two things.

1) They're not as powerful nor as important as they thought they were

and more importantly...

2) That this IS the new order of things... and they do have to
"compete with free".


If we're really really lucky then maybe, just maybe... these
automakers are looking around at their own technologically gilded
cages (cages they themselves have made! Though they bitch of nothing
but the stench of rotten apples.)

...and they look around at all these beautiful linux companies "giving
it away for free" and videoblogs, and podcasts, and podsafe
musicians... these marketplaces like emusic that sell cars with
unlocked hoods... horror of horors... and they're starting to realize
that they can and always could compete and thrive and succeed in this
space all along. They just had their heads to far up their arses.

Competeing with free was never really the damn problem at all.  And
why the fuck would it be, the water industry has been doing it here in
the U.S. for years and it's one of the healthiest industires on the
planet.  As McDonalds has proven with their bottled water brand Dasani
in europe you CAN take free water right out of the tap put it in a
bottle and sell it right back to people and make a make quite a snazzy
profit.


All  these metaphors may be insane... but it's true... these metaphors
pretty much exactly describe the state of the IP word.

One final word.

The truth is in the future all IP will be on some level free...
because it MUST be free for the world to function.  I

Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Mike Meiser]

On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know about your feedburner point, but I'll take your word for
> it.  The only reasons I got involved with feedburner was to format my
> feed to go to iTunes and for (24-hour after the fact) stats.
>
> That's a great point you have about iTunes! :D  I hadn't ever
> considered, and probably wouldn't ever have considered that someone
> else might go around making accounts for blog feeds they don't own in
> iTunes, MeFeedia, Fireant... whatever.  You're absolutely right.
>
> It's not like Technorati, which requires you to prove that you own a
> site before they'll mark you as the site owner.  As unlikely as I
> consider the situation to be, it's absolutely true that someone,
> anyone... could submit a feed to iTunes without the site owner's
> knowledge, necessarily making iTunes an aggregator, even if it's an
> unwitting participant in someone else's plan.
>
> Of course, if other people can post your blog to iTunes, Apple can
> post your blog to iTunes, which would put them in the same boat as
> "the usual suspects". :D

I'm not talking about people "claiming your feed" or doing anything
wrong or underhanded at all.

All I'm saying is that if I wanted to subscribe to your feed I'd rake
your RSS feed and subscribe to it in itunes... thereby your media
would be IN itunes... getting aggregated by itunes. Nothing wrong with
that... that's what iTunes was MADE to do.

The same goes for Bloglines, Google newsreader, Mefeedia and others.
The point is

1) ALL of these are aggregators, though some are software and some are
webservices

2) NONE of them are opt-in, indeed NONE of them could functin if they
were opt-in.

3) ALL of them except  iTunes respect the unwritten etiquette of
including a link in the interface BACK to the original blog post

-Mike

> --
> Bill C.
> http://ems.blip.tv
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Mike Meiser]

On 1/28/07, Mike Hudack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, micropayments, that favorite topic of mine!  Way back when, long
> before blip, I tried to build a micropayments service with a few of the
> folks now at blip.  The challenges we saw then are the same challenges
> we see now: in order to do micropayments effectively you need a system
> to pool transactions, and to do this you need a compelling collection of
> content from a compelling collection of providers.  At the end of the
> day building a real micropayments system is really about network
> building.  No one's managed to do this well.

You seem to have atleast figured something out.

As I'm fond of saying... and this hopefully hits the nail on it's head...

"The world doesn't need more ways of bying more stuff of less value,
the world needs more ways of buying less stuff of more value."

Another way I like to put it

I just plain don't fucking want to spend my money a half a cent or two
pennies at a time.

Fuck that shit.

If a website, or indeed any content maker or store of any sort can't
make something of sufficient value that it's wother the 30 sent
transaction fee credit card companies charge then I absolutely do nt
want to do business with them.

Also... there's something that you say about networks that is quite true.

For example if MyHeavy, or blip or anyone can't privide enough of a
market share to make buying ads with them worth the hassel then why
bother.

There is however I noticed some businesses that DON'T have a bit of a
network effect.

Some examples are CDbaby, eMusic, and Nathan Frietas' Cruxy

Here's why I think that is...

Your interest in these services is actally unimportant unlike many
store systems. Your trust and level of interest lies soley with the
musician or artist. If you have such a deep and meaning ful connection
with a musician and you've already listened to and are a big fan of
their music ... and they're nowhere else to get it you are going to be
willing to shell out $13 or whatever. And you don't even have to care
who CDBaby or eMusic or Cruxy are. They're just service providers...
just a transaction layer... all your trust is with that artist... and
if they referred you to one of these places you're not going to care.

Which reminds me. I have to buy something off of each of these
services. I don't know what, but I'm sure I can find something good.
I just want to have that experience, to understand and enjoy it...
that experience of bying legal, non-drm music and the majority of that
money going to a real live independant artist. I know just where to
start too! Whole Wheat Radio, My favorite podcast EVAR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Wheat_Radio

Peace out,

-Mike


> > -Original Message-
> > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Watson
> > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 AM
> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and
> > aggregators in general
> >
> > I was just thinking of micro-payments. Any info out there on
> > the topic, or can we have a conversation.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ron Watson
> >
> > Pawsitive Vybe
> > 11659 Berrigan Ave
> > Cedar Springs, MI 49319
> > http://pawsitivevybe.com
> >
> > Personal Contact:
> > 616.802.8923
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On the Web:
> > http://pawsitivevybe.com
> > http://k9disc.com
> > http://k9disc.blip.tv
> >
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2007, at 11:26 AM, johnleeke wrote:
> >
> > > It is fascinating to read between the lines and learn business
> > > diplomacy from Mike.
> > >
> > > I agree with David, when it comes to the legality and
> > morality of the
> > > issue, "opt out" simply empowers the illegal and immoral actions of
> > > these secondary agrigators and distributors of our content.
> > They want
> > > and take our content because it has a higher value that
> > what they have
> > > to pay for it. The fact that their business model is based
> > on paying
> > > absolutely nothing for the content is the problem.
> > >
> > > "We cannot afford it" sounds pretty lame when they have
> > million dollar
> > > budgets. But even on lesser budgets what happened to the "micro
> > > payment" idea? Wern't computers supposed to make "micro payments"
> > > practical? Why don't they set a policy of always paying,
> > then pay what
> > > they can negotiate with the content maker? Blip has done it
> > so we know
> > > it is possible. If they cannot arrive at an agreement with
> > the content
> > > makers, then they don't take the content.
> > >
> > > This seems pretty simple, and most of us learned it from
> > our Mommies
> > > by the time we were ten:
> > >
> > > "If it doesn't belong to you, then don't take it."
> > >
> > > Every particle of the conflict in this issue arises out of the fact
> > > that it appears they think they can ignore this basic tenant of our
> > > morality-based society.
> > >
> > > I think the fact that they do, or do not, "show their
> > f

[videoblogging] Self Portrait on my 50th Birthday

[doron]

beautiful Vlog (made with a still camera) by Michael Szpakowski from
DVblog. 
"Self Portrait on my 50th Birthday, Walking from Harlow to Bethnal
Green along the Rivers Stort & Lee"

http://tinyurl.com/2w4dys

silent, 13.4MB

c, doron

Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Mike Meiser]

On 1/29/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the iTunes
> > Store
>
>
> apparently they are.  last i checked i  didnt see linkbacks.  has this been
> the case for a while now?
> i dont use itunes much so I was taking mike meiser's word for it.  good to
> know :)
>

I'm not talking about the FUCKING directory. I'm talking about the
goddam business end of iTunes. The fucking interface where you play
videos and podcasts.  The place where you actually LISTEN and WATCH
your videos.  NOT THE FUCKING DIRECTORY, where your listeners if they
are real listeners go once and then never ever ever again... I'm
talking about the place in itunes where it shows the feeds you have
subscribed to and the items it's downloaded to your computer.

In that pane... which is where your subscribers will spend 99.% of
their time watching your videos... there is not a SINGLE link back to
your website.  NONE.  FICKING NONE.

Do people even user itunes!?

I sometimes wonder. Because I find it the worst piece of shit
experience ever for watching videos. I don't know about anyone else...
but I find reading the accompanying post for the video... and going
and leaving a comment or visiting the original vlog on occassion a
compelling and essential part of the experience but iTunes POS
interface doesn't have ANY of this important meta info.

-Mike

>
> On 1/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the iTunes
> > Store and we get lots of traffic from them.  If it wasn't for Apple
> > we wouldn't have the advertisers that we have today.  We also have
> > lots of comments on our Apple page from people who love us and hate
> > us. So there is a place for user feedback.
> >
> > Apple has been very good to the community. Keep in mind they generate
> > no direct revenue from podcasting, and there's no way to quantify any
> > indirect revenue on their site at this time. I guess you could set up
> > an affiliate account and make some money sending people to iTunes but
> > they send way more people to us than we send to them.
> >
> > I look forward to other big players following Apple's lead and
> > stepping up to the plate and creating a UI that is as good as or
> > better than Apple iTunes. Competition is a good thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > Tim Street
> > Creator/Executive Producer
> > French Maid TV
> > The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids
> > http://frenchmaidtv.com
> > Subscribe for FREE on
> > http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes"; target="_blank">iTunes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, sull wrote:
> >
> > > I am often disgusted by Apple...
> > > Is there even once example of Apple implementing user feedback?
> > > Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback
> > > especially when it
> > > comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been ongoing
> > > for 3-4
> > > years.
> > >
> > > It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be similarly
> > > scrutinized
> > > for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist to serve
> > > MSM first
> > > and foremost.
> > > But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when they are
> > > displaying
> > > independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What Control
> > > Freaks they
> > > are!
> > >
> > > And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take the UI of
> > > their
> > > hardware devices and apply it to their software apps.
> > >
> > > sull
> > >
> > > On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all
> > > > these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with
> > > > their iTunes.
> > > >
> > > > They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build
> > > > traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more
> > > ipods
> > > > and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach
> > > > arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so
> > > after
> > > > I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can
> > > click
> > > > back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of
> > > that
> > > > crap.
> > > >
> > > > Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or
> > > > because of some steve jobs reality distortion field.
> > > >
> > > > Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads
> > > directly on
> > > > your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're
> > > > alienating you from your users.
> > > >
> > > > So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in
> > > > Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an
> > > > one... but simply ignore apple?
> > > >
> > > > -Mike
> > > > mmeiser.com/blog
> > > > mefeedia.com
> > > >
> > > > On 1/28/07, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > The proble

Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Mike Meiser]

On 1/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apple has a link to our website on our podcast page at the iTunes
> Store and we get lots of traffic from them.  If it wasn't for Apple
> we wouldn't have the advertisers that we have today.  We also have
> lots of comments on our Apple page from people who love us and hate
> us. So there is a place for user feedback.

Really... so you actually get people visiting your site who listen to
you in itunes?

I find that really hard to believe, even if Frenchmaidtv is fairly popular.

You do realize that the real business end of itunes is not the
directory and that's no where people watch any of your videos. There
is no way from the business end of itunes, the everyday part where
your subscriptions appear as wll as new videos to click back from
an episode to the show notes.

> Apple has been very good to the community. Keep in mind they generate
> no direct revenue from podcasting, and there's no way to quantify any
> indirect revenue on their site at this time. I guess you could set up
> an affiliate account and make some money sending people to iTunes but
> they send way more people to us than we send to them.
>
> I look forward to other big players following Apple's lead and
> stepping up to the plate and creating a UI that is as good as or
> better than Apple iTunes. Competition is a good thing.
>

While I share your hope about other players, I must disagree as to
apple's intensions with podcasting.

>
> Tim
>
> Tim Street
> Creator/Executive Producer
> French Maid TV
> The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids
> http://frenchmaidtv.com
> Subscribe for FREE on
> http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes"; target="_blank">iTunes
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, sull wrote:
>
> > I am often disgusted by Apple...
> > Is there even once example of Apple implementing user feedback?
> > Maybe, but from my view, they ignore outside feedback
> > especially when it
> > comes to this grass roots media revolution that has been ongoing
> > for 3-4
> > years.
> >
> > It can be argued that iTunes isnt the same and cant be similarly
> > scrutinized
> > for lacking proper attribution etc... Because they exist to serve
> > MSM first
> > and foremost.
> > But give me one reason for this lack of attribution when they are
> > displaying
> > independent podcasts vodcasts in their directory? What Control
> > Freaks they
> > are!
> >
> > And btw, iTunes is still a terrible UI! They should take the UI of
> > their
> > hardware devices and apply it to their software apps.
> >
> > sull
> >
> > On 1/29/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > What still suprises me is that people get so mad at myheavy and all
> > > these others and yet the biggest offender of them all is itunes with
> > > their iTunes.
> > >
> > > They're using 10's of thousands of vloggers and podcasters to build
> > > traffic in their marketplace to sell mainstream media, and more
> > ipods
> > > and macs, and they don't even have the courtesy to give you a reach
> > > arou... I mean a damn permalink in the damn iTunes interface so
> > after
> > > I'm done watching your video or listening to your podcast I can
> > click
> > > back to your website and see your shownotes, comments, or any of
> > that
> > > crap.
> > >
> > > Is it because iTunes is a piece of software and not a webservice, or
> > > because of some steve jobs reality distortion field.
> > >
> > > Make no doubt about it even though apple isn't putting ads
> > directly on
> > > your media they certainly aren't doing you any favors. They're
> > > alienating you from your users.
> > >
> > > So why do we DEMAND permalinks back to the original blog post in
> > > Democracy, Fireant, Mefeedia, Network2, Myheavy and on and on an
> > > one... but simply ignore apple?
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > > mmeiser.com/blog
> > > mefeedia.com
> > >
> > > On 1/28/07, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same
> > hopelessly
> > > > > unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record
> > labels and
> > > > > movie companies.
> > > >
> > > > That's quite a statement. One that I think is entirely wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I have no problem with you aggregating my video. Even if your site
> > > > has google ads. I'm quite aware that my stuff is totally free
> > as soon
> > > > as I post it on blip.
> > > >
> > > > I just expect that giant media conglomerates, or their subsidiary
> > > > investments (magnify, myheavy,nextnew networks, et al.) give me
> > some
> > > > kind of consideration as a content creator.
> > > >
> > > > If they are making millions, I want a share. If smaller
> > entities are
> > > > gaining notoriety, I want some of that; put a friggin' correct
> > link
> > > > on it for cryin' out loud.
> > > >
> > > > To say that expecting to get royalties off of large economic
> > > > endeavors using our stuff is like a record company is standing
> > > > reality on its head

[videoblogging] Jeff Pulver

[Dean Collins]

I woke up this morning to find this in my inbox;

Jeff Pulver is normally a very clever guy who started VON among other 
things so this is obvioulsy legitimate just sounds/reads a bit weird.

just passing it on.

Cheers
Dean






Tomorrow morning I will be announcing an internet video contest where 
the grand prize is US$ 25,000. Submit an episode of your Internet TV 
show or a videoblog entry dealing with "How to Watch Internet TV," 
mention Network2 in it as well, and submit a link to where we can 
find it.

Your show doesn't have to be on Network2 to enter (though if you come 
to  , you can submit your show for 
inclusion). Simply show us how to see your submission, published on a 
site (YouTube, Blip, Revver, or anywhere we can easily find it), and 
it counts.

Have fun with this. If you have an ongoing show, see if you can work 
the theme into your show. If you're a videoblogger, show us your 
style. Humor helps, but follow your own path on this. We want your 
take on the topic: How to Watch Internet TV, mentioning Network2 at 
some point. Oh, and if you'd give us a link on your website, that 
would be nice, too. :)

We'll review the submissions (due by March 9th), and announce the 
finalists around March 16th. We'll announce the winner at Spring 2007 
Video on the Net , in San Jose 
California, on March 20th. Grand prize gets $25,000. Second prize 
wins $10,000, and Third Prize takes $5,000 home.

For more information, please visit: . Some 
restrictions apply, and there's plenty of rules to read over at: 
.

Earlier today I created a video announcing this contest and just 
posted it for viewing onYouTube: . 

I would appreciate it if you would help spread the word about this 
contest.

Best regards, Jeff

p.s. Network2 and pulver.com will be hosting Networking Events in LA 
and SFO on Feb 7th and 8th. Details are posted at: 

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Steve Watkins]

Dont get me started. Their whole approach repeatedly winds me up, I
suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in circles that
are in awe of his name and his past reputation, and so when talking to
content creators who may be unaware of this, comes across as arrogant.

Network2 earned the wrath of some for talking content liberties late
last year, and their initial response was a denial that they were
doing anything wrong, and even surprise. They changed their ways but I
get the idea they still didnt think they'd done anything wrong. Thanks
to Bill for posting video of that NYC Video 2.0 meet, I see signs that
this attitude continues (Pulver saying that people were bitter about
youtube selling itself for billions whilst creators got nothing, not
because theres anything unfair but because these creators 'dont
necessarily understand the commercial side of business'.

They wind me up these days because they heavily blur the lines between
'promoting the concept of people watching internet television', and
'promotion of network2 as the place to do it'. And because he also
runs conferences, they get thrown into the sales pitch too, so Im
unsurprised that the winners will be announced at the expensive
conference.

Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get, I
suppose I should be greatful that they are at least going to pay some
people for giving it to them. I will read their terms and conditions
later to see if they only intend to use the winning entries, or
whether they hope to get hundreds of submissions and be free to use
them all, thus making the large prizes on offer a way of getting
adverts made for them on the cheap.

As for the actual brief of people making videos to tell the world
about internet tv, I would struggle to know how to approach this
because there is already a lot of awareness out there in the masses,
thanks to expensive publicity on the issue, from companies that the
public have actually heard of.

