Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Patrick Delongchamp]

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

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

[videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[bordercollieaustralianshepherd]

The reactions are so funny ... I could only imagine because of teh
music that it might be something like a wedding or other normal scene
and ... maybe someone puked, then another ... retching is contagious  

Gotta give them some credit for originality ... in this game of
getting eyeballs and ad dollars ... I am not sure if this is a sad
commentary on consumerism ... 

or maybe I am way wrong and this is a new kind of Survivor pilot
reality TV mix ... BM meets ER ... BM'ER coming in 2008 on Fox

Maybe it is a "cautionary tail" ... the future "MTV Jack ASS" ...
Xtreme Recycling ...

I have been told my posts can be too long ... I'll get to the nitty
gritty ... 


"If you are interested in bringing some traffic to your website,
consider advertising with 2girls1cup.com"

The real stories ...
What did the "Want Ad" read ... Wanted two actresses with
experience/no experience ...?

Where was the "Want Ad" placed? 

What was for dinner the night before? 

who will be first to advertise (besides "fling")?

Exactly how much crack did it take?

Who cleaned up afterwards?

Is the Number One fan, a fan of number two too, or the only fan?

Was an exhaust fan used in the making of Two Girls One Cup?









--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "pdelongchamp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So...um...has anyone heard of the youtube phenominon of vlogging your
> reaction to watching '2 Girls 1 Cup' for the first time?
> 
> Three things I want to mention.  
> 
> 1. Definitely watch the reaction videos below, they're very funny. 
> 2. DO NOT WATCH 2 GIRLS 1 CUP!
> 3. *If* you do watch it, you *HAVE* to vlog yourself watching it for
> the first time.  See below for details on where to find it.
> 
> These are a couple of my favourite reaction videos, they may contain
> vulgarity but are otherwise safe for work.
> 
> "2 Girls 1 Cup Reaction #1"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtRzf_ZcM0U
> 
> "2 girls 1 cup reaction"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI3Km0y1jWs
> 
> 
> So *if* you do decide to watch it, you can't be mad at me.  It's your
> own fault.  Do not watch this for the first time without vlogging your
> reaction.  To watch the very unsafe for work video go to
> http://www.2girls1cup.com (I repeat, NSFW)
> 
> and if you vlog yourself, even it's it's for NaVloPoMo, post your
> video in this thread.  Oh and go search youtube for more reaction
> videos.  There are hundreds.  Each is priceless.
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Brook Hinton]

Maybe I'm just cranky today, I guess the fact of that particular site
as someone's business venture just gives me a reaction not unlike
those in the reaction videos. So carry on pukin'!

B



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


-- 
___
Brook Hinton
film/video/audio art
www.brookhinton.com
studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Jay dedman]

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

It already got me before your email.
I would have never have thought that shit-porn would hit the mainstream.
peace on earth may actually be possible.

Jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Video: http://ryanishungry.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Patrick Delongchamp]

dubious cultural value?

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

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

Re: [videoblogging] Need to decide on a format

[Jay dedman]

>  Bam, exactly why I have to decide on a format, encoding under linux
>  isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world and I rather spend that
>  time animating.
>  H264 is a pain in the arse but it appears to be the best option, OGG
>  Theora and XVID are the easiest for me to produce.

we provide a Ogg version.
Porblem is that the Cortado player is really buggy.
So a good user experience is downloading the video to your desktop and
playing it with VLC.
Not something most people would do.

Linux needs much better tools for video IMHO.

I guess many of us take the time to compress multiple formats because
there is no standard.
it's a pain, but we hope that more people watch.

>  How would I produce multiple feeds for each format?

the plugin, vPIP.org, creates the separate RSS feeds for you.
they are a little long and unreadable, so many of us then throw those
feeds into Feedburner so we can get stats and an easier to read feed.

vPIP is GPLso if you wanted to help optimize this feature...

Jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Video: http://ryanishungry.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Adam Quirk]

I'm completely blown away by this.  Scat has been online longer than Google,
but I would have never thought I'd be getting sent links to it out in the
open.  This is the 5th or 6th time I've been made aware of that site, most
recently forwarded by a friend back in Indiana who only uses his computer
for email. Crazy how something like this can spread.  It makes me very
hopeful, not because I intend to broadcast shit-porn, but because if people
don't flinch at sending around links like this, their standards are
obviously low enough to send around my work.

On Nov 16, 2007 1:31 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > No vlogs yet? Someone *has* to be up for the challenge.
>
> It already got me before your email.
> I would have never have thought that shit-porn would hit the mainstream.
> peace on earth may actually be possible.
>
> Jay
>
>
> --
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Video: http://ryanishungry.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
Adam Quirk
Wreck & Salvage
551.208.4644
Brooklyn, NY
http://wreckandsalvage.com


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

[videoblogging] Picasso vs. FlickR ?