It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver believes
the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts
together the best range of shows to suit his audience. And he wants to
be that man. He could be right but personally I laugh at this in
disbelief because it misses a fundamental point of the new age of
video on the internet - that people themselves are the best judges of
what they want to watch, that old TV is tired because their
gatekeepers and editors are out of touch, and replicating the same
phenomenon on the internet is a bad joke.

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Collins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I woke up this morning to find this in my inbox;
> 
> Jeff Pulver is normally a very clever guy who started VON among other 
> things so this is obvioulsy legitimate just sounds/reads a bit weird.
> 
> just passing it on.
> 
> Cheers
> Dean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tomorrow morning I will be announcing an internet video contest where 
> the grand prize is US$ 25,000. Submit an episode of your Internet TV 
> show or a videoblog entry dealing with "How to Watch Internet TV," 
> mention Network2 in it as well, and submit a link to where we can 
> find it.
> 
> Your show doesn't have to be on Network2 to enter (though if you come 
> to  , you can submit your show for 
> inclusion). Simply show us how to see your submission, published on a 
> site (YouTube, Blip, Revver, or anywhere we can easily find it), and 
> it counts.
> 
> Have fun with this. If you have an ongoing show, see if you can work 
> the theme into your show. If you're a videoblogger, show us your 
> style. Humor helps, but follow your own path on this. We want your 
> take on the topic: How to Watch Internet TV, mentioning Network2 at 
> some point. Oh, and if you'd give us a link on your website, that 
> would be nice, too. :)
> 
> We'll review the submissions (due by March 9th), and announce the 
> finalists around March 16th. We'll announce the winner at Spring 2007 
> Video on the Net , in San Jose 
> California, on March 20th. Grand prize gets $25,000. Second prize 
> wins $10,000, and Third Prize takes $5,000 home.
> 
> For more information, please visit: . Some 
> restrictions apply, and there's plenty of rules to read over at: 
> .
> 
> Earlier today I created a video announcing this contest and just 
> posted it for viewing onYouTube:  v=aC6o3uHigyM>. 
> 
> I would appreciate it if you would help spread the word about this 
> contest.
> 
> Best regards, Jeff
> 
> p.s. Network2 and pulver.com will be hosting Networking Events in LA 
> and SFO on Feb 7th and 8th. Details are posted at: 
> 
>

Re: [videoblogging] Jeff Pulver

[Jan McLaughlin]

Have had some bank-and-forth with Jeff and Chris Brogan.

Invitations and offers of assistance from Pulver. I told him I'd come to his
VON conferences if they paid my expenses.

Told them The Faux Press would cover 'em for $5k / week.

No go.

I've decided what my time and energy are worth.

Long-tail that $40K and ship a bunch of vloggers to vlog the conference
rather than sponsor a hierarchical contest, hmmm?

He'd get a shitload more Google Juice and advertising from that approach.

Just sayin'.

Jeff? You listening?

Jan

On 1/30/07, Dean Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I woke up this morning to find this in my inbox;
>
> Jeff Pulver is normally a very clever guy who started VON among other
> things so this is obvioulsy legitimate just sounds/reads a bit weird.
>
> just passing it on.
>
> Cheers
> Dean
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tomorrow morning I will be announcing an internet video contest where
> the grand prize is US$ 25,000. Submit an episode of your Internet TV
> show or a videoblog entry dealing with "How to Watch Internet TV,"
> mention Network2 in it as well, and submit a link to where we can
> find it.
>
> Your show doesn't have to be on Network2 to enter (though if you come
> to  , you can submit your show for
> inclusion). Simply show us how to see your submission, published on a
> site (YouTube, Blip, Revver, or anywhere we can easily find it), and
> it counts.
>
> Have fun with this. If you have an ongoing show, see if you can work
> the theme into your show. If you're a videoblogger, show us your
> style. Humor helps, but follow your own path on this. We want your
> take on the topic: How to Watch Internet TV, mentioning Network2 at
> some point. Oh, and if you'd give us a link on your website, that
> would be nice, too. :)
>
> We'll review the submissions (due by March 9th), and announce the
> finalists around March 16th. We'll announce the winner at Spring 2007
> Video on the Net , in San Jose
> California, on March 20th. Grand prize gets $25,000. Second prize
> wins $10,000, and Third Prize takes $5,000 home.
>
> For more information, please visit: . Some
> restrictions apply, and there's plenty of rules to read over at:
> .
>
> Earlier today I created a video announcing this contest and just
> posted it for viewing onYouTube:  v=aC6o3uHigyM>.
>
> I would appreciate it if you would help spread the word about this
> contest.
>
> Best regards, Jeff
>
> p.s. Network2 and pulver.com will be hosting Networking Events in LA
> and SFO on Feb 7th and 8th. Details are posted at:
> 
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com


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

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Steve Watkins]

But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
long-tail, so dont hold your breath.

Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning, but
then they say something like 'anybody into video needs to be at our
conference' and all the guilt disappears.

According to words spoken at the NYC 2.0 meet, you can get into the
conference for free if you can prove you are a startup company though!!! 

And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and 'disruptive'
when referring to themselves and how they will shakeup the traditional
media industry. I intend to do a bit of what those words actually
mean, in order to agitate and disrupt up[starts who wish to copy the
old way of doing things using new technology, instead of embracing the
real potential of the internet.

Tune in next week when I empty my bowels on those who think SEO is the
spirit of the internet.

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Have had some bank-and-forth with Jeff and Chris Brogan.
> 
> Invitations and offers of assistance from Pulver. I told him I'd
come to his
> VON conferences if they paid my expenses.
> 
> Told them The Faux Press would cover 'em for $5k / week.
> 
> No go.
> 
> I've decided what my time and energy are worth.
> 
> Long-tail that $40K and ship a bunch of vloggers to vlog the conference
> rather than sponsor a hierarchical contest, hmmm?
> 
> He'd get a shitload more Google Juice and advertising from that
approach.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> Jeff? You listening?
> 
> Jan
> 
> On 1/30/07, Dean Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I woke up this morning to find this in my inbox;
> >
> > Jeff Pulver is normally a very clever guy who started VON among other
> > things so this is obvioulsy legitimate just sounds/reads a bit weird.
> >
> > just passing it on.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tomorrow morning I will be announcing an internet video contest where
> > the grand prize is US$ 25,000. Submit an episode of your Internet TV
> > show or a videoblog entry dealing with "How to Watch Internet TV,"
> > mention Network2 in it as well, and submit a link to where we can
> > find it.
> >
> > Your show doesn't have to be on Network2 to enter (though if you come
> > to  , you can submit your show for
> > inclusion). Simply show us how to see your submission, published on a
> > site (YouTube, Blip, Revver, or anywhere we can easily find it), and
> > it counts.
> >
> > Have fun with this. If you have an ongoing show, see if you can work
> > the theme into your show. If you're a videoblogger, show us your
> > style. Humor helps, but follow your own path on this. We want your
> > take on the topic: How to Watch Internet TV, mentioning Network2 at
> > some point. Oh, and if you'd give us a link on your website, that
> > would be nice, too. :)
> >
> > We'll review the submissions (due by March 9th), and announce the
> > finalists around March 16th. We'll announce the winner at Spring 2007
> > Video on the Net , in San Jose
> > California, on March 20th. Grand prize gets $25,000. Second prize
> > wins $10,000, and Third Prize takes $5,000 home.
> >
> > For more information, please visit: . Some
> > restrictions apply, and there's plenty of rules to read over at:
> > .
> >
> > Earlier today I created a video announcing this contest and just
> > posted it for viewing onYouTube:  > v=aC6o3uHigyM>.
> >
> > I would appreciate it if you would help spread the word about this
> > contest.
> >
> > Best regards, Jeff
> >
> > p.s. Network2 and pulver.com will be hosting Networking Events in LA
> > and SFO on Feb 7th and 8th. Details are posted at:
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Steve Watkins]

I admit to using it to watch video. Its not the best experience but I
am not totally satisfied with the other video aggregating apps either,
and as I often have itunes open to listen to music, it seemed convenient.

I can certainly appreciate the anger about their non-inclusion of the
accompanying post etc etc, but personally I find that easy to work
round, if I am at all interested in the video I jsut watched, I track
down the original site. Hrrdly an adequate workaround, but it does
work for me.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if iTunes is used by a lot of people fr
lsitening to podcasts and watching vlogs, because so many people have
it for other reasons, and because although I care deeply about the
stuff thats absent, plenty of people may not. Especially if they are
using it to get content onto the ipod where they arent going to have
access to text & comments & the ability to feedback anyway.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Do people even user itunes!?
> 
> I sometimes wonder. Because I find it the worst piece of shit
> experience ever for watching videos. I don't know about anyone else...
> but I find reading the accompanying post for the video... and going
> and leaving a comment or visiting the original vlog on occassion a
> compelling and essential part of the experience but iTunes POS
> interface doesn't have ANY of this important meta info.
> 
> -Mike
> 

[videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?

[Steve Watkins]

Please Im begging someone to respond to my point about creative
commons material needing to be available for download & redistribution
in order to stay true to the cc license.

So whilst the specifics you mention are true, its not just about
giving additional rights to youtubes partners. Its about the rights
youtube denies to its viewers.

Theres nothing to stop people putting their own cc material on
youtube, but it doesnt really mean much unless they also host it
somewhere else that enables others to use the rights that cc gives
them.  Putting stuff on youtube doesnt harm your ability to release
the same work under less restrictive cc terms elsewhere, jsut the same
as its possible for me to release a video on the web under cc but also
license it commercially to specific entities to include on a DVD or
whatever.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "JD Lasica" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jan wrote:
> 
> > Nothing stopping YouTubers from putting a cc license in and around
their
> > works. We don't NEED to have point-of-upload cc options to claim 'em.
> > Do we?
> > Naw.
> 
> And Jay wrote:
> 
> >you are absolutely correct.
> >it would of course be easier if yoiutube et al helped educate people
> >by offering the choice in their process. But anyone could insert a
> >video post-roll of the CC license.
> 
> While I agree with the sentiment -- and indeed, that's exactly what
> I've done, uploaded my videos to YouTube with CC post-rolls -- I think
> we should all keep in mind that by uploading to YouTube, you're
> agreeing to their Terms of Service, which supersedes any conditions
> you may or may not include as part of your video.
> 
> In other words, if you include a Creative Commons noncommercial
> license when you upload to YouTube, YouTube still has the right to
> license your video to its business partners to show off on their
> sites. As attorney Colette Vogele told me in a different context:
> "Creative Commons licenses are essentially nonoperational on Yahoo!
> Video." Same goes for YouTube.
> 
> (TOS comparison: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/283309)
> 
> Perhaps the members of this list, together with Creative Commons,
> should launch a petition campaign to persuade YouTube to include CC
> licenses as an option when we upload to YouTube.
> 
> jd lasica
> ourmedia.org
> socialmedia.biz
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Steve Garfield]

On Jan 30, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Steve Watkins wrote:

> He could be right but personally I laugh at this in disbelief...

You laugh in his general direction?

Ref: Monty Python Holy Grail Scene 8
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-08.htm

Ha!

That's classic.

--Steve
--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[[chrisbrogan.com]]

So now it's uncool to have a contest to promote Internet Video? 

Let me ask you, Steve, which at least "appears" to be more helpful:
hosting a contest or throwing out attack after attack after attack? 

I think we responded appropriately to the concerns raised by
videobloggers, and we certainly listened to the community. 

The goal of the contest is to raise awareness and do it in a
participatory way, by asking you for YOUR take on how-to. Because
there are certainly still lots of people who don't know there are
great things to watch on the Internet. All they've seen is the
skateboard tricks and lip-synch videos.

So what's wrong with making a contest, offering prizes, and doing
something to promote Internet video while throwing a little money into
the ring? 

Does this mean you won't enter, Steve? : )

--Chris Brogan... 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Jeffrey Taylor]

Network 2 reacted appropriately after behaving inappropriately.

The contest is fine. Not my cuppa, personally, but there's nothing  
ethically wrong with it.

Full disclosure when it comes to marketing activity is a good thing.

People having a choice when it comes to their participation is a good  
thing.

The more we bitch, the more the power of our bitchery is diluted. I'm  
seeing it happen with others who are already being largely ignored.



On Jan 30, 2007, at 1:43 PM, [chrisbrogan.com] wrote:

> So now it's uncool to have a contest to promote Internet Video?
>
> Let me ask you, Steve, which at least "appears" to be more helpful:
> hosting a contest or throwing out attack after attack after attack?
>
> I think we responded appropriately to the concerns raised by
> videobloggers, and we certainly listened to the community.
>
> The goal of the contest is to raise awareness and do it in a
> participatory way, by asking you for YOUR take on how-to. Because
> there are certainly still lots of people who don't know there are
> great things to watch on the Internet. All they've seen is the
> skateboard tricks and lip-synch videos.
>
> So what's wrong with making a contest, offering prizes, and doing
> something to promote Internet video while throwing a little money into
> the ring?
>
> Does this mean you won't enter, Steve? : )
>
> --Chris Brogan...
>
>
> 



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

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Steve Watkins]

OK Ive read the rules now.

The advertising starts working for network2 the moment people start
posting entries, because they are encouraging people to post their
videos that mention network2 to all the various hosting sites.

Your entries remain your property but network2 get perpetual rights to
use the videos for their purposes.

The winner gets free entry to their conference, although if you cant
make it you can appear by video link.

At least it appears to be international, you just have to be 13 or
older, and all the other detail that is the norm for competitions.

It will be interesting to see how many people participate.

I dunno what the folling clause in the terms is designed to do,
prevent people from being rude about network2 and parodying the
contest or something?

"# CAUTION. ANY ATTEMPT BY AN ENTRANT TO DELIBERATELY DAMAGE ANY
WEBSITE OR UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMATE OPERATION OF THIS CONTEST IS A
VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS. SHOULD SUCH AN ATTEMPT BE MADE,
SPONSOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK DAMAGES FROM ANY SUCH INDIVIDUAL TO
THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW."


Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Have had some bank-and-forth with Jeff and Chris Brogan.
> 
> Invitations and offers of assistance from Pulver. I told him I'd
come to his
> VON conferences if they paid my expenses.
> 
> Told them The Faux Press would cover 'em for $5k / week.
> 
> No go.
> 
> I've decided what my time and energy are worth.
> 
> Long-tail that $40K and ship a bunch of vloggers to vlog the conference
> rather than sponsor a hierarchical contest, hmmm?
> 
> He'd get a shitload more Google Juice and advertising from that
approach.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> Jeff? You listening?
> 
> Jan
> 
> On 1/30/07, Dean Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I woke up this morning to find this in my inbox;
> >
> > Jeff Pulver is normally a very clever guy who started VON among other
> > things so this is obvioulsy legitimate just sounds/reads a bit weird.
> >
> > just passing it on.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tomorrow morning I will be announcing an internet video contest where
> > the grand prize is US$ 25,000. Submit an episode of your Internet TV
> > show or a videoblog entry dealing with "How to Watch Internet TV,"
> > mention Network2 in it as well, and submit a link to where we can
> > find it.
> >
> > Your show doesn't have to be on Network2 to enter (though if you come
> > to  , you can submit your show for
> > inclusion). Simply show us how to see your submission, published on a
> > site (YouTube, Blip, Revver, or anywhere we can easily find it), and
> > it counts.
> >
> > Have fun with this. If you have an ongoing show, see if you can work
> > the theme into your show. If you're a videoblogger, show us your
> > style. Humor helps, but follow your own path on this. We want your
> > take on the topic: How to Watch Internet TV, mentioning Network2 at
> > some point. Oh, and if you'd give us a link on your website, that
> > would be nice, too. :)
> >
> > We'll review the submissions (due by March 9th), and announce the
> > finalists around March 16th. We'll announce the winner at Spring 2007
> > Video on the Net , in San Jose
> > California, on March 20th. Grand prize gets $25,000. Second prize
> > wins $10,000, and Third Prize takes $5,000 home.
> >
> > For more information, please visit: . Some
> > restrictions apply, and there's plenty of rules to read over at:
> > .
> >
> > Earlier today I created a video announcing this contest and just
> > posted it for viewing onYouTube:  > v=aC6o3uHigyM>.
> >
> > I would appreciate it if you would help spread the word about this
> > contest.
> >
> > Best regards, Jeff
> >
> > p.s. Network2 and pulver.com will be hosting Networking Events in LA
> > and SFO on Feb 7th and 8th. Details are posted at:
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Steve Watkins]

Hello,

I wouldnt recommend anybody else engage in my sort of bitching, if I
could help myself then I would.

The contest is one thing, its the attempts to pretend its all about
promoting internet video in general, rather than network2, that makes
me open my stinky negative gob.

I do thank you for responding appropriately to the previous content
concerns, believe me I wont still be ranting about that in 6 months time.

Why would I enter the contest when it means I have to mention
network2, when in reality I wouldnt dream of pointing any potential
net tv viewer to that site? If it grows into something that is a truly
valuable resource for viewers then I will change my position in the
future, but right now Id be failing my own honesty ttest if I told
people that was the place to check out whats occuring with video on
the net.

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "[chrisbrogan.com]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> So now it's uncool to have a contest to promote Internet Video? 
> 
> Let me ask you, Steve, which at least "appears" to be more helpful:
> hosting a contest or throwing out attack after attack after attack? 
> 
> I think we responded appropriately to the concerns raised by
> videobloggers, and we certainly listened to the community. 
> 
> The goal of the contest is to raise awareness and do it in a
> participatory way, by asking you for YOUR take on how-to. Because
> there are certainly still lots of people who don't know there are
> great things to watch on the Internet. All they've seen is the
> skateboard tricks and lip-synch videos.
> 
> So what's wrong with making a contest, offering prizes, and doing
> something to promote Internet video while throwing a little money into
> the ring? 
> 
> Does this mean you won't enter, Steve? : )
> 
> --Chris Brogan...
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Rupert]

If you want to make it even easier for people to go to your site and  
comment when they watch your film in iTunes, you can add a clickable  
link at the end of your Quicktime video, which people in iTunes can  
click on to take them directly to your site.  Hardly anyone does this  
that I've seen - David Meade does it - see http://www.davidmeade.com/ 
archives/344 for an example.  I plan to do it, too, as part of my  
next project.