[John Coffey]

I have 25yrs of old skool film prints to scan and upload this winter. Any pros 
and cons of Picasso or FickR would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
  John C


Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails 
www.jchtv.com
   
-
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.

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

[videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Susan]

David, I'm right there with you man.  I'm incredibly curious though...
maybe this will be Saturday's video for me.
Susan 
http://vlog.kitykity.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> the reaction videos are hilarious ... but I'm not sure I want to put
> myself through whatever they've been through.  :-)
> 
> On Nov 15, 2007 11:59 PM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...i meant to say "phenomenon"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.DavidMeade.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Online Video Posting Sites, HELP NEEDED please! :)

[Rupert Howe]

Holy shit. You've actually convinced me.

Thanks.  Smart reply.

And I love your stuff.  I don't watch it enough.


Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ractalfece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Rupert Howe"  wrote:
> >
> > I saw you got featured.  Brilliant.  Congrats.
> > 
> > But I also saw that hundreds of Youtube types didn't get your schtick
> > at all and wrote the usual stream of hate that they write to pretty
> > much any creator with a brain who gets featured.  Your average rating
> > was 2 stars.
> > 
> > I found that very depressing.  Didn't you?
> 
> Thanks Rupert.  Naw, 2 stars doesn't depress me.  I used to do poetry
> slams.  You know, where the members of the audience have score boards
> and you get up there and read your precious poetry.  And then you get
> the brutal truth.  People hate it or love it.  It's natural.  That's
> what this niche stuff is about.  
> 
> Getting the YouTube feature is like performing at a stadium filled
> with idiots.  It's a painful experience.  But out of all those idiots
> there's a tiny percentage of weirdos who might be into your stuff.  
> 
> Continuing this analogy further, I have no desire to perform at
> staduims.  But now that I've done it once, when I show up at the
> coffee shops, they'll be packed.  My latest video has over 4,000 hits,
> a 4.5 star rating and extremely supportive comments.  I'm proud of
> this one, take a look, 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B1J7oq99uQ
> http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/2007/11/shit_the_shoe.html
> 
> 
> > 
> > Actually, I find Youtube user behaviour regularly depresses me about
> > the future of online video.
> > 
> > But then I'm a person who'd rather not see people antagonising each
> > other on this list, and lots of other people think there's something
> > revealing and interesting about that.  So maybe I'm missing the whole
> > point.  Perhaps hateful Youtube users are really very fascinating
> and fun?
> > 
> 
> It doesn't depress me.  I try to imagine this anonymous crowd of
> hateful YouTube users.  All I see is a bunch of teenagers.  The future
> of online video?  Those teenagers aren't going to be teenagers
> forever.  It's going to mature.  Might take a few more years though.
>

Re: [videoblogging] Need outdoors/tourism stock footage cd

[Kenya Allmond]

iStockphoto.com has rafting and skiing videos and probably whatever else you're 
looking for.

. . .
Kenya Allmond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kenya.allmond.us
http://kenya.allmond.us/vlog
VM/F 202-478-0490

To thine own self be true.


- Original Message 
From: arizpgapro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 3:21:57 PM
Subject: [videoblogging] Need outdoors/tourism stock footage cd


Hello,

I want to buy some stock footage video for a Colorado
tourism site I am working on. I need footage of ski, outdoor
activites like rafting, etc. Does anyone know of a cd or something 
I could buy...or even a site I can subsribe to?
Thanks Robert



 
Yahoo! Groups Links









  

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. 
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 

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

Re: [videoblogging] Need to decide on a format

[Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen]

Den 16.11.2007 kl. 13:35 skrev Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> vPIP is GPLso if you wanted to help optimize this feature...

I've been confused about the license of vPIP for a while now, maybe Enric  
can help out.

I realise that I'm one of the few people who have actually read through  
the vPIP source code more than once starting with the first versions Enric  
released way back when and as a result some of my obversations are more  
esoteric.

The licenses.txt states that the cirneViewer.swf is conventional copyright  
and the rest of the package is LGPL (not GPL). But vPIP consists of a  
collection of scripts, some by Enric, some not.

* The .js files contain text stating that they are covered by the X11  
license.
* jQuery is either MIT or GPL (I'm guessing MIT is what enric chose since  
bundling it would be impossible under GPL).
* The thickbox is clearly marked as Creative Commons  
Attribution-ShareAlike, but the thickbox parts of vpip.js are not marked  
so it's impossible to see which parts of the file are LGPL or X11 or CC  
BY-SA.
* Cortado is GPL as far as I know, but I can't find a note about this  
anywhere in the vPIP package
* The source code for the code generator is nowhere to be found making the  
LGPL license kinda worthless since it's impossible to do anything with the  
complied swf file.
* The jeroen flv player bundled has no license information, but if it's  
identical to the one on his website it's CC BY-NC-SA, not LGPL.

This kind of stuff is important to get sorted out. It needs to be very  
clear what parts are covered by which license. Especially considering  
projects like Show in a Box which states that "everything here is open  
source" (when it's clearly not that simple).

- Andreas

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/

Re: [videoblogging] Picasso vs. FlickR ?

[Jay dedman]

> I have 25yrs of old skool film prints to scan and upload this winter. Any
> pros and cons of Picasso or FickR would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
>  John C

Flickr seems to have a richer community.
here i am: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
You'll have to pay the yearly membership fee ($30) if you want to use
it as an accessible archive.

Picassa is free.
Last I remember the Picassa uploader only worked on PCis this still true?

jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Video: http://ryanishungry.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

[videoblogging] Re: Need to decide on a format

[Steve Watkins]

I tried to help a tiny bit with show-in-a-box licensing issues:

http://showinabox.pbwiki.com/licensing

As you can see, I had not explored what VPiP was made of, but from what I 
understood it 
would need to be GPL to be distributed with the rest of SIAB. Did I get that 
right?

Frankly, there is a lack of people who understand this stuff, and an apparent 
lack of will to 
try to understand it. The issues arent being taken seriously enough, which 
ironic 
considering how strongly many in this group feel when its peoples video 
licenses that are 
being ignored.

I suppose I should not be surprised, given the amount of times I mention that 
many 
peoples CC licenses give others the right to re-host their work, which is 
incompatible with 
many peoples stated wishes to remain in control of their content for stats 
purposes, and I 
never get any response to that. I gues the details give people a headache, but 
these legal 
issues are meaningless without understanding of the detail. 

I mean I cant really blame people for not wanting to look at the detail, as 
some of it is 
likely to spoil their dreams and plans, but all the same, its irresponsible.

If I ever do anything useful I think I'll just release it into the public 
domain to provide a 
few less headaches for everyone else. 

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Den 16.11.2007 kl. 13:35 skrev Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > vPIP is GPLso if you wanted to help optimize this feature...
> 
> I've been confused about the license of vPIP for a while now, maybe Enric  
> can help out.
> 
> I realise that I'm one of the few people who have actually read through  
> the vPIP source code more than once starting with the first versions Enric  
> released way back when and as a result some of my obversations are more  
> esoteric.
> 
> The licenses.txt states that the cirneViewer.swf is conventional copyright  
> and the rest of the package is LGPL (not GPL). But vPIP consists of a  
> collection of scripts, some by Enric, some not.
> 
> * The .js files contain text stating that they are covered by the X11  
> license.
> * jQuery is either MIT or GPL (I'm guessing MIT is what enric chose since  
> bundling it would be impossible under GPL).
> * The thickbox is clearly marked as Creative Commons  
> Attribution-ShareAlike, but the thickbox parts of vpip.js are not marked  
> so it's impossible to see which parts of the file are LGPL or X11 or CC  
> BY-SA.
> * Cortado is GPL as far as I know, but I can't find a note about this  
> anywhere in the vPIP package
> * The source code for the code generator is nowhere to be found making the  
> LGPL license kinda worthless since it's impossible to do anything with the  
> complied swf file.
> * The jeroen flv player bundled has no license information, but if it's  
> identical to the one on his website it's CC BY-NC-SA, not LGPL.
> 
> This kind of stuff is important to get sorted out. It needs to be very  
> clear what parts are covered by which license. Especially considering  
> projects like Show in a Box which states that "everything here is open  
> source" (when it's clearly not that simple).
> 
> - Andreas
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/
>

Re: [videoblogging] Need to decide on a format

[Benjamin Green]

>  The great news is that you dont need to choose just one format.
>  as long as you're willing to take the time to compress and upload
>  multiple formats, then you can provide them all.

Bam, exactly why I have to decide on a format, encoding under linux
isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world and I rather spend that
time animating.
H264 is a pain in the arse but it appears to be the best option, OGG
Theora and XVID are the easiest for me to produce.

How would I produce multiple feeds for each format?

Re: [videoblogging] Picasso vs. FlickR ?

[John Coffey]

Thanks Jay, enjoyed your photos.

Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  > I have 25yrs of old skool film 
prints to scan and upload this winter. Any
> pros and cons of Picasso or FickR would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
> John C

Flickr seems to have a richer community.
here i am: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
You'll have to pay the yearly membership fee ($30) if you want to use
it as an accessible archive.

Picassa is free.
Last I remember the Picassa uploader only worked on PCis this still true?

jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Video: http://ryanishungry.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9


 


Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails 
www.jchtv.com
   
-
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.  Make Yahoo! your homepage.

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

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

[[chrisbrogan.com]]

> Speaking of which, Chris Brogan seems to have moved on from
pulvermedia, sincere good 
> luck to him despite all the unpleasant things I said about/to him at
the time. 
> 


Sure have, Steve. Thanks for helping keep me straight. Lord knows I
need it. I've enjoyed talking with you when we have. Even when you
were sharing venom. That which doesn't kill me, leaves scars? 