You need a copy of something like Livestage or Adobe GoLive to create  
a sprite within a QT movie.  But you can easily create a free  
standard ident page with a clickable link to your homepage by  
downloading Adobe's 30 day trial of GoLive and following their  
tutorial, then just paste that ident .mov file at the top or tail of  
your QT posts.

I get quite a few iTunes views on the rare occasions I post anything  
- it's just something that the average person can understand, and has  
already on their PC.  I sync it with my iPod and watch most of the  
vlogs I watch on the tube.

And I also find it an easy way of going to the sites of those people  
I've subscribed to - just by clicking on the arrow next to the name  
in the podcast section.

Rupert

http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio


On 30 Jan 2007, at 12:06, Steve Watkins wrote:

I admit to using it to watch video. Its not the best experience but I
am not totally satisfied with the other video aggregating apps either,
and as I often have itunes open to listen to music, it seemed  
convenient.

I can certainly appreciate the anger about their non-inclusion of the
accompanying post etc etc, but personally I find that easy to work
round, if I am at all interested in the video I jsut watched, I track
down the original site. Hrrdly an adequate workaround, but it does
work for me.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if iTunes is used by a lot of people fr
lsitening to podcasts and watching vlogs, because so many people have
it for other reasons, and because although I care deeply about the
stuff thats absent, plenty of people may not. Especially if they are
using it to get content onto the ipod where they arent going to have
access to text & comments & the ability to feedback anyway.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 > Do people even user itunes!?
 >
 > I sometimes wonder. Because I find it the worst piece of shit
 > experience ever for watching videos. I don't know about anyone  
else...
 > but I find reading the accompanying post for the video... and going
 > and leaving a comment or visiting the original vlog on occassion a
 > compelling and essential part of the experience but iTunes POS
 > interface doesn't have ANY of this important meta info.
 >
 > -Mike
 >






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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[andrew michael baron]

This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first however, I may  
have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If not,  
back to the drawing board.

I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because I just  
cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious however, I  
think your arguments have become dilapidated recently.

Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on videoblogging (who  
has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). Lets  
strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve was  
trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 thousand  
dollars to a videoblogger:

"I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in circles that
are in awe of his name and his past reputation"

"I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental point  
of the new age of video on the internet "

"Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get"

"It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver believes
the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts
together the best range of shows to suit his audience. "

"And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and 'disruptive'
when referring to themselves. . .I intend to do a bit of what those  
words actually mean"

"But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
long-tail, so dont hold your breath."

"Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning"

"I will read their terms and conditions later "

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

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Heath]

You are assuming that the vast majority of people out there WANT to 
have their media other than the "old way"old habits die hard, and 
old media did not get "old" by not adapting..and the better 
technology does not always win...

Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
> long-tail, so dont hold your breath.
> 
> Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning, but
> then they say something like 'anybody into video needs to be at our
> conference' and all the guilt disappears.
> 
> According to words spoken at the NYC 2.0 meet, you can get into the
> conference for free if you can prove you are a startup company 
though!!! 
> 
> And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' 
and 'disruptive'
> when referring to themselves and how they will shakeup the 
traditional
> media industry. I intend to do a bit of what those words actually
> mean, in order to agitate and disrupt up[starts who wish to copy the
> old way of doing things using new technology, instead of embracing 
the
> real potential of the internet.
> 
> Tune in next week when I empty my bowels on those who think SEO is 
the
> spirit of the internet.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Have had some bank-and-forth with Jeff and Chris Brogan.
> > 
> > Invitations and offers of assistance from Pulver. I told him I'd
> come to his
> > VON conferences if they paid my expenses.
> > 
> > Told them The Faux Press would cover 'em for $5k / week.
> > 
> > No go.
> > 
> > I've decided what my time and energy are worth.
> > 
> > Long-tail that $40K and ship a bunch of vloggers to vlog the 
conference
> > rather than sponsor a hierarchical contest, hmmm?
> > 
> > He'd get a shitload more Google Juice and advertising from that
> approach.
> > 
> > Just sayin'.
> > 
> > Jeff? You listening?
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> > On 1/30/07, Dean Collins  wrote:
> > >
> > > I woke up this morning to find this in my inbox;
> > >
> > > Jeff Pulver is normally a very clever guy who started VON among 
other
> > > things so this is obvioulsy legitimate just sounds/reads a bit 
weird.
> > >
> > > just passing it on.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tomorrow morning I will be announcing an internet video contest 
where
> > > the grand prize is US$ 25,000. Submit an episode of your 
Internet TV
> > > show or a videoblog entry dealing with "How to Watch Internet 
TV,"
> > > mention Network2 in it as well, and submit a link to where we 
can
> > > find it.
> > >
> > > Your show doesn't have to be on Network2 to enter (though if 
you come
> > > to  , you can submit your show for
> > > inclusion). Simply show us how to see your submission, 
published on a
> > > site (YouTube, Blip, Revver, or anywhere we can easily find 
it), and
> > > it counts.
> > >
> > > Have fun with this. If you have an ongoing show, see if you can 
work
> > > the theme into your show. If you're a videoblogger, show us your
> > > style. Humor helps, but follow your own path on this. We want 
your
> > > take on the topic: How to Watch Internet TV, mentioning 
Network2 at
> > > some point. Oh, and if you'd give us a link on your website, 
that
> > > would be nice, too. :)
> > >
> > > We'll review the submissions (due by March 9th), and announce 
the
> > > finalists around March 16th. We'll announce the winner at 
Spring 2007
> > > Video on the Net , in San Jose
> > > California, on March 20th. Grand prize gets $25,000. Second 
prize
> > > wins $10,000, and Third Prize takes $5,000 home.
> > >
> > > For more information, please visit: 
. Some
> > > restrictions apply, and there's plenty of rules to read over at:
> > > .
> > >
> > > Earlier today I created a video announcing this contest and just
> > > posted it for viewing onYouTube:  > > v=aC6o3uHigyM>.
> > >
> > > I would appreciate it if you would help spread the word about 
this
> > > contest.
> > >
> > > Best regards, Jeff
> > >
> > > p.s. Network2 and pulver.com will be hosting Networking Events 
in LA
> > > and SFO on Feb 7th and 8th. Details are posted at:
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > The Faux Press - better than real
> > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Gena]

Response from VideoRonk:

"Considered usuary.

Videoronk is a finder that obtains the videos of youtube, google
video, blip, metacafe, dailymotion, myspace, vimeo and revver. We did
not lodge any video in our systems. They are these finders to which
you would have to go so that they retired your video.

We felt not to be able to help in this question. A greeting.
Videoronk."

So basically they are saying that they are a pass through system that
they just happen to pick up feeds and slap ads above them. 

This is a similar approach taken by http://www.zabasearch.com.
Zabasearch post public personal information taken from other sources.
When you ask them to remove it they state they don't store the info on
their servers they are just a "pass through" service.  With ads.

We have a problem here. 

Gena

Re: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Rupert]

Sorry, Mike, I hadn't read what you'd written - just Steve's reply.   
I should have been clearer.  There *are* links back to your website  
in the fucking interface :-), to allow you to read and comment.

If you click on the top line of each subscribed podcast in the  
podcast section, a little arrow appears to the right of the name.   
That links back to the site.

You can click the "i" at the very right of each podcast episode to  
preview the post's accompanying text.  Then, if you want to read more  
and comment, click the arrow to go to the site.  It's not quite as  
good as a permalink or watching it on the site, but it's not as bad  
as you made out.

If you've got it open anyway for music, like I always do, it's an  
easy way to get distracted and procrastinate, which is great.


On 30 Jan 2007, at 10:09, Mike Meiser wrote:
I'm talking about the goddam business end of iTunes. The fucking  
interface where you play
videos and podcasts. The place where you actually LISTEN and WATCH
your videos. NOT THE FUCKING DIRECTORY, where your listeners if they
are real listeners go once and then never ever ever again... I'm
talking about the place in itunes where it shows the feeds you have
subscribed to and the items it's downloaded to your computer.

In that pane... which is where your subscribers will spend 99.% of
their time watching your videos... there is not a SINGLE link back to
your website. NONE. FICKING NONE.

Do people even user itunes!?

I sometimes wonder. Because I find it the worst piece of shit
experience ever for watching videos. I don't know about anyone else...
but I find reading the accompanying post for the video... and going
and leaving a comment or visiting the original vlog on occassion a
compelling and essential part of the experience but iTunes POS
interface doesn't have ANY of this important meta info.

-Mike





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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Jan McLaughlin]

What's wrong with contests are they are hierarchical and exclusionary but
definition, unless you structure them differently.

Give $1K to the first 40 vloggers who show plane fares bought to the
conference location and dates.

I absolutely think contests are uncool.

Popularity is not a measure of anything I value.

What do you value?

Jan

On 1/30/07, [chrisbrogan.com] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So now it's uncool to have a contest to promote Internet Video?
>
> Let me ask you, Steve, which at least "appears" to be more helpful:
> hosting a contest or throwing out attack after attack after attack?
>
> I think we responded appropriately to the concerns raised by
> videobloggers, and we certainly listened to the community.
>
> The goal of the contest is to raise awareness and do it in a
> participatory way, by asking you for YOUR take on how-to. Because
> there are certainly still lots of people who don't know there are
> great things to watch on the Internet. All they've seen is the
> skateboard tricks and lip-synch videos.
>
> So what's wrong with making a contest, offering prizes, and doing
> something to promote Internet video while throwing a little money into
> the ring?
>
> Does this mean you won't enter, Steve? : )
>
> --Chris Brogan...
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com


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

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Heath]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
 
> Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on videoblogging(who  
> has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). Lets  
> strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve was  
> trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 thousand  
> dollars to a videoblogger:
> 

It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to their 
friends on how to raise kids..  ;)

Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com

>

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Enric]

The error appears to be that Steve takes on the credentials of an
"expert" without sufficient expertise and knowledge.  The broadness of
his conclusions and underlying assumptions of guilty before proven
innocent show assumptions that are unproven taken as true without real
proof: platitudes.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first however, I may  
> have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If not,  
> back to the drawing board.
> 
> I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because I just  
> cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious however, I  
> think your arguments have become dilapidated recently.
> 
> Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on videoblogging (who  
> has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). Lets  
> strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve was  
> trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 thousand  
> dollars to a videoblogger:
> 
> "I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in circles that
> are in awe of his name and his past reputation"
> 
> "I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental point  
> of the new age of video on the internet "
> 
> "Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get"
> 
> "It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver believes
> the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts
> together the best range of shows to suit his audience. "
> 
> "And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and 'disruptive'
> when referring to themselves. . .I intend to do a bit of what those  
> words actually mean"
> 
> "But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
> long-tail, so dont hold your breath."
> 
> "Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning"
> 
> "I will read their terms and conditions later "
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and aggregators in general

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know about your feedburner point, but I'll take your word for
> > it.  The only reasons I got involved with feedburner was to format my
> > feed to go to iTunes and for (24-hour after the fact) stats.
> >
> > That's a great point you have about iTunes! :D  I hadn't ever
> > considered, and probably wouldn't ever have considered that someone
> > else might go around making accounts for blog feeds they don't own in
> > iTunes, MeFeedia, Fireant... whatever.  You're absolutely right.
> >
> > It's not like Technorati, which requires you to prove that you own a
> > site before they'll mark you as the site owner.  As unlikely as I
> > consider the situation to be, it's absolutely true that someone,
> > anyone... could submit a feed to iTunes without the site owner's
> > knowledge, necessarily making iTunes an aggregator, even if it's an
> > unwitting participant in someone else's plan.
> >
> > Of course, if other people can post your blog to iTunes, Apple can
> > post your blog to iTunes, which would put them in the same boat as
> > "the usual suspects". :D
> 
> I'm not talking about people "claiming your feed" or doing anything
> wrong or underhanded at all.
> 
> All I'm saying is that if I wanted to subscribe to your feed I'd rake
> your RSS feed and subscribe to it in itunes... thereby your media
> would be IN itunes... getting aggregated by itunes. Nothing wrong with
> that... that's what iTunes was MADE to do.

To put what I said more simply:

I agree completely with your point and had never considered that
anyone would do something like you just mentioned.  You've given me
something new to think about.

--
Bill C.
http://ems.blip.tv

> The same goes for Bloglines, Google newsreader, Mefeedia and others.
> The point is
> 
> 1) ALL of these are aggregators, though some are software and some are
> webservices
> 
> 2) NONE of them are opt-in, indeed NONE of them could functin if they
> were opt-in.
> 
> 3) ALL of them except  iTunes respect the unwritten etiquette of
> including a link in the interface BACK to the original blog post
> 
> -Mike
> 
> > --
> > Bill C.
> > http://ems.blip.tv
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[[chrisbrogan.com]]

Interesting points, Jan, and I appreciate your opinion. Contests do
have a way of picking a winner, which makes them a "zero sum game," as
Covey calls it. 

What do I value? Participation. I love community when it is positive.
(It's a personal flaw of mine that I don't do negative very well. Yes,
I know discourse is healthy. I am trying to learn how to better manage
it.)

To me, not as someone from Network2, but just me, participation is
what this means. Is it marketing for Network2? Hell yes. But consider
these two scenarios: 

1.) Old way: pay people to pretend to be videobloggers. 

2.) New way: ask videobloggers and producers to make it themselves.

Recently, Robert Scoble took crap for making a video about Intel. My
very personal opinion is that I'd rather watch Robert's interview than
yet another ad showing a sterile room with flashing neon graphics.
Robert asked questions, showed us things, got a voice. Participation.

Yes, there's marketing. Yes, there's a competition. But in another
way, it's a chance for a couple hundred people to show themselves,
should they choose to do so. 

Another cool thing about the Internet over traditional broadcasting:
we want to show them all. 

Oh! Important: Steve Elbows mentioned something about negative or
parody ads. I think those are fine, too. Remember the GM thing? Well,
we're not selling a product. We're selling an idea. You want to sh!t
on the idea of watching Internet TV? Cool. Have a blast! You want to
sh!t on Network2, that it's not [good/right/useful/pretty], that's
cool too. That's the best part of this two-way communication medium.
You can raise your voice. 

Will we FEATURE it? Maybe not. But we'll watch it for sure. And you
control the broadcast of it, so you can host it wherever. So, if you
want to post negative or parody, that's okay, too. 

I value participation. That's what was behind PodCamp. That's what's
behind the projects I spend my time on. That's where I go when I'm not
with my family (meetups and the like). 

Hope that helps answer your question. 

--Chris Brogan... 
Community Developer
Network2.tv 

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What do you value?

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Mike Hudack]

I don't believe that contests necessarily have to be zero-sum.  If
there's adequate promotional opportunity for all participants (or at
least those participants who have something of a quality entry) they can
avoid being truly zero sum games.

> -Original Message-
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [chrisbrogan.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:36 AM
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver
> 
> Interesting points, Jan, and I appreciate your opinion. 
> Contests do have a way of picking a winner, which makes them 
> a "zero sum game," as Covey calls it. 
> 
> What do I value? Participation. I love community when it is positive.
> (It's a personal flaw of mine that I don't do negative very 
> well. Yes, I know discourse is healthy. I am trying to learn 
> how to better manage
> it.)
> 
> To me, not as someone from Network2, but just me, 
> participation is what this means. Is it marketing for 
> Network2? Hell yes. But consider these two scenarios: 
> 
> 1.) Old way: pay people to pretend to be videobloggers. 
> 
> 2.) New way: ask videobloggers and producers to make it themselves.
> 
> Recently, Robert Scoble took crap for making a video about 
> Intel. My very personal opinion is that I'd rather watch 
> Robert's interview than yet another ad showing a sterile room 
> with flashing neon graphics.
> Robert asked questions, showed us things, got a voice. Participation.
> 
> Yes, there's marketing. Yes, there's a competition. But in 
> another way, it's a chance for a couple hundred people to 
> show themselves, should they choose to do so. 
> 
> Another cool thing about the Internet over traditional broadcasting:
> we want to show them all. 
> 
> Oh! Important: Steve Elbows mentioned something about 
> negative or parody ads. I think those are fine, too. Remember 
> the GM thing? Well, we're not selling a product. We're 
> selling an idea. You want to sh!t on the idea of watching 
> Internet TV? Cool. Have a blast! You want to sh!t on 
> Network2, that it's not [good/right/useful/pretty], that's 
> cool too. That's the best part of this two-way communication medium.
> You can raise your voice. 
> 
> Will we FEATURE it? Maybe not. But we'll watch it for sure. 
> And you control the broadcast of it, so you can host it 
> wherever. So, if you want to post negative or parody, that's 
> okay, too. 
> 
> I value participation. That's what was behind PodCamp. That's 
> what's behind the projects I spend my time on. That's where I 
> go when I'm not with my family (meetups and the like). 
> 
> Hope that helps answer your question. 
> 
> --Chris Brogan... 
> Community Developer
> Network2.tv 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > What do you value?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Enric]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "[chrisbrogan.com]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Interesting points, Jan, and I appreciate your opinion. Contests do
> have a way of picking a winner, which makes them a "zero sum game," as
> Covey calls it. 