[videoblogging] Need outdoors/tourism stock footage cd

[arizpgapro]

Hello,

I want to buy some stock footage video for a Colorado
tourism site I am working on. I need footage of ski, outdoor
activites like rafting, etc. Does anyone know of a cd or something 
I could buy...or even a site I can subsribe to?
Thanks Robert

[videoblogging] Re: Need outdoors/tourism stock footage cd

[bordercollieaustralianshepherd]

US Parks and Recreation http://www.nps.gov/findapark/index.htm

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "arizpgapro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> 
> I want to buy some stock footage video for a Colorado
> tourism site I am working on. I need footage of ski, outdoor
> activites like rafting, etc. Does anyone know of a cd or something 
> I could buy...or even a site I can subsribe to?
> Thanks Robert
>

[videoblogging] Re: Need to decide on a format

[Steve Watkins]

Maybe more people would be interested in downloading his stuff and watching it 
offline, 
as it is high-definition, so the highest-res versions might now be such a great 
fit for the 
browser anyway, due either to bitrate being higher than their broadband speed, 
or the 
fullsize video not fitting well inside webpages?

How were you planning on handling the higher-res versions? You could just have 
them as 
links that people save, or watch in a new browser window, but there are also 
options for 
handling such things nicely in-browser. Jay mentioned VPiP for example. Whilst 
the 
standard use of this (videos playing in place of a thumbnail) may not work too 
well for you 
with the higher res stuff, there is a thickbox mode which may suit the 1280x 
version quite 
nicely. Another nice solution is flash fullscreen mode. For example you could 
have your 
1920x version playing at half size within a flash player on the page, and when 
people 
press the fullscreen button, they get to see it fullscreen at its full 
resolution (or lower for 
many who dont have 1920x monitors). This will be a real option once the new 
flash player 
that supports h264 gets out of beta.

The XVID format you mention, does that create .mp4's or .avi's or something 
else? Again it 
doesnt matter so much if people are downloading, but for in browser experience, 
it needs 
to be mp4.

Have you done many comparisons of quality? Animation can show up the weaknesses 
in 
most formats, and I was wondering if you knew what sort of bitrates you are 
likely to use 
for the 1280 and 1920 versions?

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >  Bam, exactly why I have to decide on a format, encoding under linux
> >  isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world and I rather spend that
> >  time animating.
> >  H264 is a pain in the arse but it appears to be the best option, OGG
> >  Theora and XVID are the easiest for me to produce.
> 
> we provide a Ogg version.
> Porblem is that the Cortado player is really buggy.
> So a good user experience is downloading the video to your desktop and
> playing it with VLC.
> Not something most people would do.
> 
> Linux needs much better tools for video IMHO.
> 
> I guess many of us take the time to compress multiple formats because
> there is no standard.
> it's a pain, but we hope that more people watch.
> 
> >  How would I produce multiple feeds for each format?
> 
> the plugin, vPIP.org, creates the separate RSS feeds for you.
> they are a little long and unreadable, so many of us then throw those
> feeds into Feedburner so we can get stats and an easier to read feed.
> 
> vPIP is GPLso if you wanted to help optimize this feature...
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Video: http://ryanishungry.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>

[videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[bordercollieaustralianshepherd]

It is pretty gross, save your eyes and mind ... One thing I am
convinced of, this video "2 girls 1 cup" is a metaphor for the crap
that is consumed by the masses...

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David, I'm right there with you man.  I'm incredibly curious though...
> maybe this will be Saturday's video for me.
> Susan 
> http://vlog.kitykity.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" 
> wrote:
> >
> > the reaction videos are hilarious ... but I'm not sure I want to put
> > myself through whatever they've been through.  :-)
> > 
> > On Nov 15, 2007 11:59 PM, Patrick Delongchamp  wrote:
> > > ...i meant to say "phenomenon"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > http://www.DavidMeade.com
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Need to decide on a format

[Enric]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I tried to help a tiny bit with show-in-a-box licensing issues:
> 
> http://showinabox.pbwiki.com/licensing
> 
> As you can see, I had not explored what VPiP was made of, but from
what I understood it 
> would need to be GPL to be distributed with the rest of SIAB. Did I
get that right?

No, GPL allows other code licensed with less restrictive licenses.  A
list of those licenses are at:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html


vPIP is licensed under X11 (sometimes called MIT License) which the
GPL license allows.


> 
> Frankly, there is a lack of people who understand this stuff, and an
apparent lack of will to 
> try to understand it. The issues arent being taken seriously enough,
which ironic 
> considering how strongly many in this group feel when its peoples
video licenses that are 
> being ignored.

Yes, I've been finding it a bit frustrating getting repeated questions
on why vPIP isn't GPL that I've explained several times.  