A contest is not necessarily a zero sum game.  A content may say there
is a winner and a loser.  But if there is nothing taken away from the
loser, it is just that someone has gained.  Zero sum game is where the
winner wins by taking away something from the losers.  If the "losers"
would be in the same situation had the game not existed, then they
aren not losing anything when the game happens and they don't get the
prize.  

  -- Enric

> 
> What do I value? Participation. I love community when it is positive.
> (It's a personal flaw of mine that I don't do negative very well. Yes,
> I know discourse is healthy. I am trying to learn how to better manage
> it.)
> 
> To me, not as someone from Network2, but just me, participation is
> what this means. Is it marketing for Network2? Hell yes. But consider
> these two scenarios: 
> 
> 1.) Old way: pay people to pretend to be videobloggers. 
> 
> 2.) New way: ask videobloggers and producers to make it themselves.
> 
> Recently, Robert Scoble took crap for making a video about Intel. My
> very personal opinion is that I'd rather watch Robert's interview than
> yet another ad showing a sterile room with flashing neon graphics.
> Robert asked questions, showed us things, got a voice. Participation.
> 
> Yes, there's marketing. Yes, there's a competition. But in another
> way, it's a chance for a couple hundred people to show themselves,
> should they choose to do so. 
> 
> Another cool thing about the Internet over traditional broadcasting:
> we want to show them all. 
> 
> Oh! Important: Steve Elbows mentioned something about negative or
> parody ads. I think those are fine, too. Remember the GM thing? Well,
> we're not selling a product. We're selling an idea. You want to sh!t
> on the idea of watching Internet TV? Cool. Have a blast! You want to
> sh!t on Network2, that it's not [good/right/useful/pretty], that's
> cool too. That's the best part of this two-way communication medium.
> You can raise your voice. 
> 
> Will we FEATURE it? Maybe not. But we'll watch it for sure. And you
> control the broadcast of it, so you can host it wherever. So, if you
> want to post negative or parody, that's okay, too. 
> 
> I value participation. That's what was behind PodCamp. That's what's
> behind the projects I spend my time on. That's where I go when I'm not
> with my family (meetups and the like). 
> 
> Hope that helps answer your question. 
> 
> --Chris Brogan... 
> Community Developer
> Network2.tv 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
>  wrote:
> 
> > What do you value?
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Rupert]

I know it was a ;) joke, but he's really not like someone without  
kids giving advice to their friends on how to raise kids...

Sorry to be a bit too earnest, but it makes me feel a bit uneasy to  
see jokes about Steve's output and therefore his 'expertise' as part  
of a heated argument on this forum.

He has been a watcher of the scene for a long time, is pretty clued- 
up, and obviously he has the right to express his forthright personal  
opinion about whether the motivation and direction of such-and-such a  
thing is good or bad, regardless of whether he's a producer.

Especially on this forum of thousands of non-professionals, where  
there are lots of non-producers and newbies with well-formed opinions  
arising from other experiences in media, IT, business, and life.

I personally know both film producers and film critics, and in  
conversation I tend to trust the objectivity of the critics more than  
the producers when it comes to industry trends and the pros and cons  
of the system.  Even if I disagree with their conclusions.


On 30 Jan 2007, at 14:17, Enric wrote:

The error appears to be that Steve takes on the credentials of an
"expert" without sufficient expertise and knowledge. The broadness of
his conclusions and underlying assumptions of guilty before proven
innocent show assumptions that are unproven taken as true without real
proof: platitudes.

-- Enric


It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to their
friends on how to raise kids.. ;)

Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first however, I may
 > have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If not,
 > back to the drawing board.
 >
 > I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because I just
 > cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious however, I
 > think your arguments have become dilapidated recently.
 >
 > Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on videoblogging (who
 > has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). Lets
 > strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve was
 > trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 thousand
 > dollars to a videoblogger:
 >
 > "I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in  
circles that
 > are in awe of his name and his past reputation"
 >
 > "I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental point
 > of the new age of video on the internet "
 >
 > "Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get"
 >
 > "It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver  
believes
 > the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts
 > together the best range of shows to suit his audience. "
 >
 > "And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and  
'disruptive'
 > when referring to themselves. . .I intend to do a bit of what those
 > words actually mean"
 >
 > "But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
 > long-tail, so dont hold your breath."
 >
 > "Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning"
 >
 > "I will read their terms and conditions later "
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >






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

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Enric]

Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism.  The argument of
trusting a critic more doesn't follow.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I know it was a ;) joke, but he's really not like someone without  
> kids giving advice to their friends on how to raise kids...
> 
> Sorry to be a bit too earnest, but it makes me feel a bit uneasy to  
> see jokes about Steve's output and therefore his 'expertise' as part  
> of a heated argument on this forum.
> 
> He has been a watcher of the scene for a long time, is pretty clued- 
> up, and obviously he has the right to express his forthright personal  
> opinion about whether the motivation and direction of such-and-such a  
> thing is good or bad, regardless of whether he's a producer.
> 
> Especially on this forum of thousands of non-professionals, where  
> there are lots of non-producers and newbies with well-formed opinions  
> arising from other experiences in media, IT, business, and life.
> 
> I personally know both film producers and film critics, and in  
> conversation I tend to trust the objectivity of the critics more than  
> the producers when it comes to industry trends and the pros and cons  
> of the system.  Even if I disagree with their conclusions.
> 
> 
> On 30 Jan 2007, at 14:17, Enric wrote:
> 
> The error appears to be that Steve takes on the credentials of an
> "expert" without sufficient expertise and knowledge. The broadness of
> his conclusions and underlying assumptions of guilty before proven
> innocent show assumptions that are unproven taken as true without real
> proof: platitudes.
> 
> -- Enric
> 
> 
> It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to their
> friends on how to raise kids.. ;)
> 
> Heath
> http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
>  wrote:
>  >
>  > This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first however, I may
>  > have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If not,
>  > back to the drawing board.
>  >
>  > I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because I just
>  > cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious however, I
>  > think your arguments have become dilapidated recently.
>  >
>  > Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on videoblogging (who
>  > has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). Lets
>  > strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve was
>  > trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 thousand
>  > dollars to a videoblogger:
>  >
>  > "I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in  
> circles that
>  > are in awe of his name and his past reputation"
>  >
>  > "I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental point
>  > of the new age of video on the internet "
>  >
>  > "Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get"
>  >
>  > "It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver  
> believes
>  > the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts
>  > together the best range of shows to suit his audience. "
>  >
>  > "And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and  
> 'disruptive'
>  > when referring to themselves. . .I intend to do a bit of what those
>  > words actually mean"
>  >
>  > "But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
>  > long-tail, so dont hold your breath."
>  >
>  > "Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning"
>  >
>  > "I will read their terms and conditions later "
>  >
>  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[[chrisbrogan.com]]

Isn't that the beauty of blogging, videoblogging, podcasting, photo
sharing, etc? Doesn't it give us the power to see for ourselves?
Though my friend Geo often says that photographs "perfectly capture
moments that never existed." 

--Chris...

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism.  The argument of
> trusting a critic more doesn't follow.
> 
>   -- Enric
> 

[videoblogging] Yikes !

[johnleeke]

>>SHOULD SUCH AN ATTEMPT BE MADE,
SPONSOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK DAMAGES FROM ANY SUCH INDIVIDUAL TO
THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW."<<

Yikes!*

This contest is obviously taking place in the big-league ballpark. 
Just to enter I'd have to have a lawyer review these terms and advise
on my contest entry, then call my insurance agent and have him put a
rider on my professional liability insurance.  Minimum dollar expense
to enter: $500-1000. I'm wondering how the risk of entering this
contest and getting hauled into court could possibly be worth any
potential positive outcome. I think I'll stay home and play with my
usual stick-ball buddies.

But wait. That's starting to sound like a great story line for a vlog
on how to enter a vlog contest. Hold on no, that's not a good
idea--better not. OK, see ya over at the sand-lot Saturday afternoon.

John

* The fine print: Exclusions & Limitations. Any material presented in
this message is provided only for its general, informational value. It
may not apply effectively to your situation. It is your decision
whether or not you actually read, pay attention to or use this
material, and you will be responsible for that decision. John Leeke
will not assume any responsibility for any use you may make this
material.**

**Just Kidding! ***

***(no, not really kidding) 

it's beginning to look like I'll have to check with my lawyer AND
my seventh-grade English teacher to determine if I'm kidding or
serious, or not

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Steve Watkins]

I think much of the criticism against me is fair enough. I deserve 
what I get, and Im sure I sound like a terrible negative critic much 
of the time.

It seems like a fair point to note that I dont videoblog myself, 
that should definately be taken into account, although personally I 
dont believe I need to be a politician to criticise what politicians 
do, but yeah, theres still a valid point in what people have said.

I think Ive probably done a lifetimes worth of moaning about 
network2 and the people behind it, so it is time for me to stop, 
hopefully forever. Now seems like a good time to try to fix my 
hideous negative side, although even im my wildest dreams I doubt it 
will make me any less opinionated. This stuff is all just my 
personal opinion, I dont think my opinion counts for anything more 
than anybody elses opinion, and I certainly dont see myself as some 
sort of expert in vlogging, I just have strong opinions that burst 
out. I dont mind if nobody else agrees with me on any issue, indeed 
it helps me to understand where I am out of alignment with the rest 
of humanity.

Anyway Ive been a bit overactive here recently so I think I should 
give you all a rest from my incessant ranting for a while. Sorry to 
those who have had to spend precious time defending themselves from 
my scorn, I doubt you deserve it really, I go well OTT sometimes.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "[chrisbrogan.com]" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Isn't that the beauty of blogging, videoblogging, podcasting, photo
> sharing, etc? Doesn't it give us the power to see for ourselves?
> Though my friend Geo often says that photographs "perfectly capture
> moments that never existed." 
> 
> --Chris...
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric"  wrote:
> >
> > Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism.  The argument of
> > trusting a critic more doesn't follow.
> > 
> >   -- Enric
> >
>

[videoblogging] Off Topic, but fascinating

[johnleeke]

>>Though my friend Geo often says that photographs "perfectly capture
moments that never existed."<<

Well, this explains why I have the great urge, and often do, edit
photos. The editing turns the documentation of the moment into an
"illustration" that tells "a greater truth" than the photo could on
its own. 

Does the same apply to raw video footage and an edited piece? I think so.

John
by hammer and hand great works do stand
by cam and light he shoots it right

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Rupert]

Is it?  Doesn't it?  I'm not clever enough to follow your logical  
outflanking of me.  The only point I was making was that we shouldn't  
be making judgements about people's 'expertise' and thereby telling  
people we won't respect their opinion, based on their vlogging  
productivity.  A keen observer can be just as intelligent on an issue  
as a keen participant.  And my other point was that I instinctively  
trust more the *objectivity* of a critic as opposed to a producer on  
this kind of issue, as someone who is not directly financially  
affected by the industry & market's direction.

I've always enjoyed reading Steve's opinions, whether I agree or not,  
when I have a couple of hours to spare :)
But now it seems he might go away... and other people we may not have  
heard from will be less willing to speak.  Not good.  But if I've  
misunderstood and am objecting wrongly, forgive me.  I am an  
occasional dabbler, and I just read in passing for fun, when I should  
be finishing my tax.

Rupert


On 30 Jan 2007, at 15:17, Enric wrote:

Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism. The argument of
trusting a critic more doesn't follow.

-- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > I know it was a ;) joke, but he's really not like someone without
 > kids giving advice to their friends on how to raise kids...
 >
 > Sorry to be a bit too earnest, but it makes me feel a bit uneasy to
 > see jokes about Steve's output and therefore his 'expertise' as part
 > of a heated argument on this forum.
 >
 > He has been a watcher of the scene for a long time, is pretty clued-
 > up, and obviously he has the right to express his forthright personal
 > opinion about whether the motivation and direction of such-and-such a
 > thing is good or bad, regardless of whether he's a producer.
 >
 > Especially on this forum of thousands of non-professionals, where
 > there are lots of non-producers and newbies with well-formed opinions
 > arising from other experiences in media, IT, business, and life.
 >
 > I personally know both film producers and film critics, and in
 > conversation I tend to trust the objectivity of the critics more than
 > the producers when it comes to industry trends and the pros and cons
 > of the system. Even if I disagree with their conclusions.
 >
 >
 > On 30 Jan 2007, at 14:17, Enric wrote:
 >
 > The error appears to be that Steve takes on the credentials of an
 > "expert" without sufficient expertise and knowledge. The broadness of
 > his conclusions and underlying assumptions of guilty before proven
 > innocent show assumptions that are unproven taken as true without  
real
 > proof: platitudes.
 >
 > -- Enric
 >
 >
 > It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to their
 > friends on how to raise kids.. ;)
 >
 > Heath
 > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
 >
 >
 > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
 >  wrote:
 > >
 > > This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first however, I  
may
 > > have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If not,
 > > back to the drawing board.
 > >
 > > I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because I  
just
 > > cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious however, I
 > > think your arguments have become dilapidated recently.
 > >
 > > Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on videoblogging  
(who
 > > has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). Lets
 > > strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve was
 > > trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 thousand
 > > dollars to a videoblogger:
 > >
 > > "I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in
 > circles that
 > > are in awe of his name and his past reputation"
 > >
 > > "I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental point
 > > of the new age of video on the internet "
 > >
 > > "Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get"
 > >
 > > "It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver
 > believes
 > > the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts
 > > together the best range of shows to suit his audience. "
 > >
 > > "And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and
 > 'disruptive'
 > > when referring to themselves. . .I intend to do a bit of what those
 > > words actually mean"
 > >
 > > "But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
 > > long-tail, so dont hold your breath."
 > >
 > > "Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning"
 > >
 > > "I will read their terms and conditions later "
 > >
 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 > >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >






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

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[David Howell]

It appears that the problem is that basically anyone can create an
aggregator and pull feeds from it. Unless there is something done that
prevents this, this is going to happen more and more.

In this case, for me, it's the Blip feed that is being ripped. To have
them stop displaying my videos, I will have to remove them from Blip.
So at this point, I am going to have to make a decision. Delete my
videos from Blip? Delete my feed?. Password protect my feed? Admit the
CC license really means nothing and not care who does what with my stuff?

There doesnt appear to be that much concern here in preventing or
resolving it.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Response from VideoRonk:
> 
> "Considered usuary.
> 
> Videoronk is a finder that obtains the videos of youtube, google
> video, blip, metacafe, dailymotion, myspace, vimeo and revver. We did
> not lodge any video in our systems. They are these finders to which
> you would have to go so that they retired your video.
> 
> We felt not to be able to help in this question. A greeting.
> Videoronk."
> 
> So basically they are saying that they are a pass through system that
> they just happen to pick up feeds and slap ads above them. 
> 
> This is a similar approach taken by http://www.zabasearch.com.
> Zabasearch post public personal information taken from other sources.
> When you ask them to remove it they state they don't store the info on
> their servers they are just a "pass through" service.  With ads.
> 
> We have a problem here. 
> 
> Gena
>

[videoblogging] CNet's Project Spotlight

[T Shey]

Just read an interesting post on NewTeeVee about CNet's efforts to
incubate videoblogs with cash grants. It sheds a little more light on
the Project Spotlight campaign they announced last year -- for one
thing, that Schlomo is involved, whom I mainly know from reading his
posts on this list.  Ryanne and Jay's PodTech deal is mentioned in the
article as well.

http://newteevee.com/2007/01/26/cnet-video-incubator-getting-started/

Sounds really promising - especially the way they're planning on
supporting complete 'seasons' of a show. More companies competing to
find and fund worthy projects is a good thing.

The WINK show looks good, too.  Congrats, Schlomo!

---
Tim Shey

http://nextnewnetworks.com/
http://shey.net/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[andrew michael baron]

Great! Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on  
videoblogging (who has been talking about starting his own for over 2  
years now). Lets strip out all the nonsense and get right to the  
points Steve was trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away  
$40 thousand dollars to a videoblogger:

"I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in circles that
are in awe of his name and his past reputation"

"I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental point  
of the new age of video on the internet "

"Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get"

"It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver believes
the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts
together the best range of shows to suit his audience. "

"And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and 'disruptive'
when referring to themselves. . .I intend to do a bit of what those  
words actually mean"

"But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
long-tail, so dont hold your breath."

"Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning"

"I will read their terms and conditions later "


On Jan 30, 2007, at 6:54 AM, Steve Watkins wrote:

> But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
> long-tail, so dont hold your breath.
>
> Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning, but
> then they say something like 'anybody into video needs to be at our
> conference' and all the guilt disappears.
>
> According to words spoken at the NYC 2.0 meet, you can get into the
> conference for free if you can prove you are a startup company  
> though!!!
>
> And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and 'disruptive'
> when referring to themselves and how they will shakeup the traditional
> media industry. I intend to do a bit of what those words actually
> mean, in order to agitate and disrupt up[starts who wish to copy the
> old way of doing things using new technology, instead of embracing the
> real potential of the internet.
>
> Tune in next week when I empty my bowels on those who think SEO is the
> spirit of the internet.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve Elbows
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Have had some bank-and-forth with Jeff and Chris Brogan.
> >
> > Invitations and offers of assistance from Pulver. I told him I'd
> come to his
> > VON conferences if they paid my expenses.
> >
> > Told them The Faux Press would cover 'em for $5k / week.
> >
> > No go.
> >
> > I've decided what my time and energy are worth.
> >
> > Long-tail that $40K and ship a bunch of vloggers to vlog the  
> conference
> > rather than sponsor a hierarchical contest, hmmm?
> >
> > He'd get a shitload more Google Juice and advertising from that
> approach.
> >
> > Just sayin'.
> >
> > Jeff? You listening?
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > On 1/30/07, Dean Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I woke up this morning to find this in my inbox;
> > >
> > > Jeff Pulver is normally a very clever guy who started VON among  
> other
> > > things so this is obvioulsy legitimate just sounds/reads a bit  
> weird.
> > >
> > > just passing it on.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tomorrow morning I will be announcing an internet video contest  
> where
> > > the grand prize is US$ 25,000. Submit an episode of your  
> Internet TV
> > > show or a videoblog entry dealing with "How to Watch Internet TV,"
> > > mention Network2 in it as well, and submit a link to where we can
> > > find it.
> > >
> > > Your show doesn't have to be on Network2 to enter (though if  
> you come
> > > to  , you can submit your show for
> > > inclusion). Simply show us how to see your submission,  
> published on a
> > > site (YouTube, Blip, Revver, or anywhere we can easily find  
> it), and
> > > it counts.
> > >
> > > Have fun with this. If you have an ongoing show, see if you can  
> work
> > > the theme into your show. If you're a videoblogger, show us your
> > > style. Humor helps, but follow your own path on this. We want your
> > > take on the topic: How to Watch Internet TV, mentioning  
> Network2 at
> > > some point. Oh, and if you'd give us a link on your website, that
> > > would be nice, too. :)
> > >
> > > We'll review the submissions (due by March 9th), and announce the
> > > finalists around March 16th. We'll announce the winner at  
> Spring 2007
> > > Video on the Net , in San Jose
> > > California, on March 20th. Grand prize gets $25,000. Second prize
> > > wins $10,000, and Third Prize takes $5,000 home.
> > >
> > > For more information, please visit:  contest>. Some
> > > restrictions apply, and there's plenty of rules to read over at:
> > > .
> > >
> > > Earlier today I created a video announcing this contest and just
> > > poste

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Steve Watkins]

Thanks for the kind words, but please dont take this as me going 
away because ive been criticised, fairly or unfairly. I just got 
self-concious that I may be damaging the group, and that I should 
chill out a bit. As far as Im concerned, people should feel as free 
to criticise me as I criticise others.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is it?  Doesn't it?  I'm not clever enough to follow your logical  
> outflanking of me.  The only point I was making was that we 
shouldn't  
> be making judgements about people's 'expertise' and thereby 
telling  
> people we won't respect their opinion, based on their vlogging  
> productivity.  A keen observer can be just as intelligent on an 
issue  
> as a keen participant.  And my other point was that I 
instinctively  
> trust more the *objectivity* of a critic as opposed to a producer 
on  
> this kind of issue, as someone who is not directly financially  
> affected by the industry & market's direction.
> 
> I've always enjoyed reading Steve's opinions, whether I agree or 
not,  
> when I have a couple of hours to spare :)
> But now it seems he might go away... and other people we may not 
have  
> heard from will be less willing to speak.  Not good.  But if I've  
> misunderstood and am objecting wrongly, forgive me.  I am an  
> occasional dabbler, and I just read in passing for fun, when I 
should  
> be finishing my tax.
> 
> Rupert
> 
> 
> On 30 Jan 2007, at 15:17, Enric wrote:
> 
> Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism. The argument of
> trusting a critic more doesn't follow.
> 
> -- Enric
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert  wrote:
>  >
>  > I know it was a ;) joke, but he's really not like someone 
without
>  > kids giving advice to their friends on how to raise kids...
>  >
>  > Sorry to be a bit too earnest, but it makes me feel a bit 
uneasy to
>  > see jokes about Steve's output and therefore his 'expertise' as 
part
>  > of a heated argument on this forum.
>  >
>  > He has been a watcher of the scene for a long time, is pretty 
clued-
>  > up, and obviously he has the right to express his forthright 
personal
>  > opinion about whether the motivation and direction of such-and-
such a
>  > thing is good or bad, regardless of whether he's a producer.
>  >
>  > Especially on this forum of thousands of non-professionals, 
where
>  > there are lots of non-producers and newbies with well-formed 
opinions
>  > arising from other experiences in media, IT, business, and life.
>  >
>  > I personally know both film producers and film critics, and in
>  > conversation I tend to trust the objectivity of the critics 
more than
>  > the producers when it comes to industry trends and the pros and 
cons
>  > of the system. Even if I disagree with their conclusions.
>  >
>  >
>  > On 30 Jan 2007, at 14:17, Enric wrote:
>  >
>  > The error appears to be that Steve takes on the credentials of 
an
>  > "expert" without sufficient expertise and knowledge. The 
broadness of
>  > his conclusions and underlying assumptions of guilty before 
proven
>  > innocent show assumptions that are unproven taken as true 
without  
> real
>  > proof: platitudes.
>  >
>  > -- Enric
>  >
>  >
>  > It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to 
their
>  > friends on how to raise kids.. ;)
>  >
>  > Heath
>  > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
>  >
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
>  >  wrote:
>  > >
>  > > This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first 
however, I  
> may
>  > > have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If 
not,
>  > > back to the drawing board.
>  > >
>  > > I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because 
I  
> just
>  > > cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious 
however, I
>  > > think your arguments have become dilapidated recently.
>  > >
>  > > Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on 
videoblogging  
> (who
>  > > has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years 
now). Lets
>  > > strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve 
was
>  > > trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 
thousand
>  > > dollars to a videoblogger:
>  > >
>  > > "I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in
>  > circles that
>  > > are in awe of his name and his past reputation"
>  > >
>  > > "I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental 
point
>  > > of the new age of video on the internet "
>  > >
>  > > "Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can 
get"
>  > >
>  > > "It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver
>  > believes
>  > > the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who 
puts
>  > > together the best range of shows to suit his audience. "
>  > >
>  > > "And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and
>  > 'disruptive'
>  > > when referring to themselves. . .I

Re: [videoblogging] CNET video incubator

[Halcyon]

That is bad ass!!

Go Schlomo! Very exciting stuff.

-halcyon

On 1/29/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://newteevee.com/2007/01/26/cnet-video-incubator-getting-started/
>
> Looks like Schlomo is working on a pretty cool project.
> see, I like it when money is available for people wanting to make good
> work.
> this project make sense.
>
> "Up to twenty thousand dollars will be made available to production
> teams, along with professional advice and the promise of whatever
> resources they can wrangle from CNET. Creators will own their own
> content — what Project Spotlight is asking for is exclusivity for some
> period of time after the content debuts"
>
> Jay
>
> --
> Here I am
> http://jaydedman.com
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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



 
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/
 

[videoblogging] Re: Yikes !

[[chrisbrogan.com]]

I got to listen to about 30 lawyer jokes in the taxi last week with
the guy who helped write those terms in the back seat, adding his own.
(I'm not a lawyer- not smart enough). The thing about contests where
you give away money is that you have to cover all the bases. 

Do you know Christopher Penn and I had to buy insurance riders and
other things for PodCamp? It makes sense when you think about it, but
just for a friendly meeting of minds, we had to worry if someone
slipped, broke their tailbone, and sued us. 

And that little snip, I think, refers to people trying to hack or
break or whatever the site. If you're not planning to hack, the rest
of the rules, though extensive, seemed reasonable when I attempted to
read them all. 

(Have you ever read the Terms and Conditions on the 3,044 websites
you've signed into? Blech.)

--Chris... 


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "johnleeke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>SHOULD SUCH AN ATTEMPT BE MADE,
> SPONSOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK DAMAGES FROM ANY SUCH INDIVIDUAL TO
> THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW."<<
> 
> Yikes!* [snipped a bit]
> 

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[cooper3acd]

Just to be clear, this is a contest with the goal of promoting 
Network 2.

It's absolutely awesome that you're putting your promo dollars back 
into the community, but the part where it says you have to mention 
Network 2 makes it clear that you are doing a Promo for your company 
and not a Public Service to the online video community.

Nobody's going to fault you for promoting your company, you just need 
to be up front that you're looking to "spread the word about online 
tv and get some exposure for Network 2."

Again, I applaud your choice to do this, but would recommend a more 
open expression of your intent and maybe some subtle changes to your 
presentation of contests like this so you are met with support rather 
than criticism.

Cheers,
Rob

PS Feel free to contact me off-list if I'm not making any sense or if 
you feel like a fairly unbiased opinion of why you guys (who I 
believe are a responsible company) seem to get into some hot water in 
this group.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "[chrisbrogan.com]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> So now it's uncool to have a contest to promote Internet Video? 
> 
> Let me ask you, Steve, which at least "appears" to be more helpful:
> hosting a contest or throwing out attack after attack after attack? 
> 
> I think we responded appropriately to the concerns raised by
> videobloggers, and we certainly listened to the community. 
> 
> The goal of the contest is to raise awareness and do it in a
> participatory way, by asking you for YOUR take on how-to. Because
> there are certainly still lots of people who don't know there are
> great things to watch on the Internet. All they've seen is the
> skateboard tricks and lip-synch videos.
> 
> So what's wrong with making a contest, offering prizes, and doing
> something to promote Internet video while throwing a little money 
into
> the ring? 
> 
> Does this mean you won't enter, Steve? : )
> 
> --Chris Brogan...
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Mike Hudack]

David,

We will block these guys on our end if we have to. 


- Original Message -
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tue Jan 30 10:59:46 2007
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

It appears that the problem is that basically anyone can create an
aggregator and pull feeds from it. Unless there is something done that
prevents this, this is going to happen more and more.

In this case, for me, it's the Blip feed that is being ripped. To have
them stop displaying my videos, I will have to remove them from Blip.
So at this point, I am going to have to make a decision. Delete my
videos from Blip? Delete my feed?. Password protect my feed? Admit the
CC license really means nothing and not care who does what with my stuff?

There doesnt appear to be that much concern here in preventing or
resolving it.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Response from VideoRonk:
> 
> "Considered usuary.
> 
> Videoronk is a finder that obtains the videos of youtube, google
> video, blip, metacafe, dailymotion, myspace, vimeo and revver. We did
> not lodge any video in our systems. They are these finders to which
> you would have to go so that they retired your video.
> 
> We felt not to be able to help in this question. A greeting.
> Videoronk."
> 
> So basically they are saying that they are a pass through system that
> they just happen to pick up feeds and slap ads above them. 
> 
> This is a similar approach taken by http://www.zabasearch.com.
> Zabasearch post public personal information taken from other sources.
> When you ask them to remove it they state they don't store the info on
> their servers they are just a "pass through" service.  With ads.
> 
> We have a problem here. 
> 
> Gena
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links





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

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[David Howell]

Thanks Mike.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David,
> 
> We will block these guys on our end if we have to. 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tue Jan 30 10:59:46 2007
> Subject: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences
> 
> It appears that the problem is that basically anyone can create an
> aggregator and pull feeds from it. Unless there is something done that
> prevents this, this is going to happen more and more.
> 
> In this case, for me, it's the Blip feed that is being ripped. To have
> them stop displaying my videos, I will have to remove them from Blip.
> So at this point, I am going to have to make a decision. Delete my
> videos from Blip? Delete my feed?. Password protect my feed? Admit the
> CC license really means nothing and not care who does what with my
stuff?
> 
> There doesnt appear to be that much concern here in preventing or
> resolving it.
> 
> David
> http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena"  wrote:
> >
> > Response from VideoRonk:
> > 
> > "Considered usuary.
> > 
> > Videoronk is a finder that obtains the videos of youtube, google
> > video, blip, metacafe, dailymotion, myspace, vimeo and revver. We did
> > not lodge any video in our systems. They are these finders to which
> > you would have to go so that they retired your video.
> > 
> > We felt not to be able to help in this question. A greeting.
> > Videoronk."
> > 
> > So basically they are saying that they are a pass through system that
> > they just happen to pick up feeds and slap ads above them. 
> > 
> > This is a similar approach taken by http://www.zabasearch.com.
> > Zabasearch post public personal information taken from other sources.
> > When you ask them to remove it they state they don't store the info on
> > their servers they are just a "pass through" service.  With ads.
> > 
> > We have a problem here. 
> > 
> > Gena
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Camcorder Recommendations

[brian conley]

Has the ZR500 gotten rid of any remaining problems between the ZR series and 
Final Cut / iMovie?

I'll admit I haven't used many of the newer ZR series cameras, but the older 
ones made me want to cut my eyes out when trying to make them play nice with 
FCP.

If Verdi's using one, I guess it must be working out ok though... perhaps I 
should look into those cameras for our Alive in projects

I've always been a Sony user, but times do change...

peace
b

 
-
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

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

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[[chrisbrogan.com]]

Good point, Rob. I guess we could be more explicit. I figured that by
making it a contest put on by Network2 where we ask you to mention
Network2 in the branding, that'd show we're also promoting the site.
But perhaps I could've been more explicit. Live and learn. 

Yes, we are definitely looking to promote Network2. We are definitely
looking to promote Internet TV as a whole. We are looking to draw more
eyes to the good stuff that talented people create (though who knows
who will ultimately enter a submission).

Jeff's giving $40,000 back to the video community in a way that we
hope will see people who do good work rewarded for their efforts. The
intent, always, is that if everyone is elevated, everyone will have a
chance to figure out a way to make a living, SHOULD THEY WANT THAT GOAL.

I've read such great news lately, about Kent and Douglas, about
Andrew, about Jay and Ryanne, and Schlomo. Sure there are sharks in
the water, but there are also good people making it work. 

The contest is just one way to share out some awareness, some
cross-promotion to your point, Rob, and also to give a little money
back to the people making good work. 

--Chris...

[videoblogging] LA Music Vlogger/Blogger APB

[mcmpress]

I'm looking for an LA based video blogger/blogger ( music focused) to appear in 
a blogger 
round table for AOL Music in LA in the next day or so. Anyone interested or 
know of 
someone?

Please let me know via list or off list at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks,

Mary

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Charles Hope]

Steve, I actually find your input very useful, because you often enough
write what I'm too busy to find phrasing for.  This group doesn't need
to become an echo chamber of constant happy agreement.

Please, keep testing us.  It is the only path to truth.




From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:08
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver



Thanks for the kind words, but please dont take this as me going

away because ive been criticised, fairly or unfairly. I just got

self-concious that I may be damaging the group, and that I
should 
chill out a bit. As far as Im concerned, people should feel as
free 
to criticise me as I criticise others.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Heath]

Well, I for one was not "dismissing" his arguements.  I wholeheartly 
agree that sometimes a person "outside" can bring tremendous 
benifit.and I can choose to listen to it or not, but sometimes it 
just felt like arguing for the sake of arguingbut regardless he 
acknowldged that perhaps he needed to back off a bit, which says to 
me, that he is a big boy and can take as well as dish.  and I 
personaly don't want to see him "go away".but that is just my 
opinion.

Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is it?  Doesn't it?  I'm not clever enough to follow your logical  
> outflanking of me.  The only point I was making was that we 
shouldn't  
> be making judgements about people's 'expertise' and thereby 
telling  
> people we won't respect their opinion, based on their vlogging  
> productivity.  A keen observer can be just as intelligent on an 
issue  
> as a keen participant.  And my other point was that I 
instinctively  
> trust more the *objectivity* of a critic as opposed to a producer 
on  
> this kind of issue, as someone who is not directly financially  
> affected by the industry & market's direction.
> 
> I've always enjoyed reading Steve's opinions, whether I agree or 
not,  
> when I have a couple of hours to spare :)
> But now it seems he might go away... and other people we may not 
have  
> heard from will be less willing to speak.  Not good.  But if I've  
> misunderstood and am objecting wrongly, forgive me.  I am an  
> occasional dabbler, and I just read in passing for fun, when I 
should  
> be finishing my tax.
> 
> Rupert
> 
> 
> On 30 Jan 2007, at 15:17, Enric wrote:
> 
> Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism. The argument of
> trusting a critic more doesn't follow.
> 
> -- Enric
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert  wrote:
>  >
>  > I know it was a ;) joke, but he's really not like someone without
>  > kids giving advice to their friends on how to raise kids...
>  >
>  > Sorry to be a bit too earnest, but it makes me feel a bit uneasy 
to
>  > see jokes about Steve's output and therefore his 'expertise' as 
part
>  > of a heated argument on this forum.
>  >
>  > He has been a watcher of the scene for a long time, is pretty 
clued-
>  > up, and obviously he has the right to express his forthright 
personal
>  > opinion about whether the motivation and direction of such-and-
such a
>  > thing is good or bad, regardless of whether he's a producer.
>  >
>  > Especially on this forum of thousands of non-professionals, where
>  > there are lots of non-producers and newbies with well-formed 
opinions
>  > arising from other experiences in media, IT, business, and life.
>  >
>  > I personally know both film producers and film critics, and in
>  > conversation I tend to trust the objectivity of the critics more 
than
>  > the producers when it comes to industry trends and the pros and 
cons
>  > of the system. Even if I disagree with their conclusions.
>  >
>  >
>  > On 30 Jan 2007, at 14:17, Enric wrote:
>  >
>  > The error appears to be that Steve takes on the credentials of an
>  > "expert" without sufficient expertise and knowledge. The 
broadness of
>  > his conclusions and underlying assumptions of guilty before 
proven
>  > innocent show assumptions that are unproven taken as true 
without  
> real
>  > proof: platitudes.
>  >
>  > -- Enric
>  >
>  >
>  > It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to their
>  > friends on how to raise kids.. ;)
>  >
>  > Heath
>  > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
>  >
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
>  >  wrote:
>  > >
>  > > This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first however, 
I  
> may
>  > > have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If 
not,
>  > > back to the drawing board.
>  > >
>  > > I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because 
I  
> just
>  > > cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious however, 
I
>  > > think your arguments have become dilapidated recently.
>  > >
>  > > Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on 
videoblogging  
> (who
>  > > has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). 
Lets
>  > > strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve 
was
>  > > trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 
thousand
>  > > dollars to a videoblogger:
>  > >
>  > > "I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in
>  > circles that
>  > > are in awe of his name and his past reputation"
>  > >
>  > > "I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental 
point
>  > > of the new age of video on the internet "
>  > >
>  > > "Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can 
get"
>  > >
>  > > "It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver
>  > believes
>  > > the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who 
puts
>  > >

Re: [videoblogging] CNET video incubator

[schlomo rabinowitz]

Thanks everyone for the kind words.  It's a grand experiment that I
have been lucky enough to help bring to fruition.  The article pretty
much says where our heads are at... funding videos that have some sort
of story arc (be it fiction or non-fiction).  This includes
documentaries to dadaist nonsense.