  -- Enric

> 
> I suppose I should not be surprised, given the amount of times I
mention that many 
> peoples CC licenses give others the right to re-host their work,
which is incompatible with 
> many peoples stated wishes to remain in control of their content for
stats purposes, and I 
> never get any response to that. I gues the details give people a
headache, but these legal 
> issues are meaningless without understanding of the detail. 
> 
> I mean I cant really blame people for not wanting to look at the
detail, as some of it is 
> likely to spoil their dreams and plans, but all the same, its
irresponsible.
> 
> If I ever do anything useful I think I'll just release it into the
public domain to provide a 
> few less headaches for everyone else. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
 
> wrote:
> >
> > Den 16.11.2007 kl. 13:35 skrev Jay dedman :
> > 
> > > vPIP is GPLso if you wanted to help optimize this feature...
> > 
> > I've been confused about the license of vPIP for a while now,
maybe Enric  
> > can help out.
> > 
> > I realise that I'm one of the few people who have actually read
through  
> > the vPIP source code more than once starting with the first
versions Enric  
> > released way back when and as a result some of my obversations are
more  
> > esoteric.
> > 
> > The licenses.txt states that the cirneViewer.swf is conventional
copyright  
> > and the rest of the package is LGPL (not GPL). But vPIP consists
of a  
> > collection of scripts, some by Enric, some not.
> > 
> > * The .js files contain text stating that they are covered by the
X11  
> > license.
> > * jQuery is either MIT or GPL (I'm guessing MIT is what enric
chose since  
> > bundling it would be impossible under GPL).
> > * The thickbox is clearly marked as Creative Commons  
> > Attribution-ShareAlike, but the thickbox parts of vpip.js are not
marked  
> > so it's impossible to see which parts of the file are LGPL or X11
or CC  
> > BY-SA.
> > * Cortado is GPL as far as I know, but I can't find a note about
this  
> > anywhere in the vPIP package
> > * The source code for the code generator is nowhere to be found
making the  
> > LGPL license kinda worthless since it's impossible to do anything
with the  
> > complied swf file.
> > * The jeroen flv player bundled has no license information, but if
it's  
> > identical to the one on his website it's CC BY-NC-SA, not LGPL.
> > 
> > This kind of stuff is important to get sorted out. It needs to be
very  
> > clear what parts are covered by which license. Especially
considering  
> > projects like Show in a Box which states that "everything here is
open  
> > source" (when it's clearly not that simple).
> > 
> > - Andreas
> > 
> > -- 
> > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > http://www.solitude.dk/
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Need to decide on a format

[Enric]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Den 16.11.2007 kl. 13:35 skrev Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > vPIP is GPLso if you wanted to help optimize this feature...
> 
> I've been confused about the license of vPIP for a while now, maybe
Enric  
> can help out.
> 
> I realise that I'm one of the few people who have actually read
through  
> the vPIP source code more than once starting with the first versions
Enric  
> released way back when and as a result some of my obversations are
more  
> esoteric.
> 
> The licenses.txt states that the cirneViewer.swf is conventional
copyright  
> and the rest of the package is LGPL (not GPL). But vPIP consists of a  
> collection of scripts, some by Enric, some not.
> 
> * The .js files contain text stating that they are covered by the X11  
> license.
> * jQuery is either MIT or GPL (I'm guessing MIT is what enric chose
since  
> bundling it would be impossible under GPL).
> * The thickbox is clearly marked as Creative Commons  
> Attribution-ShareAlike, but the thickbox parts of vpip.js are not
marked  
> so it's impossible to see which parts of the file are LGPL or X11 or
CC  
> BY-SA.
> * Cortado is GPL as far as I know, but I can't find a note about this  
> anywhere in the vPIP package
> * The source code for the code generator is nowhere to be found
making the  
> LGPL license kinda worthless since it's impossible to do anything
with the  
> complied swf file.
> * The jeroen flv player bundled has no license information, but if
it's  
> identical to the one on his website it's CC BY-NC-SA, not LGPL.
> 
> This kind of stuff is important to get sorted out. It needs to be very  
> clear what parts are covered by which license. Especially considering  
> projects like Show in a Box which states that "everything here is open  
> source" (when it's clearly not that simple).
> 
> - Andreas
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/
>


Thank you for bringing these details up.  Both the license.txt and
readme.html are months out of date.  I will do this for the next
release of vPIP:

- Update lincese.txt to list all licenses for all code.
- Provide and include source for all SWF files that are not the
cineViewer (name changed from cirneViewer) flash application.
- Change readme.html to point to the documentation at http://vpip.org

Note:  - The Jeroen FLV Player is not included in vPIP.  There is a
..\jeroen directory that has graphical assets for building in the
flash player, cineViewer's, interface to look similar to one of the
jeroen flv player interfaces.
   - All vPIP code except the cineViewer application will be
licensed under X11 (or MIT License): 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License 

  -- Enric

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Need to decide on a format

[Jay dedman]

> I tried to help a tiny bit with show-in-a-box licensing issues:
>  http://showinabox.pbwiki.com/licensing
>  As you can see, I had not explored what VPiP was made of, but from what I
> understood it
>  would need to be GPL to be distributed with the rest of SIAB. Did I get
> that right?

everything is GPL with Showinabox.
we're working with Enric on his licensing.
as i understand it, vPIP is LGPL because the Flash player he includes
is copyrighted.
ultimately, we are just trying to be as open as possible.

>  Frankly, there is a lack of people who understand this stuff, and an
> apparent lack of will to
>  try to understand it. The issues arent being taken seriously enough, which
> ironic
>  considering how strongly many in this group feel when its peoples video
> licenses that are
>  being ignored.

People are taking licensing seriously.
the current copyright laws are very confusing, and we're trying to
create a separate copyright(left) structure that only has real world
significance as we help define it. we are creating our own precedents.

>  I suppose I should not be surprised, given the amount of times I mention
> that many
>  peoples CC licenses give others the right to re-host their work, which is
> incompatible with
>  many peoples stated wishes to remain in control of their content for stats
> purposes, and I
>  never get any response to that. I guess the details give people a headache,
> but these legal
>  issues are meaningless without understanding of the detail.

you are right.
CC licenses dont really think about videoblogs specifically.
all of the CC licenses allow me to reupload your video in at a
non-commercial way.
I personally dont mind if a PERSON reuploads my video as long as they
respect the license and give credit.

Steve, the problem comes when a commercial site reuploads an entire
archive, or even the archives an entire group.
This is why we came up with the "rules for aggregation".
http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/Best%20Practices%20for%20Aggregation%20Sites
(video vertigo seems down right now)

the only time many companies/sites respect communities is when the
community raises hell.
this takes a lot of energy.

I wish we could be more organizedbut i think our strategy has
always been organic.
This can be mistaken for sloppy or ignoring the facts.
most of us are just busy making stuff.

>  I mean I cant really blame people for not wanting to look at the detail, as
> some of it is
>  likely to spoil their dreams and plans, but all the same, its
> irresponsible.
>  If I ever do anything useful I think I'll just release it into the public
> domain to provide a
>  few less headaches for everyone else.

you're being negative again Steve.
people in this group are thinking and acting.
Much of the problems youre talking about is how to get the outside
world to respect what seems entirely logical to those of us in here.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Video: http://ryanishungry.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Licensing

[Jen Simmons]

I think vPIP is an awesome plug-in. I'm glad we get to ship it /  
promote it / teach people how to use it with Show in a Box.

I respect Enric's desire to not offer everything as GPL. Especially  
since he is working on his flash player to make it fabulous, and  
since the use of flash players by media companies big and small is a  
HUGE thing, that has to do with $$$ flowing... I respect Enric's  
plan, whatever it might be, to be able to charge people for use in  
the future / or whatever (I don't know what) >> but to not simply  
give everything away as GPL.

We definitely need to work out the licensing issues around all the  
parts of SIAB. It's on the long list of things to do -- but no one  
has gotten to it with the focus and rigor needed to finish answering  
all the questions and teach everyone else what's up. I, for example,  
barely know what all the different terms mean -- and could easily use  
the wrong one when talking.

This issue does keep coming up internally, and does keep starting  
over at the beginning... without ever really getting resolved. So --  
sorry, Enric. I hope it seems less like pressure to get you to change  
your mind -- and more of a lack of understanding and clarity on the  
part of the SIAB team.

What we need is for someone in this group to take this on as a task  
and go the distance with figuring out what all this means. And write  
it all up as a clear thing on the wiki -- and hopefully in the future  
we can simply keep pointing to the wiki.

I think the issue is least resolved around the flash player issues --  
what are we going to include? How do those licenses line up.

Do we have any lawyers in this group?? Anyone who's worked on  
software licensing before?? Any volunteers to really figure this out???

Jen


On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:10 pm, Enric wrote:

> Yes, I've been finding it a bit frustrating getting repeated questions
> on why vPIP isn't GPL that I've explained several times.



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

[videoblogging] Re: Licensing

[Enric]

Thanks Jen.  Look forward to the clear and well designed information
and instruction you guys make.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Simmons
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think vPIP is an awesome plug-in. I'm glad we get to ship it /  
> promote it / teach people how to use it with Show in a Box.
> 
> I respect Enric's desire to not offer everything as GPL. Especially  
> since he is working on his flash player to make it fabulous, and  
> since the use of flash players by media companies big and small is a  
> HUGE thing, that has to do with $$$ flowing... I respect Enric's  
> plan, whatever it might be, to be able to charge people for use in  
> the future / or whatever (I don't know what) >> but to not simply  
> give everything away as GPL.
> 
> We definitely need to work out the licensing issues around all the  
> parts of SIAB. It's on the long list of things to do -- but no one  
> has gotten to it with the focus and rigor needed to finish answering  
> all the questions and teach everyone else what's up. I, for example,  
> barely know what all the different terms mean -- and could easily use  
> the wrong one when talking.
> 
> This issue does keep coming up internally, and does keep starting  
> over at the beginning... without ever really getting resolved. So --  
> sorry, Enric. I hope it seems less like pressure to get you to change  
> your mind -- and more of a lack of understanding and clarity on the  
> part of the SIAB team.
> 
> What we need is for someone in this group to take this on as a task  
> and go the distance with figuring out what all this means. And write  
> it all up as a clear thing on the wiki -- and hopefully in the future  
> we can simply keep pointing to the wiki.
> 
> I think the issue is least resolved around the flash player issues --  
> what are we going to include? How do those licenses line up.
> 
> Do we have any lawyers in this group?? Anyone who's worked on  
> software licensing before?? Any volunteers to really figure this out???
> 
> Jen
> 
> 
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:10 pm, Enric wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I've been finding it a bit frustrating getting repeated questions
> > on why vPIP isn't GPL that I've explained several times.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Need to decide on a format