Basically, if we believe in it, it has a shot.

That, mixed with creating our first show, Wink (which is made to
highlight and inspire the creation of video), Cnet has been very nice
to work with.  (mainly because I hide out far in the back!  Out of
sight of all them cubicles!!)

This is much different than the Cnet most of you know. No tech videos
in my department-- I live in a city (SF) that makes plenty of them and
do a better job at it than I would ever do.

If anyone has any questions/thoughts on Project Spotlight, feel free
to drop me a line off-list.

Schlomo
http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
http://webshots.com/is/spotlight
http://hatfactory.net
http://evilvlog.com



On 1/29/07, Halcyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is bad ass!!
>
> Go Schlomo! Very exciting stuff.
>
> -halcyon
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[andrew michael baron]

I figured out how to email through, perhaps.

If your reply-to-email to the videoblogging group has all the html  
stuff on the side bar that Yahoo sticks on the email, such at the  
"recent activiy" side bar, colorful "sponsored links" etc, then I  
guess the email will get clogged up while Yahoo checks and delivers  
this back to the group.

If you just create a regular email or copy and past the text, it  
should work faster it seems.

. . .or perhaps only take text emails.

[videoblogging] Get Massive Website Traffic Uploading Videos to YouTube, Google Video, MySpace, etc.

[Markus Sandy]

some may find this interesting or useful

some may find this humorous

had to happen sooner or later :)

http://trafficgeyser.com/





---
Markus Sandy
http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow

[videoblogging] Saturday Videoblogging FlashMeeting Presentations

[Enric]

I'm going to try setting up presentations on the Saturday
Videoblogging FlashMeetings.  The idea is that whatever you do,
whether videoblogging, creating tools, offering services (commercial
or non-commercial), you may ask to present on a Saturday.  

   1) Show what your doing and where it's going.

   2) Answer questions


Should that finish then the FlashMeeting will return back to a
unstructured discussion.

If you're interested in presenting, email me:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or ask questions on this thread.

  ;),

  Enric
  -===-
  http://www.cirne.com

Re: [videoblogging] Get Massive Website Traffic Uploading Videos to YouTube, Google Video, MySpace, etc.

[schlomo rabinowitz]

but...but...but..what happens if I don't want to show up in search
engines under the term "san diego trial lawyer"?

Oh wait, because of my trial lawyer video, I come up 5th when you
google "lets go to vegas"!!!

It worked!
Schlomo
http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
http://hatfactory.net
http://evilvlog.com




On 1/30/07, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> some may find this interesting or useful
>
>  some may find this humorous
>
>  had to happen sooner or later :)
>
>  http://trafficgeyser.com/
>
>  ---
>  Markus Sandy
>  http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
>  http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
>  http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
>  http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow
>
>  

[videoblogging] Re: Get Massive Website Traffic Uploading Videos to YouTube, Google Video, MySpace, etc.

[Heath]

Laugh all you want but I am getting this, soon everyone will 
know "The Batman Geek" and then I will have producers and fans and 
people who love me because I am famous, THAT's real love you know, 
not that artificial stuff you get from friends and people who take 
the time to get to know you.  Just watch, soon Heath "The Batman 
Geek" will rule all known search engiges and instead of "duckie" I 
will have "Batties" and a development deal.

So I am giving everyone on this list an incredible opportunity, right 
now you can get in on this by visiting my site now befoer it 
explodes!!  Hurry, operators are standing by

Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> some may find this interesting or useful
> 
> some may find this humorous
> 
> had to happen sooner or later :)
> 
> http://trafficgeyser.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Markus Sandy
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow
>

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[johnleeke]

Steve writes;
>>Anyway Ive been a bit overactive here recently so I think I should
give you all a rest from my incessant ranting for a while. Sorry to<<

Steve, I find your comments here stimulating and always a thought
provoking addition to the discussions. When I hear a name like
"Elbows" I'm already expecting you to elbow your way up to the front
and speak your piece.

John (just don't ask me to fix your roof) Leeke

[videoblogging] Re: Yikes !

[johnleeke]

>>
(Have you ever read the Terms and Conditions on the 3,044 websites
you've signed into? Blech.)<<

I've been on the internet since 1993 and I've only had time to read
the ToS at 23 websites, and signed up at only 7 of those.

John (they never did let out of remedial reading class) Leeke

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[johnleeke]

Mike writes:
> > We will block these guys on our end if we have to. 

I noticed that they were prominently displaying the Blip logo, and
wondered if you already had an agreement with them.

Thanks for all your good works.

John

[videoblogging] Re: Get Massive Website Traffic Uploading Videos to YouTube, Google Video, MySpa

[Steve Watkins]

Theres no business
like SEO business 
thats no business at all
its almost enough to start me drinking
stop thinking
before my soul returns a 404

This and other classic tunes are available on a CD that represents
$5000 worth of value, if you sign up today.

Okayyy, my mind is melting, where is human nature 2.0 to go with web
2.0? Must seek church of the subgenius therapy, only a master salesman
like Bob can help me seee the liiiggghhttt.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Laugh all you want but I am getting this, soon everyone will 
> know "The Batman Geek" and then I will have producers and fans and 
> people who love me because I am famous, THAT's real love you know, 
> not that artificial stuff you get from friends and people who take 
> the time to get to know you.  Just watch, soon Heath "The Batman 
> Geek" will rule all known search engiges and instead of "duckie" I 
> will have "Batties" and a development deal.
> 
> So I am giving everyone on this list an incredible opportunity, right 
> now you can get in on this by visiting my site now befoer it 
> explodes!!  Hurry, operators are standing by
> 
> Heath
> http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy  
> wrote:
> >
> > some may find this interesting or useful
> > 
> > some may find this humorous
> > 
> > had to happen sooner or later :)
> > 
> > http://trafficgeyser.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > Markus Sandy
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Steve Watkins]

Yeah that seems like a possible factor. My approach is not to use the
yahoo group via email at all, I do all reading and replying through
their web interface.

Although things may be especially backlogged or get-stucky right now
as I keep seeing messages appear on yahoo saying that they are
experiencing a backlog in recent days, although I thought it was fixed
by now.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I figured out how to email through, perhaps.
> 
> If your reply-to-email to the videoblogging group has all the html  
> stuff on the side bar that Yahoo sticks on the email, such at the  
> "recent activiy" side bar, colorful "sponsored links" etc, then I  
> guess the email will get clogged up while Yahoo checks and delivers  
> this back to the group.
> 
> If you just create a regular email or copy and past the text, it  
> should work faster it seems.
> 
> . . .or perhaps only take text emails.
>

Re: [videoblogging] Saturday Videoblogging FlashMeeting Presentations

[Loiez D.]

Good idea Enric
Ilt will be great also if each vlogger logged in flashmeeting  with
Name ( or nickname), town, Country or state

Best regards

Loiez



Le 30 janv. 07 à 18:48, Enric a écrit :

> I'm going to try setting up presentations on the Saturday
> Videoblogging FlashMeetings. The idea is that whatever you do,
> whether videoblogging, creating tools, offering services (commercial
> or non-commercial), you may ask to present on a Saturday.
>
> 1) Show what your doing and where it's going.
>
> 2) Answer questions
>
> Should that finish then the FlashMeeting will return back to a
> unstructured discussion.
>
> If you're interested in presenting, email me:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Or ask questions on this thread.
>
> ;),
>
> Enric
> -===-
> http://www.cirne.com
>
>
> 



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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Get Massive Website Traffic Uploading Videos to YouTube, Google Video, MySpa

[Markus Sandy]

LOL!!!   Thank you Steve!

On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Steve Watkins wrote:

> Theres no business
>  like SEO business
>  thats no business at all
>  its almost enough to start me drinking
>  stop thinking
>  before my soul returns a 404
>
>  This and other classic tunes are available on a CD that represents
>  $5000 worth of value, if you sign up today.
>


---
Markus Sandy
http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow


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

[videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?

[missbhavens1969]

After the last yahoogroup discussion re:CC post-roll stuffs I decided
to make one of my own.

It turned out kind of a mess lighting-wise and camera-wise (damn cat
knocked over the tripod more than once) but I'm rather fond of it.
Maybe I'll be able to tweak it at a superhappyvloghouse event in April!

It's tacked onto the last 7 seconds of this video:
 
http://tinyurl.com/yp9qor

Bekah
--
http://www.missbhavens.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> 
> we have a plan to have a videoblogging/CC event on April 1st.
> https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com
> For the SF node, we hope to make custom CC trailers to share...and
> even short interviews with each other about why Creative Commons is
> important. These clips could be uploaded to Youtube to spread the
> word.
> 
> Anyone else want to have a party?
> https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
> -- 
> Here I am
> http://jaydedman.com
>

Re: [videoblogging] Saturday Videoblogging FlashMeeting Presentations

[Lan Bui]

Yeah that is a great idea.

Maybe Chris fro Network2 can join in.

-Lan
www.LanBui.com





On Jan 30, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Enric wrote:

I'm going to try setting up presentations on the Saturday
Videoblogging FlashMeetings. The idea is that whatever you do,
whether videoblogging, creating tools, offering services (commercial
or non-commercial), you may ask to present on a Saturday.

1) Show what your doing and where it's going.

2) Answer questions

Should that finish then the FlashMeeting will return back to a
unstructured discussion.

If you're interested in presenting, email me:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or ask questions on this thread.

;),

Enric
-===-
http://www.cirne.com

[videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?

[Steve Watkins]

Nice, I like that. Liked the video too, to mix the subjects together,
would you ever wear clothes with a creative commons logo on them? :)

Also I dunno what I thought I read when Jay posted that message about
the creative commons stuff at the April superhappyvloghouse, somehow I
thought it was just gonna be people talking at the event about
creative commons, rather than talking on camera and making cc logos.
Great stuff.

Your play-doh stuff got me thinking, I spent a lot of the last 6 years
mucking around with computer-generated animations, and yet I look at
the stuff epople like you have done with real-world animation, and it
seems nicer somehow. And seeing as it can take me 2 years to create
nothing, the painstaking speed of doing stop-frame animation might not
do my productivity rate any harm :D

Whats that other stuff called, that modelling clay that can be baked
in the oven to set it? Fimo? 

Does anybody know if podcasters do audio-versions of creative commons
license at all, the audio equivalent of these cc animations?

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "missbhavens1969"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> After the last yahoogroup discussion re:CC post-roll stuffs I decided
> to make one of my own.
> 
> It turned out kind of a mess lighting-wise and camera-wise (damn cat
> knocked over the tripod more than once) but I'm rather fond of it.
> Maybe I'll be able to tweak it at a superhappyvloghouse event in April!
> 
> It's tacked onto the last 7 seconds of this video:
>  
> http://tinyurl.com/yp9qor
> 
> Bekah
> --
> http://www.missbhavens.com
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman"  wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > we have a plan to have a videoblogging/CC event on April 1st.
> > https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com
> > For the SF node, we hope to make custom CC trailers to share...and
> > even short interviews with each other about why Creative Commons is
> > important. These clips could be uploaded to Youtube to spread the
> > word.
> > 
> > Anyone else want to have a party?
> > https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com
> > 
> > Jay
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Here I am
> > http://jaydedman.com
> >
>

Re: [videoblogging] CNet's Project Spotlight

[Lan Bui]

Hey everyone that freaked out about Network2, you forgot to freak out  
about this competition!!!

They disguised it by not calling it a competition but if you look  
closely it really is!!!

Someone tell Schlomo, and make sure Mike Hudack hears so he can save  
us from this one too!!!

-Lan
www.LanBui.com





On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:45 PM, T Shey wrote:

Just read an interesting post on NewTeeVee about CNet's efforts to
incubate videoblogs with cash grants. It sheds a little more light on
the Project Spotlight campaign they announced last year -- for one
thing, that Schlomo is involved, whom I mainly know from reading his
posts on this list. Ryanne and Jay's PodTech deal is mentioned in the
article as well.

http://newteevee.com/2007/01/26/cnet-video-incubator-getting-started/

Sounds really promising - especially the way they're planning on
supporting complete 'seasons' of a show. More companies competing to
find and fund worthy projects is a good thing.

The WINK show looks good, too. Congrats, Schlomo!

---
Tim Shey

http://nextnewnetworks.com/
http://shey.net/





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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?

[Rupert]

that's no mess - that's beautiful!  the power of Play Doh!

On 30 Jan 2007, at 20:33, missbhavens1969 wrote:

After the last yahoogroup discussion re:CC post-roll stuffs I decided
to make one of my own.

It turned out kind of a mess lighting-wise and camera-wise (damn cat
knocked over the tripod more than once) but I'm rather fond of it.
Maybe I'll be able to tweak it at a superhappyvloghouse event in April!

It's tacked onto the last 7 seconds of this video:

http://tinyurl.com/yp9qor

Bekah
--
http://www.missbhavens.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

 >
 > we have a plan to have a videoblogging/CC event on April 1st.
 > https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com
 > For the SF node, we hope to make custom CC trailers to share...and
 > even short interviews with each other about why Creative Commons is
 > important. These clips could be uploaded to Youtube to spread the
 > word.
 >
 > Anyone else want to have a party?
 > https://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com
 >
 > Jay
 >
 >
 > --
 > Here I am
 > http://jaydedman.com
 >






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

[videoblogging] Comparing Terms of Service at video sites

[WWWhatsup]

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/283309

A round up of the TOS of Ourmedia,Internet  Archive, YouTube, Google, Blip, 
Yahoo etc


There is an excel version at 
http://www.techsoup.org/binaries/Files/Video-Sharing-Terms-of-Service-Comparison-Chart.xls
a backgrounder at http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/internet/page6106.cfm
and a wiki at http://tools.ourmedia.org/index.php?title=TOS_comparison

joly

---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--- 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Josh Leo]

I wouldn't have a problem making a video talking about how I watch "internet
TV" I do it in a number of ways, and it has made a big impact on my life.
(Heck, I videoblogged my proposal! if that doesn't show you i like
videoblogging, I don't know what does.) my issues lie here:

- making videos for contests does feel like a mad scramble for cash, not a
respectable way of paying the bills.

- I would much rather have someone come up to me after watching my videos
from the past 2 years and said, "hey you make great stuff, we want to pay
you money to make more great stuff" instead of saying "free money come make
videos and you might get it!"

- I can talk about "internet TV"/ watching videoblogs no problem, but
integrating Network2 into that would be difficult. If I talked about
watching internet TV it wouldn't involve Network2, I just don't use it.

- I hate the term "Internet TV" I just started to be ok with the term
Show... its gonna be light years before I call something TV that isn't on a
TV


that is where I stand. I make videos here and there, I am not against making
money, but contests are a whole other bag of worms...



-- 
Josh Leo

www.JoshLeo.com
www.WanderingWestMichigan.com


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

RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Mike Hudack]

We do not have an agreement with them.  Purely a defensive move on their
part. 

> -Original Message-
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of johnleeke
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:09 PM
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences
> 
> Mike writes:
> > > We will block these guys on our end if we have to. 
> 
> I noticed that they were prominently displaying the Blip 
> logo, and wondered if you already had an agreement with them.
> 
> Thanks for all your good works.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

[videoblogging] On the Lot

[David]

It's another contest.  I just became aware of it when a friend emailed 
me about it.  In case anyone is interested, here's the link: 
http://www.thelot.com/  Seems like there's lots of contests popping 
up.  This one's got a million dollar development deal as the prize.  
Old school, huh?  Why not ten projects with $100,000 funding, or 100 
projects with $10,000 funding?  It's sort of like project green light, 
except that it's not because ... because it's not.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Jay dedman]

> I figured out how to email through, perhaps.
>  If your reply-to-email to the videoblogging group has all the html
>  stuff on the side bar that Yahoo sticks on the email, such at the
>  "recent activiy" side bar, colorful "sponsored links" etc, then I
>  guess the email will get clogged up while Yahoo checks and delivers
>  this back to the group.
>  If you just create a regular email or copy and past the text, it
>  should work faster it seems.
>  . . .or perhaps only take text emails.

The Yahoo Groups has a spam filter that catches a couple emails a day.
i guess it sees something in the text that feels spammy.
As moderator, i try to check this box a couple times a day.

So if a message doesnt go through...this is probably it.
We all also know that Yahoo groups had some server crash that they are
just recovering from.

jay


-- 
Here I am
http://jaydedman.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Jan McLaughlin]

Josh, I think you and some others here are able to articulate specific
arguments against contests in ways folks can understand. I'm not up to the
task.

Competing against one another doesn't cut it any more - not in a community
like this. Either everyone who wants to win will win, or I want no part of
it - as with the Vloggies and anything else that pits us against one
another.

Competition extrapolated gets us to violence and violence is not cool.
Competition is a dangerous mindset promoted constantly in the MSM and I'm
fighting back against shows that glamorize, "You're fired!" and
ruthlessness.

Please let's write or vlog our best arguments for new ways of celebrating
and rewarding excellence, dedication, and passion. Please? Pretty please?

Thanks, folks.
Jan

On 1/30/07, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't have a problem making a video talking about how I watch
> "internet
> TV" I do it in a number of ways, and it has made a big impact on my life.
> (Heck, I videoblogged my proposal! if that doesn't show you i like
> videoblogging, I don't know what does.) my issues lie here:
>
> - making videos for contests does feel like a mad scramble for cash, not a
> respectable way of paying the bills.
>
> - I would much rather have someone come up to me after watching my videos
> from the past 2 years and said, "hey you make great stuff, we want to pay
> you money to make more great stuff" instead of saying "free money come
> make
> videos and you might get it!"
>
> - I can talk about "internet TV"/ watching videoblogs no problem, but
> integrating Network2 into that would be difficult. If I talked about
> watching internet TV it wouldn't involve Network2, I just don't use it.
>
> - I hate the term "Internet TV" I just started to be ok with the term
> Show... its gonna be light years before I call something TV that isn't on
> a
> TV
>
>
> that is where I stand. I make videos here and there, I am not against
> making
> money, but contests are a whole other bag of worms...
>
>
>
> --
> Josh Leo
>
> www.JoshLeo.com
> www.WanderingWestMichigan.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com


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

[videoblogging] Re: Is Creative Commons just bullshit?

[ryanjunell]

that's awesome bekah... hopefully more people will create their own
and link them to the Creative Commons wiki page so that other people
can use them... 

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_work

it takes less than a minute to register in order to edit this page...
hopefully someone will come up with a way to make that dude's huge
image smaller...





> It's tacked onto the last 7 seconds of this video:
>  
> http://tinyurl.com/yp9qor

Re: [videoblogging] SUNDANCE

[brian gonzalez]

I just posted a vlog about my sundance experience this yr : taxiplasm.net -a
little fucked up, but wutevs.

-brian (taxiplasm)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On 1/27/07, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We are at Sundance right now and just spent a long, tiring day yesterday
> trying to get here, get the feel of the town, meet some people, and fail
> miserably at getting a ticket via a waitlist. I stayed up late into the
> night on an editing session of VERY rough footage, and the post is
> uploading now. Should be up in another hour or two.
>
> Then, today, we're likely to circulate around Tromadance more.
>
> --
> Rhett.
> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
>
> Gabriel Soucheyre wrote:
>
> >
> >any vloggers going to sundance ?
> >
> >Thi is a challenge : would you vlog this artist and send me your
> >footgae ?
> >
> >http://gasprod.blip.tv/file/138144/
> >
> >thx
> >
> >gabriel soucheyre
> >
> >
> >--
> >VIDEOFORMES vidéo et nouveaux médias dans l'art contemporain
> >www.videoformes.com
> >BP 50 -64, rue Lamartine • 63002 CLERMONT-FERRAND Cedex 1 / France
> >T + 33 (0) 473 17 02 17 • Direction : Gabriel SOUCHEYRE + 33 (0) 612
> >59 27 53
> >Skype : callto:gabrielsoucheyre
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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



 
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/
 

[videoblogging] Re: Saturday Videoblogging FlashMeeting Presentations

[Paul Knight]

This sounds like great fun, can't you preload files into the meeting  
area during the meeting so that we don't have to go to sites outside  
the discussion area, I know you can with photos, how about videos?

Paul

On 30 Jan 2007, at 23:01, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Re: Saturday Videoblogging FlashMeeting Presentations



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

Re: [videoblogging] SUNDANCE

[Jan McLaughlin]

Did anyone see "Starting Out in the Evening" or "The Savages"?

:)

Jan

On 1/30/07, brian gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just posted a vlog about my sundance experience this yr : taxiplasm.net-a
> little fucked up, but wutevs.
>
> -brian (taxiplasm)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 1/27/07, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We are at Sundance right now and just spent a long, tiring day yesterday
> > trying to get here, get the feel of the town, meet some people, and fail
> > miserably at getting a ticket via a waitlist. I stayed up late into the
> > night on an editing session of VERY rough footage, and the post is
> > uploading now. Should be up in another hour or two.
> >
> > Then, today, we're likely to circulate around Tromadance more.
> >
> > --
> > Rhett.
> > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
> >
> > Gabriel Soucheyre wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >any vloggers going to sundance ?
> > >
> > >Thi is a challenge : would you vlog this artist and send me your
> > >footgae ?
> > >
> > >http://gasprod.blip.tv/file/138144/
> > >
> > >thx
> > >
> > >gabriel soucheyre
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >VIDEOFORMES vidéo et nouveaux médias dans l'art contemporain
> > >www.videoformes.com
> > >BP 50 -64, rue Lamartine • 63002 CLERMONT-FERRAND Cedex 1 / France
> > >T + 33 (0) 473 17 02 17 • Direction : Gabriel SOUCHEYRE + 33 (0) 612
> > >59 27 53
> > >Skype : callto:gabrielsoucheyre
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com


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



 
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/
 

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Gena]

David I have a polite disagreement with your statement about no one
caring about this situation. This is the kind of situation that will
help test the value of a CC license agreement. For me it is also the
eternal balance between my life and vlogging. Sometimes I gotta make
room for the analog stuff.

Most of us know that with the expansion of video distribution
opportunities there will be companies who want to exploit what they
see as a golden opportunity.

The RSS feeds are just sitting there. They get an idea to collect the
feeds and slapping ads on them. They might have even paid cash money
to an adviser or someone at a conference telling them to do just that.

Some of this is borne out of ignorance. Ignorance of the intended
meaning of the license, or of ethical business practices or straight
up greed. From the wording of the reply that I received I suspect that
the owners are not in the U.S. What do we do about non-U.S. based
snaggers?

Now we are very fortunate that we have the assistance of Mike and
Blip.TV but we need to think about how an individual like myself is
going to handle this. I know this conversation is going on in multiple
posts.

What are the concrete things we can do to draw attention, educate or
whack the fools upside their heads to come to consciousness?

I'm thinking:

1. Produce an educational video to send to aggregators to help them
understand the license. Could we work with Creative Commons to create
and distribute such a packages?

2. Create an highly insulting video about the current ripoff practices
that they run on their service. As an added bonus maybe send a link or
video to potential funders/advertisers. Might not do any good, might
not even be ethical but the mere thought makes me feel good.

3. For me, I have to consider switching to a traditional license. I
don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of the videos are
being used by non-profits for their purposes. 

There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on the
other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to some of my
content.  One of my posts is titled "Love Prosper" about Christian Hip
Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what kind of ads
are going to latch on to that post.

Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to the practical.
 I need chocolate. 

Gena

http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com
http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Steve Watkins]

Ive started to hunt for info about them on the internets.

So far Ive learnt that the developer is Spanish, I dont know where
they are based, and that ronk might mean masturbate in norwegian.

For all I know the site might be supposed to be called videorank but
got lost in translation somewhere.

Anyways, it seems been around a while and I found at least one blog
that drew attention last year to the way videoronk uses adverts:

http://videoontheweb.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/the-video-content-explosion-google-youtube-fallout/

Other article Ive read for info about videoronk so far:

http://mashable.com/2006/09/29/videoronk-download-videos-from-youtube-google-video-and-metacafe/

Someone after freelancers to build a site with the same functionality:

http://www.getafreelancer.com/projects/PHP-XML/Videoronk-clone-functionality.html


My research is only at a very early stage and hopefully wont be needed.

Somehow the days when the biggest problem was dealing with hosting and
skeptics who couldnt see internet video finally catching on, seemed
more fun than the current phase, wibble.

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: From the wording of the reply that I received I suspect that
> the owners are not in the U.S. What do we do about non-U.S. based
> snaggers?

[videoblogging] Re: Get Massive Website Traffic Uploading Videos to YouTube, Google Video, MySpa

[David]

What's wrong with you people?  That site is offering a "geyser" of 
traffic.  Don't you know what that means?  It can't be the first 
definition, "a hot spring intermittently sending up jets of water," 
because nobody wants intermittent watery traffic.  It can't be the 
second definition of "a hot water heater" because that's a 
Britishism.  That can only mean that when they offer a geyser of 
traffic they mean the third definition of the word, "to spew forth."  
Who among us doesn't want millions of viewers spewing forth on our 
videos?  You people do what you want, but I'm signing up.  I'm 
putting on my raincoat and praying for rain.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> LOL!!!   Thank you Steve!
> 
> On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Steve Watkins wrote:
> 
> > Theres no business
> >  like SEO business
> >  thats no business at all
> >  its almost enough to start me drinking
> >  stop thinking
> >  before my soul returns a 404
> >
> >  This and other classic tunes are available on a CD that 
represents
> >  $5000 worth of value, if you sign up today.
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> Markus Sandy
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[David]

"To have them stop displaying my videos, I will have to remove 
them ..."

Please don't do that.  You can't let someone else's nonsense deter 
you from pursuing your creative outlet, even if they're misusing your 
material and presenting it in ways totally anathema to you.  You 
can't let that stop you.  Creativity is part of the life force.  You 
know it.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Howell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> It appears that the problem is that basically anyone can create an
> aggregator and pull feeds from it. Unless there is something done 
that
> prevents this, this is going to happen more and more.
> 
> In this case, for me, it's the Blip feed that is being ripped. To 
have
> them stop displaying my videos, I will have to remove them from 
Blip.
> So at this point, I am going to have to make a decision. Delete my
> videos from Blip? Delete my feed?. Password protect my feed? Admit 
the
> CC license really means nothing and not care who does what with my 
stuff?
> 
> There doesnt appear to be that much concern here in preventing or
> resolving it.
> 
> David
> http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena"  wrote:
> >
> > Response from VideoRonk:
> > 
> > "Considered usuary.
> > 
> > Videoronk is a finder that obtains the videos of youtube, google
> > video, blip, metacafe, dailymotion, myspace, vimeo and revver. We 
did
> > not lodge any video in our systems. They are these finders to 
which
> > you would have to go so that they retired your video.
> > 
> > We felt not to be able to help in this question. A greeting.
> > Videoronk."
> > 
> > So basically they are saying that they are a pass through system 
that
> > they just happen to pick up feeds and slap ads above them. 
> > 
> > This is a similar approach taken by http://www.zabasearch.com.
> > Zabasearch post public personal information taken from other 
sources.
> > When you ask them to remove it they state they don't store the 
info on
> > their servers they are just a "pass through" service.  With ads.
> > 
> > We have a problem here. 
> > 
> > Gena
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Get Massive Website Traffic Uploading Videos to YouTube, Google Video, MySpa

[Steve Hill]

> What's wrong with you people? That site is offering a "geyser" of
> traffic. Don't you know what that means?

Maybe geyser is a good term because their first proud example of "San
Diego Trial Attorney" no longer ranks very high.
Internet Geyser (defn): Ranked on Google's 1st page one day; gone
tomorrow.
Steve
steephill.tv bike travelogue 


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

[videoblogging] New Blogger Labels: code for an old template?

[missbhavens1969]

HELP I have tried everything. I have visited help forums, I have
combed the Blogger Help section, I have poured over OPTs (other
people's templates) and for the life of me I cannot do it! I cannot
add a labels section into my sidebar. I can labels the posts, sure, I
spent the better part of the afternoon doing that, and if you click
the labels then you get a nifty list of posts with the same label, but
I want to have an actual list of labels so that finding posts will be
easier. I found all sorts of cool code that will arrange your label
list into drop-down menus and clouds and what have you, but noplace
can I find out how to get the darn labels into the template in the
first place.

I'm rather fond of my template, I don't want to change to a Blogger
one no matter how customizable they now are. I was planning on
redesigning the site soon, anyway, but not this soon. 

Perhaps it isn't possible?

There is a way to cram del.icio.us tags into a cloud on my sidebar,
but I don't really care for it--I'll do it as a last resort.

Anyone have any ideas? Anyone? Please?

Bekah
--
http://www.missbhavens.com

[videoblogging] Videoconference in Progress

[Jan McLaughlin]

http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/flashmeeting.php?pwd=7d8cf4-7151

Jan

-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com


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

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 3. For me, I have to consider switching to a traditional license. I
> don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of the videos are
> being used by non-profits for their purposes. 
> 
> There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on the
> other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to some of my
> content.  One of my posts is titled "Love Prosper" about Christian Hip
> Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what kind of ads
> are going to latch on to that post.
> 
> Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to the practical.
>  I need chocolate. 
> 
> Gena
> 
> http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
> http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com
> http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video

Can you expand on that?  What kind of license are you going to get
that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds?

It's not "Creative Commons" that's being disrespected.  They're
ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video and they can
subscribe to your feed.

Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they aggregate to see if
there's a licensing block at the end?  Do you think, especially given
the response you received in this case, that they would bother to
remove each particular individual feed whose license they were
disregarding?  CC or Traditional?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "switching to a
traditional license".

--
Bill C.
http://ReelSolid.TV

[videoblogging] Re: copyright

[Gromik Tohoku]

With all this discussion of CC licence, I was
wondering, what do videoblogging members do when
adding music to films. Do you create your own? How do
you source your music? How do you refer music? Do you
abide by the law?

Personally, I use ccMixter material only, I can not
make my own music at the moment. I have used really
small segments of popular mix, and have referenced
them at the end of a film. Not sure if this is
breaking the law.

Nicolas


Gromik Nicolas
Tohoku University
Sendai, Japan
fax=81-22-7647

http://www.filmedworld.com/page.php?3
http://nag-productions.blip.tv/?
http://sendai-city-tourism-tohoku-university.blip.tv/

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver

[Enric]

It's not my intent to give the impression that Steve should not
participate.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is it?  Doesn't it?  I'm not clever enough to follow your logical  
> outflanking of me.  The only point I was making was that we shouldn't  
> be making judgements about people's 'expertise' and thereby telling  
> people we won't respect their opinion, based on their vlogging  
> productivity.  A keen observer can be just as intelligent on an issue  
> as a keen participant.  And my other point was that I instinctively  
> trust more the *objectivity* of a critic as opposed to a producer on  
> this kind of issue, as someone who is not directly financially  
> affected by the industry & market's direction.
> 
> I've always enjoyed reading Steve's opinions, whether I agree or not,  
> when I have a couple of hours to spare :)
> But now it seems he might go away... and other people we may not have  
> heard from will be less willing to speak.  Not good.  But if I've  
> misunderstood and am objecting wrongly, forgive me.  I am an  
> occasional dabbler, and I just read in passing for fun, when I should  
> be finishing my tax.
> 
> Rupert
> 
> 
> On 30 Jan 2007, at 15:17, Enric wrote:
> 
> Is that not a criticism of Steve's criticism. The argument of
> trusting a critic more doesn't follow.
> 
> -- Enric
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert  wrote:
>  >
>  > I know it was a ;) joke, but he's really not like someone without
>  > kids giving advice to their friends on how to raise kids...
>  >
>  > Sorry to be a bit too earnest, but it makes me feel a bit uneasy to
>  > see jokes about Steve's output and therefore his 'expertise' as part
>  > of a heated argument on this forum.
>  >
>  > He has been a watcher of the scene for a long time, is pretty clued-
>  > up, and obviously he has the right to express his forthright personal
>  > opinion about whether the motivation and direction of such-and-such a
>  > thing is good or bad, regardless of whether he's a producer.
>  >
>  > Especially on this forum of thousands of non-professionals, where
>  > there are lots of non-producers and newbies with well-formed opinions
>  > arising from other experiences in media, IT, business, and life.
>  >
>  > I personally know both film producers and film critics, and in
>  > conversation I tend to trust the objectivity of the critics more than
>  > the producers when it comes to industry trends and the pros and cons
>  > of the system. Even if I disagree with their conclusions.
>  >
>  >
>  > On 30 Jan 2007, at 14:17, Enric wrote:
>  >
>  > The error appears to be that Steve takes on the credentials of an
>  > "expert" without sufficient expertise and knowledge. The broadness of
>  > his conclusions and underlying assumptions of guilty before proven
>  > innocent show assumptions that are unproven taken as true without  
> real
>  > proof: platitudes.
>  >
>  > -- Enric
>  >
>  >
>  > It's kinda like the couple who has no kids giving advise to their
>  > friends on how to raise kids.. ;)
>  >
>  > Heath
>  > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
>  >
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
>  >  wrote:
>  > >
>  > > This may be a repeat email. If this email comes first however, I  
> may
>  > > have figured out how to streamline the yahoo group system. If not,
>  > > back to the drawing board.
>  > >
>  > > I sent the below to take you up on the bitching Steve because I  
> just
>  > > cant let you get away with it all alone ;) Im serious however, I
>  > > think your arguments have become dilapidated recently.
>  > >
>  > > Notes from Steve, the self-proclaimed authority on videoblogging  
> (who
>  > > has been talking about starting his own for over 2 years now). Lets
>  > > strip out all the nonsense and get right to the points Steve was
>  > > trying to make with Jeff Pulver's offer to give away $40 thousand
>  > > dollars to a videoblogger:
>  > >
>  > > "I suspect partially because Mr Pulver is used to moving in
>  > circles that
>  > > are in awe of his name and his past reputation"
>  > >
>  > > "I laugh at this in disbelief because it misses a fundamental point
>  > > of the new age of video on the internet "
>  > >
>  > > "Anyway its pretty clear they need all the publicity they can get"
>  > >
>  > > "It is my conviction, based on his own words, that Jeff Pulver
>  > believes
>  > > the next media mogul will be the walled garden gatekeeper who puts
>  > > together the best range of shows to suit his audience. "
>  > >
>  > > "And all this from people who use words like 'agitate' and
>  > 'disruptive'
>  > > when referring to themselves. . .I intend to do a bit of what those
>  > > words actually mean"
>  > >
>  > > "But that would actually involve understandinf web 2.0 and the
>  > > long-tail, so dont hold your breath."
>  > >
>  > > "Sometimes I feel guilty about singling them out for my moaning"
>  > >
>  >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Micki Krimmel]

Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of education
that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not sure that's the issue at
play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from all over the place - they
certainly aren't all covered by CC.

And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness of this slope. I
personally value CC licenses because they take into account the openness of
the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have google ads on my blog
and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC license? Are we going
to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and using DRM to
protect them? Blip can block these sites all day long and they're just going
to keep popping up.

I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver feed. Because
they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are included and I'm
making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :)  Revver's
business model was built upon the understanding that videos would be
increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give creators a way to
benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to improve our player so that
attribution and linkbacks are automatically included. But at least in this
scenario, Revver users are making money for their work.

Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being on Videoronk.
The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at least so
far). I think this example is very different than what happened with
MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own player and attached
advertising to the video - not on the page around the video. That was
clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure I think my CC license is
being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it).  What is missing
from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's build those directly into
the players. Let's attribute ourselves and provide urls directly in the
videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal to get what we want instead of
embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down everyone pulling RSS feeds.
We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally on the web
instead of trying to constantly battle it.










On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 3. For me, I have to consider switching to a traditional license. I
> > don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of the videos are
> > being used by non-profits for their purposes.
> >
> > There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on the
> > other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to some of my
> > content. One of my posts is titled "Love Prosper" about Christian Hip
> > Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what kind of ads
> > are going to latch on to that post.
> >
> > Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to the practical.
> >  I need chocolate.
> >
> > Gena
> >
> > http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
> > http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com
> > http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video
>
> Can you expand on that? What kind of license are you going to get
> that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds?
>
> It's not "Creative Commons" that's being disrespected. They're
> ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video and they can
> subscribe to your feed.
>
> Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they aggregate to see if
> there's a licensing block at the end? Do you think, especially given
> the response you received in this case, that they would bother to
> remove each particular individual feed whose license they were
> disregarding? CC or Traditional?
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "switching to a
> traditional license".
>
> --
> Bill C.
> http://ReelSolid.TV
>
>  
>



-- 
www.mickipedia.com
www.worldchanging.com
http://blog.revver.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency
may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do
this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse or
protection from this unwarranted intrusion save to call for the impeachment
of the current President.


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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Mike Hudack]

I don't think the issue is advertising. If it was there wouldn't be an issue 
since ads with video is now fairly commoditized technology. I think the bigger 
issue is credit and respect for the terms of the cc license itself, which can 
put restrictions on commercial use and require proper attribution.  

In terms of videoronk my concern is that credit is given to blip but not to the 
content creator. 


- Original Message -
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tue Jan 30 21:37:27 2007
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of education
that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not sure that's the issue at
play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from all over the place - they
certainly aren't all covered by CC.

And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness of this slope. I
personally value CC licenses because they take into account the openness of
the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have google ads on my blog
and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC license? Are we going
to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and using DRM to
protect them? Blip can block these sites all day long and they're just going
to keep popping up.

I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver feed. Because
they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are included and I'm
making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :)  Revver's
business model was built upon the understanding that videos would be
increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give creators a way to
benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to improve our player so that
attribution and linkbacks are automatically included. But at least in this
scenario, Revver users are making money for their work.

Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being on Videoronk.
The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at least so
far). I think this example is very different than what happened with
MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own player and attached
advertising to the video - not on the page around the video. That was
clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure I think my CC license is
being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it).  What is missing
from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's build those directly into
the players. Let's attribute ourselves and provide urls directly in the
videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal to get what we want instead of
embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down everyone pulling RSS feeds.
We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally on the web
instead of trying to constantly battle it.










On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 3. For me, I have to consider switching to a traditional license. I
> > don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of the videos are
> > being used by non-profits for their purposes.
> >
> > There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on the
> > other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to some of my
> > content. One of my posts is titled "Love Prosper" about Christian Hip
> > Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what kind of ads
> > are going to latch on to that post.
> >
> > Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to the practical.
> >  I need chocolate.
> >
> > Gena
> >
> > http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
> > http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com
> > http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video
>
> Can you expand on that? What kind of license are you going to get
> that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds?
>
> It's not "Creative Commons" that's being disrespected. They're
> ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video and they can
> subscribe to your feed.
>
> Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they aggregate to see if
> there's a licensing block at the end? Do you think, especially given
> the response you received in this case, that they would bother to
> remove each particular individual feed whose license they were
> disregarding? CC or Traditional?
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "switching to a
> traditional license".
>
> --
> Bill C.
> http://ReelSolid.TV
>
>  
>



-- 
www.mickipedia.com
www.worldchanging.com
http://blog.revver.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency
may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do
this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse or
protection from this unwarranted intrusion save to call for the impeachment
of the current President.


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



 
Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Micki Krimmel]

And I'm saying I think we have the tools to correct that ourselves which in
the long run will better serve us than hunting down every aggregator out
there that doesn't take upon themselves to do so. There's just no way to
keep up. Let's build players that include attribution and links directly.
And as creators, we should be sure to add that information to the videos
themselves.

On 1/30/07, Mike Hudack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   I don't think the issue is advertising. If it was there wouldn't be an
> issue since ads with video is now fairly commoditized technology. I think
> the bigger issue is credit and respect for the terms of the cc license
> itself, which can put restrictions on commercial use and require proper
> attribution.
>
> In terms of videoronk my concern is that credit is given to blip but not
> to the content creator.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com  <
> videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com  <
> videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >
> Sent: Tue Jan 30 21:37:27 2007
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences
>
> Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of
> education
> that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not sure that's the issue at
> play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from all over the place - they
> certainly aren't all covered by CC.
>
> And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness of this slope.
> I
> personally value CC licenses because they take into account the openness
> of
> the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have google ads on my blog
>
> and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC license? Are we
> going
> to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and using DRM to
> protect them? Blip can block these sites all day long and they're just
> going
> to keep popping up.
>
> I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver feed. Because
> they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are included and I'm
>
> making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :) Revver's
> business model was built upon the understanding that videos would be
> increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give creators a way
> to
> benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to improve our player so
> that
> attribution and linkbacks are automatically included. But at least in this
>
> scenario, Revver users are making money for their work.
>
> Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being on Videoronk.
> The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at least
> so
> far). I think this example is very different than what happened with
> MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own player and attached
> advertising to the video - not on the page around the video. That was
> clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure I think my CC license is
>
> being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it). What is missing
> from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's build those directly
> into
> the players. Let's attribute ourselves and provide urls directly in the
> videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal to get what we want instead of
> embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down everyone pulling RSS
> feeds.
> We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally on the web
> instead of trying to constantly battle it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> > ,
> > "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 3. For me, I have to consider switching to a traditional license. I
> > > don't want to do that - I love the idea than some of the videos are
> > > being used by non-profits for their purposes.
> > >
> > > There has got to be a license for what I am trying to do but on the
> > > other hand I don't want inappropriate ads appearing next to some of my
>
> > > content. One of my posts is titled "Love Prosper" about Christian Hip
> > > Hop performers. I get the willies just thinking about what kind of ads
>
> > > are going to latch on to that post.
> > >
> > > Not the best ideas but we gotta move from the theory to the practical.
>
> > >  I need chocolate.
> > >
> > > Gena
> > >
> > > http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
> > > http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com
> > > http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video
> >
> > Can you expand on that? What kind of license are you going to get
> > that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds?
> >
> > It's not "Creative Commons" that's being disrespected. They're
> > ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video and they can
> > subscribe to your feed.
> >
> > Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they aggregate to see if
> > there's a licensing block at the end? Do you think, especially given
> > the response you received in this case, that they would bother to
> > remove each particular individu

[videoblogging] Re: Saturday Videoblogging FlashMeeting Presentations

[johnleeke]

The FlashBoard feature will take jpg files that can be uploaded by a
registered participant during the FlashMeeting. The person booking the
meeting can, before the meeting, upload a series of jpg files that can
be assembled into a presentation, for display via the FlashBoard
during a meeting.

A new FlashBoard feature is that participants can printout the
FlashBoard at any time on their local printer. The printed image is
high quality.

The FlashBoard does not yet handle video. To present video you can
send a link that will pop up a webpage with the video embeded.

John

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Gena]

My thoughts about a traditional license was that if I had to fight to
prevent uses in situations I didn't want my videos to appear I would
be on established legal ground. 

>From a practical standpoint it would be easier to convince a judge my
rights instead of educating him/her on CC licenses.

I'm not going to switch anytime soon. I am considering it at this
point because this is the second of many more instances of this kind
of robbery. 

I also feel that the lawyers for Google Video, YouTube, Daily Motion
and other services that are being ripped off may be planning their own
response to this kind of theft. Cuz that what it is, they take Google
Video RSS feed, set up shop and then have the nerve to slap ads from
Google Adsense above it is just asking for trouble.

Here is the deal. I want a tool or practical approach to deal with
this kind of problem. I want something I can do that doesn't require
the intervention of a third party. (But much appreciated.)

I want something that I can use and can explain to another person if
this happens here is what you can do about it. I think that what we
are all peculating on. 

Gena
> 
> Can you expand on that?  What kind of license are you going to get
> that would make any difference to someone aggregating RSS feeds?
> 
> It's not "Creative Commons" that's being disrespected.  They're
> ignoring everything except the fact that you made a video and they can
> subscribe to your feed.
> 
> Do you think they actually _watch_ the videos they aggregate to see if
> there's a licensing block at the end?  Do you think, especially given
> the response you received in this case, that they would bother to
> remove each particular individual feed whose license they were
> disregarding?  CC or Traditional?
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "switching to a
> traditional license".
> 
> --
> Bill C.
> http://ReelSolid.TV
>

[videoblogging] Re:CHECK OUT DIY ANIMATION WORKSHOP

[andrew L.]

HI EVERYONE.

its time to go public with the DIY ANIMATION WORKSHOP VLOG.
I have been producing a 30 minute mix & mash show on public access and 
online for several months.  as of now, i am launching a new, more
more frequent project. so check it out and spread the word:
http://animationworkshop.blogspot.com

"come on, come all...get your d.i.y. animation here. homemade & 
handcrafted... we cut and paste so you don't have to! this is the 
headquarters for the breathingplanet/my survival kit animation lab. we 
post frame-by-frame goodness. this is an experiment in 
everydaytournement. enjoy!"

like the show, you might like my music:
http://breathingplanet.net/node/52

ovr&out

-- 
andrew lynn
--
http://www.breathingplanet.net
http://www.stillweridethemovie.com
http://animationworkshop.blogspot.com
http://www.youthchannel.org
http://www.nymapexchange.net

RE: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[Mike Hudack]

Building players that include links and attribution directly is great,
but for blip it's not a complete solution since we need to support every
format under the sun (from divx to mp4) in order to ensure content
creator flexibility and device / platform compatibility.  So while we
may build a Flash player that includes attribution and links in it we
won't be able to do that with, say, mp4 files which don't have a
container to build such tools in.

I suppose that we could offer people an option to lock their content
down and lose the direct references to video files in RSS and the like,
but that is somewhat counter to our philosophy.  We're all about sharing
media openly all over the Interwebs, and personally I'm not interested
in letting a few bad apples get in the way of that.

> -Original Message-
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Micki Krimmel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:49 PM
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences
> 
> And I'm saying I think we have the tools to correct that 
> ourselves which in the long run will better serve us than 
> hunting down every aggregator out there that doesn't take 
> upon themselves to do so. There's just no way to keep up. 
> Let's build players that include attribution and links directly.
> And as creators, we should be sure to add that information to 
> the videos themselves.
> 
> On 1/30/07, Mike Hudack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   I don't think the issue is advertising. If it was there 
> wouldn't be 
> > an issue since ads with video is now fairly commoditized 
> technology. I 
> > think the bigger issue is credit and respect for the terms 
> of the cc 
> > license itself, which can put restrictions on commercial use and 
> > require proper attribution.
> >
> > In terms of videoronk my concern is that credit is given to 
> blip but 
> > not to the content creator.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
>  
> > < videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >
> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
>  < 
> > videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >
> > Sent: Tue Jan 30 21:37:27 2007
> > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences
> >
> > Bill, I think that's exactly right. While there is a great deal of 
> > education that needs to occur around CC licensing, I'm not 
> sure that's 
> > the issue at play here. Videoronk is pulling videos from 
> all over the 
> > place - they certainly aren't all covered by CC.
> >
> > And frankly, I'm a little concerned about the slipperiness 
> of this slope.
> > I
> > personally value CC licenses because they take into account the 
> > openness of the web. I want people to share my videos. If I have 
> > google ads on my blog
> >
> > and I embed one of your videos, am I violating your CC 
> license? Are we 
> > going to move toward locking our videos down on our own sites and 
> > using DRM to protect them? Blip can block these sites all 
> day long and 
> > they're just going to keep popping up.
> >
> > I found my videos on Vidoeronk pulled in from the Revver 
> feed. Because 
> > they're syndicating the Revver player, the Revver ads are 
> included and 
> > I'm
> >
> > making money. Or at least I would if I didn't work at Revver. :) 
> > Revver's business model was built upon the understanding 
> that videos 
> > would be increasingly syndicated on the open web. We wanted to give 
> > creators a way to benefit from that. We still have a ways to go to 
> > improve our player so that attribution and linkbacks are 
> automatically 
> > included. But at least in this
> >
> > scenario, Revver users are making money for their work.
> >
> > Speaking for myself, I'm personally OK with my videos being 
> on Videoronk.
> > The ads at Videoronk aren't associated directly with my videos (at 
> > least so far). I think this example is very different than what 
> > happened with MyHeavy. MyHeavy pulled videos into their own 
> player and 
> > attached advertising to the video - not on the page around 
> the video. 
> > That was clearly not ok. In this scenario, I'm not so sure 
> I think my 
> > CC license is
> >
> > being violated (at least the noncommercial part of it). What is 
> > missing from videoronk is attribution and linkbacks. Let's 
> build those 
> > directly into the players. Let's attribute ourselves and 
> provide urls 
> > directly in the videos. Let's use the tool at our disposal 
> to get what 
> > we want instead of embarking on an endless goose chase to hunt down 
> > everyone pulling RSS feeds.
> > We have to find ways to benefit from what happens naturally 
> on the web 
> > instead of trying to constantly battle it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/30/07, Bill Cammack 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> > > 
> ,
> > > "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 3. For me, I have to consi

[videoblogging] Re: how to make a mashup with a youtube video

[humancloner1997]

I have Snapz Pro installed on my Mac.  It captures any video playing on 
the screen as a Quicktime file.  I can then import the file from my 
desktop into iMovie and do with it what I like.

I used some in a VHS tape I gave to a few friends at New Years.  
Previously, I've simply filmed videos setting the camera on a tripod 
but avoiding lines and getting a really good image is a lot trickier.

After you get the video into iMovie, you can use it to burn DVDs.  I 
collect music videos I like that way and make DVDs of my favorite music 
videos, many of which are Asian music videos which I would have a hard 
time finding in any other fashion.

Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
Hoboken, NJ
201-656-3280

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> around the 26/1/07 Lucas Gonze mentioned about [videoblogging] how to 
> make a mashup with a youtube video that:
> >Any ideas about how I could make all that come together, given that
> >the YouTube stuff is in Flash and probably doesn't even expose the
> >FLV?
> 
> videodownloader, a firefox extension, should get you the flv, perian 
> I think should play it. with some luck ffmpegx might convert it
> -- 
> cheers
> Adrian Miles
> this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
> hypertext.RMIT 
http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/admin/briefEmail.html >
>

[videoblogging] Re: videoronk & our cc licences

[David Howell]

Based on the reply that Gena got back from them, what I meant was that
I would have to remove the videos from Blip to stop them from
displaying them.

If I dont do that, I will possibly have to put an intro on my videos
stating that unless you are viewing the piece from any of the sites
that I have listed as allowed to distribute my work, the viewer is
watching unauthorized and stolen content. Also, provide an email
address in the intro informing the viewer to contact me if they think
the content could be "pirated".

How draconian...hmm?

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "To have them stop displaying my videos, I will have to remove 
> them ..."
> 
> Please don't do that.  You can't let someone else's nonsense deter 
> you from pursuing your creative outlet, even if they're misusing your 
> material and presenting it in ways totally anathema to you.  You 
> can't let that stop you.  Creativity is part of the life force.  You 
> know it.
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Howell"  
> wrote:
> >
> > It appears that the problem is that basically anyone can create an
> > aggregator and pull feeds from it. Unless there is something done 
> that
> > prevents this, this is going to happen more and more.
> > 
> > In this case, for me, it's the Blip feed that is being ripped. To 
> have
> > them stop displaying my videos, I will have to remove them from 
> Blip.
> > So at this point, I am going to have to make a decision. Delete my
> > videos from Blip? Delete my feed?. Password protect my feed? Admit 
> the
> > CC license really means nothing and not care who does what with my 
> stuff?
> > 
> > There doesnt appear to be that much concern here in preventing or
> > resolving it.
> > 
> > David
> > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Response from VideoRonk:
> > > 
> > > "Considered usuary.
> > > 
> > > Videoronk is a finder that obtains the videos of youtube, google
> > > video, blip, metacafe, dailymotion, myspace, vimeo and revver. We 
> did
> > > not lodge any video in our systems. They are these finders to 
> which
> > > you would have to go so that they retired your video.
> > > 
> > > We felt not to be able to help in this question. A greeting.
> > > Videoronk."
> > > 
> > > So basically they are saying that they are a pass through system 
> that
> > > they just happen to pick up feeds and slap ads above them. 
> > > 
> > > This is a similar approach taken by http://www.zabasearch.com.
> > > Zabasearch post public personal information taken from other 
> sources.
> > > When you ask them to remove it they state they don't store the 
> info on
> > > their servers they are just a "pass through" service.  With ads.
> > > 
> > > We have a problem here. 
> > > 
> > > Gena
> > >
> >
>