[Steve Watkins]

Mmm sorry everyone, my frustrations with these issues was not properly directed 
by my 
earlier words. Im frustrated that it is so much of a headache to correctly 
interpret all the 
legalspeak, that most people probably lack the confidence to take on such 
tasks. 

As this group knows from many conversations in the past, creative commons has 
many 
devils in the detail, just like anything else, but the way it offers 
human-readable license 
options, has demonstrated how much more people are prepared to think about 
licensing 
issues, if only they are presented in a way that is understandable to more 
people.

Even though my nature means I fancy myself capable of spending sick amounts of 
time 
reading legal licenses, terms & conditions, etc, I too suffer from a lack of 
confidence that I 
am drawing all the right conclusions after reading the stuff. So I look for the 
opinions of 
others about this stuff, and get very frustrated when I get no response, 
because it leaves 
me clueless as to whether I am right or not.

So thanks to Enric for the explanation, and please believe me when I say that I 
spoke of 
my frustrations with show in a box licensing issues, only because I really love 
the idea of 
SIAB and as a paranoid negative person, I worry about the issues that could 
harm it. vPIP is 
nice and an important part of SIAB, I have no problems with whatever license 
you choose 
for your work. I had always assumed it was compatible with SIAB but I have 
confused 
myself after reading Andreas post and the various responses, I'll try again 
tomorrow.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I tried to help a tiny bit with show-in-a-box licensing issues:
> >  http://showinabox.pbwiki.com/licensing
> >  As you can see, I had not explored what VPiP was made of, but from what I
> > understood it
> >  would need to be GPL to be distributed with the rest of SIAB. Did I get
> > that right?
> 
> everything is GPL with Showinabox.
> we're working with Enric on his licensing.
> as i understand it, vPIP is LGPL because the Flash player he includes
> is copyrighted.
> ultimately, we are just trying to be as open as possible.
> 
> >  Frankly, there is a lack of people who understand this stuff, and an
> > apparent lack of will to
> >  try to understand it. The issues arent being taken seriously enough, which
> > ironic
> >  considering how strongly many in this group feel when its peoples video
> > licenses that are
> >  being ignored.
> 
> People are taking licensing seriously.
> the current copyright laws are very confusing, and we're trying to
> create a separate copyright(left) structure that only has real world
> significance as we help define it. we are creating our own precedents.
> 
> >  I suppose I should not be surprised, given the amount of times I mention
> > that many
> >  peoples CC licenses give others the right to re-host their work, which is
> > incompatible with
> >  many peoples stated wishes to remain in control of their content for stats
> > purposes, and I
> >  never get any response to that. I guess the details give people a headache,
> > but these legal
> >  issues are meaningless without understanding of the detail.
> 
> you are right.
> CC licenses dont really think about videoblogs specifically.
> all of the CC licenses allow me to reupload your video in at a
> non-commercial way.
> I personally dont mind if a PERSON reuploads my video as long as they
> respect the license and give credit.
> 
> Steve, the problem comes when a commercial site reuploads an entire
> archive, or even the archives an entire group.
> This is why we came up with the "rules for aggregation".
> 
http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/Best%20Practices%20for%20Aggregation%20Sites
> (video vertigo seems down right now)
> 
> the only time many companies/sites respect communities is when the
> community raises hell.
> this takes a lot of energy.
> 
> I wish we could be more organizedbut i think our strategy has
> always been organic.
> This can be mistaken for sloppy or ignoring the facts.
> most of us are just busy making stuff.
> 
> >  I mean I cant really blame people for not wanting to look at the detail, as
> > some of it is
> >  likely to spoil their dreams and plans, but all the same, its
> > irresponsible.
> >  If I ever do anything useful I think I'll just release it into the public
> > domain to provide a
> >  few less headaches for everyone else.
> 
> you're being negative again Steve.
> people in this group are thinking and acting.
> Much of the problems youre talking about is how to get the outside
> world to respect what seems entirely logical to those of us in here.
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Video: http://ryanishungry.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Licensing

[Jen Simmons]

I invite the discussion -- especially as someone who is about to put  
a lot of time, effort, and years of skill into creating a kick-ass  
themeing engine then to give it away for free?? And as someone  
who runs her own business full-time, relying on my client base of  
income (ie: not someone who's working for a large company who pays me  
a salary, and then wants to release my work as GPL -- which is how  
most of Drupal is getting built).

Mostly people will use SIAB as a way to get out of hiring a  
designer / developer, not as a way TO hire a desiger / developer, and  
share their results with the world (again, as Drupal works)

...

j

Jen Simmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jensimmons.com
http://milkweedmediadesign.com
917-455-0022
skype: jensimmons

On Nov 16, 2007, at 6:19 pm, Enric wrote:

> This may start a whole discussion back and forth. But, I find a
> problem with the philosophy and idea behind fully GPL and free
> software. As Richard Stallman posits freedom, it's the freedom of
> anyone to use software without restriction or barriers. The
> contradiction I find is that is that is purely accomplished by
> compelling those that create software to release all the code. So
> there is a contradiction in the word "freedom" in that it is taking
> away freedom of choice from those that create the work. I see the
> best result is a wide inclusion of those producing open source and
> mixed open and closed source products. That way a wide range of
> products and perspectives produce a rich, valuable source of software.
>
> -- Enric



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

[videoblogging] Re: Licensing

[Enric]

This may start a whole discussion back and forth.  But, I find a
problem with the philosophy and idea behind fully GPL and free
software. As Richard Stallman posits freedom, it's the freedom of
anyone to use software without restriction or barriers.  The
contradiction I find is that is that is purely accomplished by
compelling those that create software to release all the code.  So
there is a contradiction in the word "freedom" in that it is taking
away freedom of choice from those that create the work.  I see the
best result is a wide inclusion of those producing open source and
mixed open and closed source products. That way a wide range of
products and perspectives produce a rich, valuable source of software.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Simmons
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think vPIP is an awesome plug-in. I'm glad we get to ship it /  
> promote it / teach people how to use it with Show in a Box.
> 
> I respect Enric's desire to not offer everything as GPL. Especially  
> since he is working on his flash player to make it fabulous, and  
> since the use of flash players by media companies big and small is a  
> HUGE thing, that has to do with $$$ flowing... I respect Enric's  
> plan, whatever it might be, to be able to charge people for use in  
> the future / or whatever (I don't know what) >> but to not simply  
> give everything away as GPL.
> 
> We definitely need to work out the licensing issues around all the  
> parts of SIAB. It's on the long list of things to do -- but no one  
> has gotten to it with the focus and rigor needed to finish answering  
> all the questions and teach everyone else what's up. I, for example,  
> barely know what all the different terms mean -- and could easily use  
> the wrong one when talking.
> 
> This issue does keep coming up internally, and does keep starting  
> over at the beginning... without ever really getting resolved. So --  
> sorry, Enric. I hope it seems less like pressure to get you to change  
> your mind -- and more of a lack of understanding and clarity on the  
> part of the SIAB team.
> 
> What we need is for someone in this group to take this on as a task  
> and go the distance with figuring out what all this means. And write  
> it all up as a clear thing on the wiki -- and hopefully in the future  
> we can simply keep pointing to the wiki.
> 
> I think the issue is least resolved around the flash player issues --  
> what are we going to include? How do those licenses line up.
> 
> Do we have any lawyers in this group?? Anyone who's worked on  
> software licensing before?? Any volunteers to really figure this out???
> 
> Jen
> 
> 
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:10 pm, Enric wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I've been finding it a bit frustrating getting repeated questions
> > on why vPIP isn't GPL that I've explained several times.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Need to decide on a format

[Jen Simmons]

On Nov 16, 2007, at 6:15 pm, Steve Watkins wrote:

> I really love the idea of
> SIAB and as a paranoid negative person, I worry about the issues  
> that could harm it.

If you need an issue to get worked up over ('cause sometimes we do  
just need a fight to go kick some ass over ;-)
then worry about the name "Show in a Box"...
someone (Markus?) just figured out that the name is already  
trademarked (copyrighted?)
that would have worried me, if I hadn't chosen to totally ignore the  
worry..
but
it is something we need to look into further.

jen

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo

[Brook Hinton]

Well...

On 11/16/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No vlogs yet? Someone *has* to be up for the challenge.

Maybe the fact that it's been done quite a bit already, as you
described, limits the appeal. What do further "responses" add to
anything? And why would we want to use our navlopomo videos to
publicize some external commercial project of dubious cultural value?

Actually there hasn't been any shortage of ideas with navlopomo'ers at
all. No one seems to be having any trouble coming up with their own
ideas from what I've seen. The emphasis on the personal in the group
might also be a factor in the lack of participation in this
"challenge".

For me, the problem hasn't been ideas, but time.

Brook
___
Brook Hinton
film/video/audio art
www.brookhinton.com
studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab