[videoblogging] Re: I'm back, and I'm excited!

[Rupert Howe]

Welcome back!

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tim D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Vloggers,
> 
> Some of you may remember me, and many of you probably have no clue who
> I am.  My name is Tim, and I used to set up shop at a place called
> Reality Sandwich on Typepad (and I even posted on wearethemedia.com
> now and then).  One day I decided I didn't want to vlog anymore, and I
> walked away.  Sometimes I regret that decision, and sometimes I know
> it was necessary.  Either way, I have been out of the vlogging loop
> for a little over a year.  What's done is done.  Fortunately, I am
> happy to say that I have gotten the itch back (mostly because I just
> discovered Twitter, and found many of my old vlogging friends there).
> After being gone for so long the idea of jumping back in is more than
> intimidating, but I'm doing it anyway!  I've moved my site over to
> Wordpress now, and I hope it becomes as much of a home as my previous
> site was.  For the time being I am posting some of my old videos to
> get reacquainted with the process.  My feed is up and working, so
> please stop by and say hello.  You can find me at
> realitysandwich.wordpress.com.  Looking forward to the dialogue.
> 
> Happy Almost New Year,
> Tim
> Vlog: realitysandwich.wordpress.com
> Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/wordpress/YXkG
>

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

[Ron Watson]

Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting

Frank,

I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a  
bit here.

There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with  
the one shot nature of the movies.

They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales  
models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the  
movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations.  
Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and  
such, but it's still quite true.

In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the  
viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate  
advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why  
we have more and more commercials and less and less content.

In the movies, the movie is the product being sold, and the viewers  
are, to a large degree the customers.

The movies are not based on the repetitive 'subscriber' based model,  
which means a movie can be totally shitty   viewing experience but  
still be profitable due to a great marketing campaign from it's  
corporate media parent companies.

"It's the greatest movie EVER!" can be heard on all the News Corps  
media properties, and if it's sold right, a big fat stinking turd of  
a flick can recoup it's money.

I believe that there is far less advertiser control over the movie  
business than the TV business because of the divergent business models.

TV on the other hand is all but entirely controlled by the  
advertisers. With TV there is a relationship. Customers, corporate  
sponsors, pay to interact with the corporate media's product, the  
audience. They pay for a captive audience.

It's not the viewers that force the shutting down of a program, it's  
the corporate advertisers getting cold feet and abandoning it.  
Remember, viewers are the product being sold when it comes to a heavy  
advertising based market like TV.

Listening to your audience is important, and new media allows for  
that dialogue to take place, but as the show scales up, there is a  
high degree of probability that your customers, those paying your  
bills, are going to take issue with your product, the viewers, and  
that dialogue becomes a nasty triangle of interests.

So, I guess I kind of agree with your point, but I think that your  
point falls short of being totally valid when you look at the  
different segments of the corporate media.

Corporations sponsor TV and own the Movies.

I am one who thinks that the corporate media creates reality, and  
we're just along for the ride. Sure there are some of us who buck the  
system and don't buy into it, but we're few. Corporations dominate  
our society: they sponsor our information, they sponsor our schools,  
they sponsor our politicians, they sponsor our legislation, they  
sponsor our sports teams, they sponsor our community functions, and  
if they're not sponsoring it, they own or control it: the internet,  
our personal information, our communications systems, mass transit, etc.

I don't think that audiences, media consumers, actually control  
anything that happens within that power structure. Audiences are  
manipulated through saturation, cutting edge psychological science,  
limited competition and sheer volume.

Cheers,
Ron

Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
http://pawsitivevybe.com





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

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

[Ron Watson]

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

There are powerful interests that are trying to get, control and  
crush nearly each and every person in this community, and the thing  
that we're all gathered around, distributed media. But it's not real  
live little people like Scoble, or Jay, it's giant fake people like  
AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, WB, NBC, etc.

If you don't see that by now, Patrick, there's nothing I can say to  
change your mind.
>
> The roots of their often hypocritical views of mass media contributed
> to their distrust in Wikipedia. I am always wary of people that
> distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot.

I hold very little hypocritical views when it comes to the corporate  
media. I know what their intention is, and that's to make profit.

It's kind of like watching Fox News, or reading the business press.  
You know what the agenda when you open the paper or click the remote.  
It frames the information. Information that is profitable for the  
owners or sponsors gets a megaphone, information that is bad for  
owners or profit is swept under the rug. It's pretty simple, really.

The idea that got some of us all pissed off  over wikipedia is that,  
in the interest of 'respectability' it has ran away from what it was  
designed to be, a distinctly human collection of information. There  
would be errors, but they could be repaired. It was an endeavor, a  
collective human endeavor.

When I found out that corporate media had to be the basis of a  
citation for it to be a legitimate it destroyed that. It's nothing  
more than Britainnica now. It's an game that will be won by fake  
humans with deep pockets and paid staffers.

I find it extremely funny that when it was administrated by real live  
breathing people it was ridiculed by 'serious' people, and now that  
it's got a corporate filter, it's a sensible institution that should  
be trusted.

It's fixed, in both senses of the word. Corporations are truth!

I don't trust fake people who don't have legal responsibilities for  
their actions. I don't trust news that comes from fake people that  
claim that they have a First Amendment Right to mass deception. We  
shouldn't trust them just because their big and powerful any more  
than we should trust a stranger with our children because that  
stranger is an adult.

I agree with the rest of your post, the dying group part too, but I  
think that the declining relevancy of the group has more to do with  
our catastrophic success, but that'll have to wait 'til later.

Cheers,

Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:53 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:

> I realize that this topic is dying so I thought, what better time to
> jump in? I have to say that, Robert, I agree with a lot of what you,
> Andrew, Schlomo, etc have said over the last week.
>
> If it's of any consolation, there's something I realized when dealing
> with the Wikipedia issue: When people begin to agree with the person
> that is being attacked, they stop contributing to the thread because
> a) they want it to die off, and b) they don't want to say anything
> supportive because they know their words will be twisted and picked
> apart, consequently prolonging the discussion and making things worse.
>
> That's the reason you don't hear as many supportive comments. I know
> as I write this that though I may be lending you a word of support I
> might attract an additional few negative responses.
>
> The more vocal people in this group seem to think that someone is
> constantly out to get them, control them, crush them. To them,
> collaboration means fake, gatekeepers only exists when more than one
> person produces a vlog, and doing something you love for a living
> means selling out.
>
> The roots of their often hypocritical views of mass media contributed
> to their distrust in Wikipedia. I am always wary of people that
> distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot.
>
> I think this problem in combination with the fact that this group is
> less relevant everyday is what sent the community downhill so fast.
> It's hard to argue that this group is dying.
>
> Anyway, that's my rant. If the list gets started again, feel free to
> add my name below scoble and schlomo.
>
> On Dec 26, 2007 2:13 AM, Robert Scoble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gena,
> >
> > Thanks, this was a very nice Christmas present and a nice way to  
> end a
> > really great day. Someone just forwarded me your email and I  
> appreciate
> > that
> > too.
> >
> > I haven't been able to respond over on the Cheryl page because it  
> keeps
> > saying my comments are spam, which is funny too. Oh well.
> >
> >

Re: [videoblogging] Epic Fu frontend?

[Ron Watson]

Does anyone know what Epic Fu's frontend consists of?

Is it homegrown?

Cheers,
Ron

[videoblogging] Re: Epic Fu frontend?

[Steve Woolf]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what Epic Fu's frontend consists of?
> 
> Is it homegrown?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ron
>

hi ron -

we use movable type 4 to publish epic-fu, but it's pretty heavily modified with 
dynamic 
stuff and PHP to accomplish everything we need on the front end.  if you want 
to shoot 
me a note off-list, I can answer any specific questions you might have.

steve

[videoblogging] Happy New Year, great to be part of this group

[danielmcvicar]

Hello Everyone!
I just finished reading some of the posts of late, ranging from passionate 
discussions to 
technical advice, and I wanted to let you know that I am very happy to be part 
of this group.

I want to wish everyone a happy and successful 2008.  Make video, be happy!

Daniel

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

[Jan McLaughlin]

Well said, Ron. A cogent analysis of the situation in which we find
ourselves.

It's my theory that folks begin to wake up and smell the shit, and that the
awake segment of the population is an audience worth talking to.

But what do we say to that audience? Green stuff? Frankly, I got nervous
when this past spring the MSM got behind global warming and things green.
Had to ask what was behind it and who would benefit, etc.

What business model will support it? Advertising on a national /
international scale is inherently flawed for the reasons you list, that it
causes manipulation and control of truth.

Solutions are local. Small.

Jan

On Dec 28, 2007 5:17 AM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
>
> Frank,
>
> I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a
> bit here.
>
> There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with
> the one shot nature of the movies.
>
> They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales
> models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the
> movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations.
> Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and
> such, but it's still quite true.
>
> In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the
> viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate
> advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why
> we have more and more commercials and less and less content.
>
> In the movies, the movie is the product being sold, and the viewers
> are, to a large degree the customers.
>
> The movies are not based on the repetitive 'subscriber' based model,
> which means a movie can be totally shitty   viewing experience but
> still be profitable due to a great marketing campaign from it's
> corporate media parent companies.
>
> "It's the greatest movie EVER!" can be heard on all the News Corps
> media properties, and if it's sold right, a big fat stinking turd of
> a flick can recoup it's money.
>
> I believe that there is far less advertiser control over the movie
> business than the TV business because of the divergent business models.
>
> TV on the other hand is all but entirely controlled by the
> advertisers. With TV there is a relationship. Customers, corporate
> sponsors, pay to interact with the corporate media's product, the
> audience. They pay for a captive audience.
>
> It's not the viewers that force the shutting down of a program, it's
> the corporate advertisers getting cold feet and abandoning it.
> Remember, viewers are the product being sold when it comes to a heavy
> advertising based market like TV.
>
> Listening to your audience is important, and new media allows for
> that dialogue to take place, but as the show scales up, there is a
> high degree of probability that your customers, those paying your
> bills, are going to take issue with your product, the viewers, and
> that dialogue becomes a nasty triangle of interests.
>
> So, I guess I kind of agree with your point, but I think that your
> point falls short of being totally valid when you look at the
> different segments of the corporate media.
>
> Corporations sponsor TV and own the Movies.
>
> I am one who thinks that the corporate media creates reality, and
> we're just along for the ride. Sure there are some of us who buck the
> system and don't buy into it, but we're few. Corporations dominate
> our society: they sponsor our information, they sponsor our schools,
> they sponsor our politicians, they sponsor our legislation, they
> sponsor our sports teams, they sponsor our community functions, and
> if they're not sponsoring it, they own or control it: the internet,
> our personal information, our communications systems, mass transit, etc.
>
> I don't think that audiences, media consumers, actually control
> anything that happens within that power structure. Audiences are
> manipulated through saturation, cutting edge psychological science,
> limited competition and sheer volume.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron
>
> Ron Watson
> http://k9disc.blip.tv
> http://k9disc.com
> http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
> http://pawsitivevybe.com
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://wburg.tv
aim=janofsound
air=862.571.5334
skype=janmclaughlin


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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: I'm back, and I'm excited!

[Jan McLaughlin]

Yupyupyup.

Vlog it, dude.

Jan

On Dec 28, 2007 4:29 AM, Rupert Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Welcome back!
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tim D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vloggers,
> >
> > Some of you may remember me, and many of you probably have no clue who
> > I am.  My name is Tim, and I used to set up shop at a place called
> > Reality Sandwich on Typepad (and I even posted on wearethemedia.com
> > now and then).  One day I decided I didn't want to vlog anymore, and I
> > walked away.  Sometimes I regret that decision, and sometimes I know
> > it was necessary.  Either way, I have been out of the vlogging loop
> > for a little over a year.  What's done is done.  Fortunately, I am
> > happy to say that I have gotten the itch back (mostly because I just
> > discovered Twitter, and found many of my old vlogging friends there).
> > After being gone for so long the idea of jumping back in is more than
> > intimidating, but I'm doing it anyway!  I've moved my site over to
> > Wordpress now, and I hope it becomes as much of a home as my previous
> > site was.  For the time being I am posting some of my old videos to
> > get reacquainted with the process.  My feed is up and working, so
> > please stop by and say hello.  You can find me at
> > realitysandwich.wordpress.com.  Looking forward to the dialogue.
> >
> > Happy Almost New Year,
> > Tim
> > Vlog: realitysandwich.wordpress.com
> > Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/wordpress/YXkG
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://wburg.tv
aim=janofsound
air=862.571.5334
skype=janmclaughlin


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

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[noel hidalgo]

i don't trust anyone over 30...
i will soon not trust myself...


On Dec 28, 2007 4:53 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot.

[videoblogging] Re: Happy New Year, great to be part of this group

[Bill Cammack]

Happy New Year, Dan! :D

Happy New Year, Everybody! :D

--
Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "danielmcvicar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone!
> I just finished reading some of the posts of late, ranging from
passionate discussions to 
> technical advice, and I wanted to let you know that I am very happy
to be part of this group.
> 
> I want to wish everyone a happy and successful 2008.  Make video, be
happy!
> 
> Daniel
>

[videoblogging] Interactive Video

[Michael Verdi]

I'm working on an interactive narrative video project that I'm putting
together in Flash. The idea is that as each video plays (there are 6)
links become available at specific points. The viewer is free to watch
all the videos back to back and then follow links, click on links as
they appear (automatically pausing the video) and to go back and
re-watch videos. It's not groundbreaking in terms of functionality
and, like I suspected, it's pretty hard to do which is probably why we
don't see many people doing it.

Others on this list like Adrian Miles have used LiveStagePro (which I
don't think is around anymore?) to do similar things in QuickTime.
I've also seen Josh Paul do some crazy stuff in QuickTime too. So I
wanted to start a thread listing examples of interactive projects out
there and the tools used to create them along with their relative
merits.

I'll have stuff to show and more to offer after I get this project
done (due Monday evening). Right now I can say this: I learned a
little Flash action scripting back in 2001 - 2003 (before video in
Flash) and haven't used it since. Much of that is coming in handy now
but overall I'm finding it a lot harder to pick up than HTML and CSS.
The good news is that it looks like you can do some pretty cool stuff
- cooler than what I'm doing on this project.

Thanks,
Verdi

-- 
http://michaelverdi.com
http://freevlog.org
http://nscape.tv

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

[Jan McLaughlin]

*Au contraire*, dear Frank, media makers rely on base human nature to
produce content guaranteed to suck audiences in.

"If it bleeds, it leads" mentality. Everywhere.

Big media relies a great deal on tits, ass, sexual frustration, and various
forms of perversion (torture wrapped in pretty ribbons as I recently figured
out that what I loved about "Robin Hood" as a kid was the kidnap and bind
stuff, same with lots of other shows I liked as a kid and am driven still to
watch in shows like "24"), the heroic, the unattainable (the Olympics), fear
(cop shows) and all the stuff that originates in our reptilian brains.

In order for stuff that appeals to other parts of our brains to succeed, our
culture would require a massive re-education. We'd have to demonize
rubbernecking in the same way we've demonized smoking, for example. That's
unlikely. That's also why striving for mass popularity is not a worthy goal.

If you give people what their lesser-evolved selves want, they will sit and
watch it 'til the cows come home. And THAT's the point: eyeballs glued to
the screens so the messages are conveyed.

Ads are less effective these for lots of reasons I'll not get into here. The
result is television has resorted to Big Messages in their programming. It's
those 'messages' I noticed as I spent the last six months viewing all the
networks' top shows online or on DVD. The messages are totally and
unabashedly about the virtues of consumerism, respite from fear, the
goodness and efficacy of the medical, legal, military, and police systems,
etc. etc.

Advertisers *do control content. Producers know if they put something out
there that offends consumers or discredits consumerism, advertisers and
their dollars will evaporate. Producers daren't risk it. Cart and horse,
horse and cart - it's a constant dlalog between producers and advertisers.

As a matter of fact, I'm working on a vlog post on this very subject as we
speak.

Jan

On Dec 28, 2007 2:46 AM, Frank Sinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
> > One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content.
>
> I have to disagree with that. Viewers "control" the content. Meaning,
> studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch, buy a
> movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is "the masses" controlling what
> gets produced by big media...
>
> Listening to your audience (both through metrics and comments) and
> being responsive should always be #1 priority. The real power of new
> media is that direct access to your audience.
>
> Regards,
> -Frank
>
> http://mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Why advertising is a dangerous way to go if you're interested in true
> > things.
> >
> > One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > On Dec 27, 2007 10:37 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move
> > > > > money away from a company that isn't getting community
> support. And,
> > > worse,
> > > > > it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less
> > > willing
> > > > > to take risks on behalf of the community.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is BS too.
> > >
> > > If you think that's BS, you've never made your living solely from
> > > advertising. Advertisers do turn away when they perceive they are
> > > associating their brand with something negative or failing.
> > >
> > > If the advertisers turn away, the employees stop getting paid,
> lose their
> > > jobs, etc.
> > >
> > > Jake Ludington
> > >
> > > http://www.jakeludington.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Faux Press - better than real
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> > http://wburg.tv
> > aim=janofsound
> > air=862.571.5334
> > skype=janmclaughlin
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://wburg.tv
aim=janofsound
air=862.571.5334
skype=janmclaughlin


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

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

[Jan McLaughlin]

Watching. Brilliantly on point.

More later.

XO,
Jan

On Dec 28, 2007 10:17 AM, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Frank Sinton wrote:
>
> > > One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control
> > content.
> >
> > I have to disagree with that. Viewers "control" the content. Meaning,
> > studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch, buy a
> > movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is "the masses" controlling what
> > gets produced by big media...
>
>
> this is not how the TV biz model works
>
> content is not the product here and viewers do exert control
>
> viewers are the product
>
> please check out the great video from Denver Open Media about how the
> model really works and how it can be changed
>
> http://www.denveropenmedia.org/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://wburg.tv
aim=janofsound
air=862.571.5334
skype=janmclaughlin


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

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

[Markus Sandy]

On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Frank Sinton wrote:

> > One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control  
> content.
>
> I have to disagree with that. Viewers "control" the content. Meaning,
> studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch, buy a
> movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is "the masses" controlling what
> gets produced by big media...


this is not how the TV biz model works

content is not the product here and viewers do exert control

viewers are the product

please check out the great video from Denver Open Media about how the  
model really works and how it can be changed

http://www.denveropenmedia.org/

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

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

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
> 
> Frank,
> 
> I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a  
> bit here.
> 
> There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with  
> the one shot nature of the movies.
> 
> They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales  
> models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the  
> movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations.  
> Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and  
> such, but it's still quite true.




> In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the  
> viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate  
> advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why  
> we have more and more commercials and less and less content.

I agree.  It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the
televison model.  The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards
video production.

The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get.  You
get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint
in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go
for vacation.  You can't serve an "advertisement channel", because
nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people
to sit there and watch your advertisements.

The content is made by a production team.  The production team gets
its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on.  To sell
a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also
to run by focus groups.  You play your pilot for viewers, but, again,
they don't give the production team any money towards the creation of
their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid
attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens with
the show.

So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the funds for
the show.  Plus they have to pay for their real estate, electricity,
lights, equipment, staff Where does this money come from? 
Advertisers.  While you're pitching shows to stations, they're
"pitching" advertising time to advertisers based on the demographic
that they feel are going to tune in to your show.  Of course, there
are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production
teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep the
lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money affecting
decision-making around shows.

Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO
monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is nowhere
you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to see. 
Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on.  All of a
sudden, marketing teams start "selling you" the show.  You see stuff
on the internet.  They use commercial space on popular shows to
publicize the upcoming shows.  The buzz is created BY the marketing
teams because THEY'RE the ones that know a show is coming on.  Even if
the buzz appears to come from the viewers, it was created by marketers.

So, like Jan and Ron are saying, the viewer is the huntED, not the
huntER.  While it's true that a mass exodus by viewers can make a show
go down the tubes, that's because the station won't be able to sell
advertising space on that show for more $$,$$$ than some other show,
and it would be bad business to leave it running.

The viewers pay for cable subscriptions, for instance, which is spread
out amongst ALL the channels they get and ALL the shows on all those
channels.  Advertisers pay SPECIFICALLY to advertise on a certain
channel or a certain block of shows or a certain show.  The cable
company gets the viewers' money REGARDLESS of whether they watch a
particular show, so they can't be the ones who "get what they want" in
this scenario.

The goal for the advertisers is to get their money back by having the
viewers remember their products and/or services and buy them.  So, as
far as shows, the advertisers pay to have customers (the viewers) in a
particular demographic delivered to them.  The viewers pay
subscription fees, which cover ALL of their television entertainment.
 Even if you pay for HBO, for instance, you get The Sopranos and Oz
and everything else on that network.  There is no sole subscription to
"The Sopranos", so it's not possible that the viewers have ANY say
whatsoever in how it's made, except for not showing up.

The viewers aren't the Romans in the stands, making decisions. 
They're the victims in the pit.  Run out of victims, and there's no show.

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com


> In the movies, the movie is the product being sold, and the viewers  
> are, to a large degree the customers.
> 
> The movies are not based on the repetitive 'subscriber' based model,  
> which means a movie 

[videoblogging] Re: Interactive Video

[Rupert Howe]

Brilliant.

This was one of the things I'd intended to do last year, but ran out
of time.  

It's top of my list for 2008.

What you're doing sounds like just the kind of narrative options I was
scripting.

I've been reading an Advanced Flash & Actionscript book over Christmas
specifically to do cool hypervideo stuff.

It's pretty Javascripty.  Not too hard to learn the basics of, but
there are many many many options, parameters and things you can do
with it.

You're right - there aren't many easy free hypervideo generation
tools.  I had a dream of building a tool ourselves.

But then I saw Steve Garfield flagged up a site called Asterpix.com
back in September.

It's pretty good.  You can choose different markers for your hotspots
- surrounded by a box, marked with an asterisk, or totally hidden (my
preferred option - let the user explore and discover cool stuff).

This is what I'm hoping to find the time to use this month to make a
little interactive narrative, videoblog-style but fictional.

Last year, I started out in Quicktime, creating interactive files with
hotspots in the 'Sprite track' using Adobe GoLive, part of the CS
suite.  But it's clunky. And CS3 is expensive.

I'm sort of shocked and depressed that it's not something Apple
enables in either iMovie or Final Cut - since the Sprite track is
something they built into Quicktime, you'd think their apps would make
use of it.  But no.

Because of the price and complexity of the QT hypervideo apps, I'd
reached the conclusion that Flash buttons and overlays were the way to
go with it.  

Except that the SWF movie files can't be downloaded & played or
podcast like QT files.  So they're web only.

QT files can be podcast and then played in things like iTunes with
full linking functionality intact.

Anyway, perhaps we can take more in-depth discussion of this to
another forum?

Psyched that you're doing this already.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm working on an interactive narrative video project that I'm putting
> together in Flash. The idea is that as each video plays (there are 6)
> links become available at specific points. The viewer is free to watch
> all the videos back to back and then follow links, click on links as
> they appear (automatically pausing the video) and to go back and
> re-watch videos. It's not groundbreaking in terms of functionality
> and, like I suspected, it's pretty hard to do which is probably why we
> don't see many people doing it.
> 
> Others on this list like Adrian Miles have used LiveStagePro (which I
> don't think is around anymore?) to do similar things in QuickTime.
> I've also seen Josh Paul do some crazy stuff in QuickTime too. So I
> wanted to start a thread listing examples of interactive projects out
> there and the tools used to create them along with their relative
> merits.
> 
> I'll have stuff to show and more to offer after I get this project
> done (due Monday evening). Right now I can say this: I learned a
> little Flash action scripting back in 2001 - 2003 (before video in
> Flash) and haven't used it since. Much of that is coming in handy now
> but overall I'm finding it a lot harder to pick up than HTML and CSS.
> The good news is that it looks like you can do some pretty cool stuff
> - cooler than what I'm doing on this project.
> 
> Thanks,
> Verdi
> 
> -- 
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://freevlog.org
> http://nscape.tv
>

Re: [videoblogging] Interactive Video

[Sull]

I look forward to checking this out, Michael.


On Dec 28, 2007 10:15 AM, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   I'm working on an interactive narrative video project that I'm putting
> together in Flash. The idea is that as each video plays (there are 6)
> links become available at specific points. The viewer is free to watch
> all the videos back to back and then follow links, click on links as
> they appear (automatically pausing the video) and to go back and
> re-watch videos. It's not groundbreaking in terms of functionality
> and, like I suspected, it's pretty hard to do which is probably why we
> don't see many people doing it.
>
> Others on this list like Adrian Miles have used LiveStagePro (which I
> don't think is around anymore?) to do similar things in QuickTime.
> I've also seen Josh Paul do some crazy stuff in QuickTime too. So I
> wanted to start a thread listing examples of interactive projects out
> there and the tools used to create them along with their relative
> merits.
>
> I'll have stuff to show and more to offer after I get this project
> done (due Monday evening). Right now I can say this: I learned a
> little Flash action scripting back in 2001 - 2003 (before video in
> Flash) and haven't used it since. Much of that is coming in handy now
> but overall I'm finding it a lot harder to pick up than HTML and CSS.
> The good news is that it looks like you can do some pretty cool stuff
> - cooler than what I'm doing on this project.
>
> Thanks,
> Verdi
>
> --
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://freevlog.org
> http://nscape.tv
>  
>


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

[videoblogging] Bits on the Run

[Sull]

of interest...

http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=Bits_on_the_Run

sull


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

[videoblogging] Re: Interactive Video

[bordercollieaustralianshepherd]

That sounds really cool. Looking forward to seeing what you have.

I have in the past worked on some interactive projects done for
training (medical, mechanical, corporate, military). These were once
distributed on 12 laser discs. Now on DVD and online (though I have
not worked on any of these) the stuff is more like a video game than
the old click here.


Immersive is where I think the next big frontier is ... yuck yuck yuck
...seriously though, there is a lot of info online and I have seen a
lot of interactive Flash sites (Neon Bible
 was mentioned here
recently) that are just scratching the potential.

This may seem to be a comment on the behavior of those here ...
http://www.effekt-etage.de/2007/
Merry Christmas

Oh and Andrew ... you may not have seen my email to you (spam filter
maybe) ... The studios will not disappear.

http://www.adobe.com/flashon/

Dave

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm working on an interactive narrative video project that I'm putting
> together in Flash. The idea is that as each video plays (there are 6)
> links become available at specific points. The viewer is free to watch
> all the videos back to back and then follow links, click on links as
> they appear (automatically pausing the video) and to go back and
> re-watch videos. It's not groundbreaking in terms of functionality
> and, like I suspected, it's pretty hard to do which is probably why we
> don't see many people doing it.
> 
> Others on this list like Adrian Miles have used LiveStagePro (which I
> don't think is around anymore?) to do similar things in QuickTime.
> I've also seen Josh Paul do some crazy stuff in QuickTime too. So I
> wanted to start a thread listing examples of interactive projects out
> there and the tools used to create them along with their relative
> merits.
> 
> I'll have stuff to show and more to offer after I get this project
> done (due Monday evening). Right now I can say this: I learned a
> little Flash action scripting back in 2001 - 2003 (before video in
> Flash) and haven't used it since. Much of that is coming in handy now
> but overall I'm finding it a lot harder to pick up than HTML and CSS.
> The good news is that it looks like you can do some pretty cool stuff
> - cooler than what I'm doing on this project.
> 
> Thanks,
> Verdi
> 
> -- 
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://freevlog.org
> http://nscape.tv
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Interactive Video

[Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen]

Den 28.12.2007 kl. 10:42 skrev Rupert Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Because of the price and complexity of the QT hypervideo apps, I'd
> reached the conclusion that Flash buttons and overlays were the way to
> go with it.

eZediaQTI is only $50 and straight-forward to use:  
http://www.ezedia.com/products/eZediaQTI/

- Andreas

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

[videoblogging] Re: Interactive Video

[bordercollieaustralianshepherd]

wow these guys are doing a lot with interactive
http://www.effekt-etage.de/


This demo is for National Geographic "Biblica"
http://www.effekt-etage.de/s4642.html


Looks cool ... many more to view. All in German that I watched.

[videoblogging] Re: Interactive Video

[Steve Garfield]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm working on an interactive narrative video project that I'm putting
> together in Flash. The idea is that as each video plays (there are 6)
> links become available at specific points. The viewer is free to watch
> all the videos back to back and then follow links, click on links as
> they appear (automatically pausing the video) and to go back and
> re-watch videos. It's not groundbreaking in terms of functionality
> and, like I suspected, it's pretty hard to do which is probably why we
> don't see many people doing it.

Hey Michael,
Look forward to seeing it.

My friend Ravi Jain did a web sitcom in 2002 with QuickTime.

http://ravijain.org/threeabreast.html

Watch 'Bigger Night' using the comedy extender...

--Steve

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

[Ron Watson]

> Ads are less effective these for lots of reasons I'll not get into  
> here. The
> result is television has resorted to Big Messages in their  
> programming. It's
> those 'messages' I noticed as I spent the last six months viewing  
> all the
> networks' top shows online or on DVD. The messages are totally and
> unabashedly about the virtues of consumerism, respite from fear, the
> goodness and efficacy of the medical, legal, military, and police  
> systems,
> etc. etc.
>
> Advertisers *do control content. Producers know if they put  
> something out
> there that offends consumers or discredits consumerism, advertisers  
> and
> their dollars will evaporate. Producers daren't risk it. Cart and  
> horse,
> horse and cart - it's a constant dlalog between producers and  
> advertisers.
>

> Dammit! Formatting problems again... Can't cut without jumping  
> margins

I've really been freaked out by the nature of recent villains on TV.

They are decidedly anti-corporate and anti-consumer.

Those that are anti-corporate are portrayed as 'crazies' - homeless  
wrecks railing at the good and wholesome machine.

It's sick.

And holy cow, I watched some cable TV recently and was just shocked  
by the nature of entertainment, but worse than the entertainment is  
the messaging in commercials, which is about 1/4 of the viewing total.

It's scary, scary stuff when you're not bombarded by it daily.

Then there's the Screw and/or Rat Out Your Neighbor 'reality' shows.

People are becoming classically conditioned. And then the operant  
conditioning takes place at the water cooler and in the 'pull' media  
people access online. It perpetuates that state of being.

It's totally like how we train dogs. The above sequence is exactly  
how we counter dog on dog aggression. Dose them with classical  
conditioning and then let them perpetuate the good feeling with  
operant decision making. Blam, behavior solved! It works the other  
way too.

As a matter of fact, I believe that our method of dog training is  
almost exactly like American Capitalism.

"You can have anything you want as long as it's this or that."

"No really, you like doing this, see, I'll prove it to you. Give me  
this and I'll give you a cookie. See, you like that."

"You don't want to do that, here's a cookie."

"You like solar power? Here try this shitty product... See it doesn't  
even work... Maybe we'll be able to get it right in the FUTURE, but  
right now it's garbage."

Keep them away from the problematic stimuli, make it a no brainer  
decision to stick with our protocol, and we wind up in total control.

Pretty soon we don't even need to ask for things because the behavior  
has become default. It's simply what the dog does.

Check out these vids. They're a little creepy, even more so when you  
realize that this kind of science has been levied at People to  
stimulate consumption and to control behavior. Poor BF Skinner. He's  
like the Oppenheimer of the mind.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=I_ctJqjlrHA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mm5FGrQEyBY

This is what they've been studying.

Read some Walter Lippman, and that was before TV.

And I have not even gotten into NLP. Neuro-Linguistic Programming. I  
think my head would explode if I really looked into that.

There is a science on controlling people with media and it's highly,  
highly evolved.

and here's a bonus short on a political note:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8

Sorry, I'm kind of going off here...

I'm not supposed to do that anymore...

Poor Scoble... name attached to this drivel...

Cheers Robert!
Ron.


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

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

[Ron Watson]

Spot on indeed...

My very first Recommended diary at Daily Kos back in '04.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/12/44450/883

> While many people are under the impression that the customers of  
> the media are the end users (viewers, readers, and listeners) that  
> impression is incorrect.  The customers of the media are the  
> corporate advertisers.  The end users are the product being sold.   
> Did you get that?  We are the product.

Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Jan McLaughlin wrote:

> Watching. Brilliantly on point.
>
> More later.
>
> XO,
> Jan
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 10:17 AM, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Frank Sinton wrote:
> >
> > > > One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control
> > > content.
> > >
> > > I have to disagree with that. Viewers "control" the content.  
> Meaning,
> > > studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch,  
> buy a
> > > movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is "the masses"  
> controlling what
> > > gets produced by big media...
> >
> >
> > this is not how the TV biz model works
> >
> > content is not the product here and viewers do exert control
> >
> > viewers are the product
> >
> > please check out the great video from Denver Open Media about how  
> the
> > model really works and how it can be changed
> >
> > http://www.denveropenmedia.org/
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> http://wburg.tv
> aim=janofsound
> air=862.571.5334
> skype=janmclaughlin
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 



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

RE: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Jake Ludington]

> I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot.

It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article
and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases,
attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut
down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable
scientific proof in hand.

Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything
else.

Jake Ludington

http://www.jakeludington.com

 

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

[Jake Ludington]

> Why advertising is a dangerous way to go if you're interested in true
> things.

Somehow I've managed to sleep well at night getting paid by advertisers for
6 years. Then again, I'm largely trying to help people be less frustrated
with their computers, not change the world.

 
> One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content.

There is a big difference between advertisers controlling content and
advertisers abandoning a sinking ship (which is what I was talking about),
although there could be parallels. Controlling content might mean having a
show about training puppies that gets Purina to sponsor and then suddenly
switching your show to being the puppy snuff film of the week. Likely Purina
would pull the financial plug on sponsoring the abuse of animals, and the
show switching from training animals to killing them would be a good sign
that it's also a sinking ship. 

Jake Ludington

http://www.jakeludington.com
 

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

[Jake Ludington]

> There are powerful interests that are trying to get, control and
> crush nearly each and every person in this community, and the thing
> that we're all gathered around, distributed media. But it's not real
> live little people like Scoble, or Jay, it's giant fake people like
> AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, WB, NBC, etc.

Those companies don't care about crushing anyone in this community. They
care about increasing shareholder value. When any little indie publisher
gets big enough to be noticed they bust out their wallets and offer up a big
fat check. If you don't get big enough to get noticed, they will simply keep
on ignoring you.

And in some cases, the very companies you complain about will give you free
publicity by promoting your stuff with no strings attached.


Jake Ludington

http://www.jakeludington.com

 

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

[Ron Watson]

They care about crushing distributed media, just as power companies  
care about crushing distributed power.

We are here because we believe in distributed media.

We're not targets at a personal level. We're targets at a conceptual  
level. And the corporate media is coming after the concept of  
distributed media.

If I had to guess, I'd say their going have their way with net  
neutrality, flood the tubes with content then price us out of the  
game. That way they get us to put our money into their wallets and we  
just go away.

Cheers,

Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Dec 28, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Jake Ludington wrote:

> > There are powerful interests that are trying to get, control and
> > crush nearly each and every person in this community, and the thing
> > that we're all gathered around, distributed media. But it's not real
> > live little people like Scoble, or Jay, it's giant fake people like
> > AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, WB, NBC, etc.
>
> Those companies don't care about crushing anyone in this community.  
> They
> care about increasing shareholder value. When any little indie  
> publisher
> gets big enough to be noticed they bust out their wallets and offer  
> up a big
> fat check. If you don't get big enough to get noticed, they will  
> simply keep
> on ignoring you.
>
> And in some cases, the very companies you complain about will give  
> you free
> publicity by promoting your stuff with no strings attached.
>
> Jake Ludington
>
> http://www.jakeludington.com
>
>
> 



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

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

[Frank Sinton]

Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz:

1) Ratings are king.
2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers.

Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is
going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding
what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of
the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to
watch that influences these decisions.)

The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with
audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if
they think there will be an audience or not.

Regards,
-Frank

http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
> > 
> > Frank,
> > 
> > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate
media a  
> > bit here.
> > 
> > There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with  
> > the one shot nature of the movies.
> > 
> > They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales  
> > models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the  
> > movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by
corporations.  
> > Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement
and  
> > such, but it's still quite true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that
the  
> > viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate  
> > advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's
why  
> > we have more and more commercials and less and less content.
> 
> I agree.  It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the
> televison model.  The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards
> video production.
> 
> The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get.  You
> get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint
> in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go
> for vacation.  You can't serve an "advertisement channel", because
> nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people
> to sit there and watch your advertisements.
> 
> The content is made by a production team.  The production team gets
> its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on.  To sell
> a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also
> to run by focus groups.  You play your pilot for viewers, but, again,
> they don't give the production team any money towards the creation of
> their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid
> attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens with
> the show.
> 
> So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the funds for
> the show.  Plus they have to pay for their real estate, electricity,
> lights, equipment, staff Where does this money come from? 
> Advertisers.  While you're pitching shows to stations, they're
> "pitching" advertising time to advertisers based on the demographic
> that they feel are going to tune in to your show.  Of course, there
> are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production
> teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep the
> lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money affecting
> decision-making around shows.
> 
> Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO
> monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is nowhere
> you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to see. 
> Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on.  All of a
> sudden, marketing teams start "selling you" the show.  You see stuff
> on the internet.  They use commercial space on popular shows to
> publicize the upcoming shows.  The buzz is created BY the marketing
> teams because THEY'RE the ones that know a show is coming on.  Even if
> the buzz appears to come from the viewers, it was created by marketers.
> 
> So, like Jan and Ron are saying, the viewer is the huntED, not the
> huntER.  While it's true that a mass exodus by viewers can make a show
> go down the tubes, that's because the station won't be able to sell
> advertising space on that show for more $$,$$$ than some other show,
> and it would be bad business to leave it running.
> 
> The viewers pay for cable subscriptions, for instance, which is spread
> out amongst ALL the channels they get and ALL the shows on all those
> channels.  Advertisers pay SPECIFICALLY to advertise on a certain
> channel or a certain block of shows or a certain show.  The cable
> company gets the viewers' money REGARDLESS of whether they watch a
> pa

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Interactive Video

[Michael Verdi]

Hey Steve - that's cool example. Looks like he used QuickTime's HREF
track to target the frame on the right. That's something that can be
done with QuickTime pro and a text editor - nice.

- Verdi

On Dec 28, 2007 10:25 AM, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>  >
>  > I'm working on an interactive narrative video project that I'm putting
>  > together in Flash. The idea is that as each video plays (there are 6)
>  > links become available at specific points. The viewer is free to watch
>  > all the videos back to back and then follow links, click on links as
>  > they appear (automatically pausing the video) and to go back and
>  > re-watch videos. It's not groundbreaking in terms of functionality
>  > and, like I suspected, it's pretty hard to do which is probably why we
>  > don't see many people doing it.
>
>  Hey Michael,
>  Look forward to seeing it.
>
>  My friend Ravi Jain did a web sitcom in 2002 with QuickTime.
>
>  http://ravijain.org/threeabreast.html
>
>  Watch 'Bigger Night' using the comedy extender...
>
>  --Steve
>
>
>
>  



-- 
http://michaelverdi.com
http://freevlog.org
http://nscape.tv

[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Carl Weaver]

Matt - I think you missed the point here.

You are right that PodTech makes business decisions based on some  
outcome, like profit. It makes perfect sense. The thing is, regardless  
of that, PodTech created opportunities that were not there before. The  
fact that neither of us inserted ourselves into those opportunities is  
ireelevant.

What they did is they got more people looking at videoblogs. As  
content creators, that's important to all of us. My pockets were not  
lined with silver because of them but because of what PodTech did,  
videoblogging is a much more accepted form of media. Did they fail? I  
would say no. Perhaps they just have not succeeded at what they were  
intending to do.

You are right - it wasn't a charity and should not be treated as such.  
However, they were a business that helped all of us somehow, even if  
we can't put our finger on exactly where or how. They grew the space  
we exist in and made it more mainstream and accessible on both ends -  
for the creators and the viewers.

Blazing trails isn't easy work.

I took some shots at PodTech for the Lan Bui photo fiasco  
(http://camerasamurai.com/?p=17) but that's not an indication that I  
think they were a terrible company. Sometimes you have to speak up to  
have your voice heard and hold people accountable.

Anyway, a good New Year's to you all.

Cheers,
Carl

Carl Weaver
Photographer
http://www.carlweaver.com
http://www.camerasamurai.com - Photography education, news, tips and more
http://dcmetrostories.com - DC Metro Stories: Stories about the people, places
and events in the DC Metro area
http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand


Quoting MATTFELDMAN78:
>  I normally just lurk here, but this one really got me.
>
>> One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more
> than a
>> million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts,
> we
> hired
>> dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including
> people
>> who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of
> people
> here
>> paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech
> was
> born.
>
> PodTech was a BUSINESS, not a charity.  Whatever money was paid to
> anyone on this list was a BUSINESS decision.  PodTech saw value in
> the
> work and thought they could profit from it.  Apparently they were
> mistaken---but don't classify that as some sort of charity.  They saw
> an
> opportunity to profit, but they failed.  PERIOD.

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Patrick Delongchamp]

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

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

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

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

...etc

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

Re: [videoblogging] Bits on the Run

[Jay dedman]

> of interest...
>  http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=Bits_on_the_Run

so is this like a front end to S3?
i'll be able to have my own blip to host/manage my videos?

Jay




-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Patrick Delongchamp]

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

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

[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Steve Watkins]

Balls, people are always going to respond only to pointson which they have 
comment to 
make, I dont think that devalues anything.

The group has been on fine form since this discussion began, I do not recognise 
descriptions of its recent dramatic decline as being accurate. It may have 
declined from its 
peak, but the decline has either been very slow, or occured years ago, I would 
escribe its 
current status as stable but limited.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> And just to bring things back to the topic at hand.  This is exactly
> the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group
> down.  Where was the comment on everything else I brought up?  This
> kind of stuff only starts flame wars.
> 
> On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot.
> >
> >  It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one
> > article
> >  and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases,
> >  attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut
> >  down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with
> > irrefutable
> >  scientific proof in hand.
> >
> >  Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything
> >  else.
> >
> >
> >  Jake Ludington
> >
> >  http://www.jakeludington.com
> >
> >
>

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

[Patrick Delongchamp]

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

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

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

[videoblogging] Re: Interactive Video

[Rupert Howe]

Thank you!  I missed this one.  I'll check it out.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Den 28.12.2007 kl. 10:42 skrev Rupert Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Because of the price and complexity of the QT hypervideo apps, I'd
> > reached the conclusion that Flash buttons and overlays were the way to
> > go with it.
> 
> eZediaQTI is only $50 and straight-forward to use:  
> http://www.ezedia.com/products/eZediaQTI/
> 
> - Andreas
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/
>

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

[Brook Hinton]

Yup. If anything the group's vitality temperature shot out of the
thermometer during the past week or so.

Unless you measure a group's health primarily by a LACK of diversity
and conflict.



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

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

[Brook Hinton]

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

WHAT good tv?

(sorry, couldn't resist. and ok there is a LITTLE bit of it but...)

This might hold water if there was a whole lot of good tv out there
with which to test the theory, but the economic model doesn't support
the creation of it, for reasons better outlined here already by
others.

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

[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Heath]

Oh, give me a break, seriouslysomeone question's Wikipedia, which 
Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they 
are, in your opinion, wackos.give me a break

Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should have said "people that distrust the Wikipedia 
model."
>   Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an
> important part of anything you read online.  The threshold for
> inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much 
easier.
> Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken 
with
> a grain of salt.  The content should of course be scrutinized in the
> same way anything you read should be scrutinized.
> 
> Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been
> found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your
> distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's
> policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth.
> 
> Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what 
scientific
> journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of
> certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant
> viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original
> research and synthesis of published material.  This would 
necessarily
> lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it
> less trustworthy.
> 
> It's important to understand something before discrediting it.
> However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others 
that
> universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own.  They
> are:
> - creationists
> - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories
> - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution
> - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and 
movies
> like "What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole."
> 
> ...etc
> 
> On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it 
reveals a lot.
> >
> >  It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than 
one
> > article
> >  and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some 
cases,
> >  attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those 
accuracies is shut
> >  down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with
> > irrefutable
> >  scientific proof in hand.
> >
> >  Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting 
anything
> >  else.
> >
> >
> >  Jake Ludington
> >
> >  http://www.jakeludington.com
> >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[mattfeldman78]

First off--I wrote that a bit hastily and in not such a great mood
from the Holidaze--I did not mean it as an attack.

But I have to say, it did feel a bit disengenuous.  What really would
have helped this community is if their business had been sustainable
and successful.  The way Robert presented it felt like Podtech was a
charity and if that is true, then it is not good business.  In the
long run, Podtech's business failure will actually hurt this community
more than it ever helped IMHO.

The truth is that I don't believe it was that pure and idealistic.  I
think Scoble is a smart guy and they saw an opportunity to create a
business.  This is new territory and we're all struggling in one way
or another to carve out our piece of the pie, but I think its
important to be honest about our motivations.

I probably have a different perspective than alot of people on this
list, as I am a behind the scenes guy and not a videoblogger myself,
but from my point of view Podtech did nothing in terms of advancing
the business as I see it moving forward.  Shows that enjoy sustainable
success like Rocketboom and Epic Fu deserve much more credit as far as
I'm concerned.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Carl Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matt - I think you missed the point here.
> 
> You are right that PodTech makes business decisions based on some  
> outcome, like profit. It makes perfect sense. The thing is, regardless  
> of that, PodTech created opportunities that were not there before. The  
> fact that neither of us inserted ourselves into those opportunities is  
> ireelevant.
> 
> What they did is they got more people looking at videoblogs. As  
> content creators, that's important to all of us. My pockets were not  
> lined with silver because of them but because of what PodTech did,  
> videoblogging is a much more accepted form of media. Did they fail? I  
> would say no. Perhaps they just have not succeeded at what they were  
> intending to do.
> 
> You are right - it wasn't a charity and should not be treated as such.  
> However, they were a business that helped all of us somehow, even if  
> we can't put our finger on exactly where or how. They grew the space  
> we exist in and made it more mainstream and accessible on both ends -  
> for the creators and the viewers.
> 
> Blazing trails isn't easy work.
> 
> I took some shots at PodTech for the Lan Bui photo fiasco  
> (http://camerasamurai.com/?p=17) but that's not an indication that I  
> think they were a terrible company. Sometimes you have to speak up to  
> have your voice heard and hold people accountable.
> 
> Anyway, a good New Year's to you all.
> 
> Cheers,
> Carl
> 
> Carl Weaver
> Photographer
> http://www.carlweaver.com
> http://www.camerasamurai.com - Photography education, news, tips and
more
> http://dcmetrostories.com - DC Metro Stories: Stories about the
people, places
> and events in the DC Metro area
> http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand
> 
> 
> Quoting MATTFELDMAN78:
> >  I normally just lurk here, but this one really got me.
> >
> >> One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more
> > than a
> >> million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts,
> > we
> > hired
> >> dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including
> > people
> >> who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of
> > people
> > here
> >> paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech
> > was
> > born.
> >
> > PodTech was a BUSINESS, not a charity.  Whatever money was paid to
> > anyone on this list was a BUSINESS decision.  PodTech saw value in
> > the
> > work and thought they could profit from it.  Apparently they were
> > mistaken---but don't classify that as some sort of charity.  They saw
> > an
> > opportunity to profit, but they failed.  PERIOD.
>

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

[Sull]

good tv = shows that the vast crowd will settle on and lean back.
in other words, the good crap.

On Dec 28, 2007 2:39 PM, Brook Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   > People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on
> > the demographics they seek.
>
> WHAT good tv?
>
> (sorry, couldn't resist. and ok there is a LITTLE bit of it but...)
>
> This might hold water if there was a whole lot of good tv out there
> with which to test the theory, but the economic model doesn't support
> the creation of it, for reasons better outlined here already by
> others.
>
> ___
> Brook Hinton
> film/video/audio art
> www.brookhinton.com
> studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
>  
>


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

[videoblogging] Re: Bits on the Run

[mattfeldman78]

Wow-this is HUGE.  Could be a game changer in this community-will be
watching this very closely...

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> of interest...
> 
> http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=Bits_on_the_Run
> 
> sull
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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

[Steve Watkins]

Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of content risky to 
them, and so 
if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting effect. We 
now live in an 
era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the possibility to make 
stuff that is 
free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people see it. This 
has not thus far 
lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so advertising 
is far from the 
only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be considered to be 
asleep, 
and why there are not all that many people making compelling content to wake 
them up. 

I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a peak of free 
speech. The 
barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be, but its not 
much of a 
threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free ears and 
free minds to 
do anything with the free speech.

If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and will be 
crushed using 
all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up on 
consumption, so its 
easier to ignore than crush.

If people are having a nice dream, why would they want to be woken up? When the 
nightmare arrives, they will be desperately seeking a saviour to wake them. I 
dread to 
think what & who they will end up listening to, hopefully some people will be 
talking a lot 
of sense and wont get eliminated. Maybe the net will be a tool that sometimes 
helps 
humanity make the right decisions in a difficult era, maybe it will end up a 
mess of 
competing propaganda, time will tell.

Better Bad News seems to cover several of the themes at hand, including being a 
show 
that isnt 'safe', being political, being very worried about the future, and in 
the latest video 
mentioning Scoble, in relation to Obama and the S-1959  bill which is seen as a 
an anti-
thought crimes on the net thang! Anyway that particular bill is probably worthy 
of its own 
conversation.

http://www.betterbadnews.com/

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Sinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
> misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz:
> 
> 1) Ratings are king.
> 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers.
> 
> Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is
> going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
> advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding
> what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of
> the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to
> watch that influences these decisions.)
> 
> The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with
> audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if
> they think there will be an audience or not.
> 
> Regards,
> -Frank
> 
> http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
> > > 
> > > Frank,
> > > 
> > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate
> media a  
> > > bit here.
> > > 
> > > There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with  
> > > the one shot nature of the movies.
> > > 
> > > They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales  
> > > models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the  
> > > movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by
> corporations.  
> > > Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement
> and  
> > > such, but it's still quite true.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that
> the  
> > > viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate  
> > > advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's
> why  
> > > we have more and more commercials and less and less content.
> > 
> > I agree.  It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the
> > televison model.  The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards
> > video production.
> > 
> > The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get.  You
> > get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint
> > in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go
> > for vacation.  You can't serve an "advertisement channel", because
> > nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people
> > to sit there and watch your advertisements.
> > 
> > The content is made by a production team.  The production team gets
> > its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on.  To sell
> > a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and 

[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Heath]

Then I suggest you look in the mirror then, cause you have done your 
fair share of "nit picking".

heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And just to bring things back to the topic at hand.  This is exactly
> the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group
> down.  Where was the comment on everything else I brought up?  This
> kind of stuff only starts flame wars.
> 
> On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it 
reveals a lot.
> >
> >  It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than 
one
> > article
> >  and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some 
cases,
> >  attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those 
accuracies is shut
> >  down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with
> > irrefutable
> >  scientific proof in hand.
> >
> >  Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting 
anything
> >  else.
> >
> >
> >  Jake Ludington
> >
> >  http://www.jakeludington.com
> >
> >
>

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

[Jan McLaughlin]

Ease up, lads.

Keep it on point.

Jan

On Dec 28, 2007 2:44 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Then I suggest you look in the mirror then, cause you have done your
> fair share of "nit picking".
>
> heath
> http://batmangeek.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And just to bring things back to the topic at hand.  This is exactly
> > the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group
> > down.  Where was the comment on everything else I brought up?  This
> > kind of stuff only starts flame wars.
> >
> > On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it
> reveals a lot.
> > >
> > >  It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than
> one
> > > article
> > >  and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some
> cases,
> > >  attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those
> accuracies is shut
> > >  down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with
> > > irrefutable
> > >  scientific proof in hand.
> > >
> > >  Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting
> anything
> > >  else.
> > >
> > >
> > >  Jake Ludington
> > >
> > >  http://www.jakeludington.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://wburg.tv
aim=janofsound
air=862.571.5334
skype=janmclaughlin


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

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

[Sull]

i don't personally believe this nor do i think anyone could conjure up any
form of proof to back this up.
they are/were just a business entity trying to ride the wave of net
video like so many others.
they held this yahoo group up to exaggerative heights, or maybe that was
just scoble... but in doing so, they set themselves up for disappointment on
a business and money perspective.
now they know you cant buy love, as they say.  and thats what they were
trying to do by injecting money into certain people and events.

now they are sour at some so-called videoblogging community as represented
by this yahoo mailing list, or at least scoble is.

it's been so predictable.  podtech and other companies that attempt to buy
their way in to a "community" that in reality is neither here nor there.
contests, awards, content contracts, faux transparency and so on.  it's
largely a game where their are some winners, some losers and many observers.


On Dec 28, 2007 1:58 PM, Carl Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

but because of what PodTech did,
> videoblogging is a much more accepted form of media.


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

[videoblogging] Re: Bits on the Run

[Steve Watkins]

I think this site is using their hosting, a trial run of their stuff:

http://www.bright.tv/

Has potential, but unclear to me exactly why this could be a gamechanger, whats 
its 
advantage?

In many ways it will give you what you already get with the likes of blip, 
except you pay. It 
may have a couple of features that are better than blip and others, or vica 
versa, but I am 
just not quite understanding what the perceived 'killer feature' of it is, that 
makes people 
interested? Perhaps you will have a little more control over branding, and the 
terms & 
coniditions will not make you give away rights quite as much, or is there 
something else 
people are desiring from hosting and not getting right now?

Im not sure how their relaibility, scaleability & cost will compare to the 
likes of S3. But 
certainly those sorts of services are a very interesting development in the 
world of servers, 
bandwidth etc. I would guess it is quite likely that in coming years, things 
like S3 will all 
have sophisticated & useful video functionality as standard, and so there will 
be plenty 
more options for busy sites that may not want to partner with blip or others.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "mattfeldman78" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wow-this is HUGE.  Could be a game changer in this community-will be
> watching this very closely...
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull  wrote:
> >
> > of interest...
> > 
> > http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=Bits_on_the_Run
> > 
> > sull
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

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

[Markus Sandy]

On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:

> I have to agree with Frank here. I don't believe sitcom writers sit
> down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters
> strudel. I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic
> shows, etc. (keyword: try)
>





perhaps, but it seems very possible that they discuss writing for a  
specific demographic that meets the approval, er appeals to, certain  
advertisers

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

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

[Patrick Delongchamp]

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

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

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

Additionally, straw man arguments should be avoided...


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

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

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Sinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
> misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz:
> 
> 1) Ratings are king.
> 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to
advertisers.

Agreed.  Definitely.

> Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is
> going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
> advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding
> what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of
> the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to
> watch that influences these decisions.)

Yes... and No. :D

Viewers absolutely decide with their remote controls what to watch. 
If they disappear, meaning the numbers drop off for a show that was
doing well, that show will very likely disappear as well.

My point is that the viewers have control over the DESTINY of a show,
but not the MAKING or GREEN-LIGHTING of the show.

Content creation for television is a shot in the dark.  This is why
the stars get paid 20 million dollars to be in movies... Because if
you release the exact same dumb-ass movie WITHOUT Samuel L. Jackson or
John Travolta or Tom Cruise, NOBODY will come to see it and you won't
get your money back OR make a profit, which is the whole point of
investing in films in the first place.

Television shows start with pitches.  The viewers have NOTHING to do
with that process.  Yes, once a show is slated and they start
publicizing it, the viewers can collectively agree NOT to watch it,
and the show will be doomed.  However, before that happens, you show
your pilot to what you consider to be your demographic and you ask the
focus group for feedback.  If these average joes don't like your show
and tell you why, you might have to go back to the drawing board.

That's NOT because the viewers have *power*, but like I said before...
if you don't have victims, nobody's coming to the Colosseum.  The
Romans in the stands are the advertisers, who pay money for
advertising space on the shows.

Commercials work the same way.  You do your animatics or photomatics
and then you show them to a focus group BEFORE you film an actual
commercial.  Regardless of which one was the prettiest or most complex
or whomever's pet project, the commercial that's going to get made is
the one that made the average joes REMEMBER the name of the product as
well as WHY they NEEDED that product. :)  The viewers have ZERO say in
commercial production.  That's what ad execs and art directors are for. :D

So I don't disagree with what you're saying.  We're talking about two
different phases of the process... A) Making it happen and B) Keeping
the show on the air.

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com



> The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with
> audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if
> they think there will be an audience or not.
> 
> Regards,
> -Frank
> 
> http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
> > > 
> > > Frank,
> > > 
> > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate
> media a  
> > > bit here.
> > > 
> > > There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market
with  
> > > the one shot nature of the movies.
> > > 
> > > They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales  
> > > models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the  
> > > movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by
> corporations.  
> > > Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement
> and  
> > > such, but it's still quite true.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that
> the  
> > > viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate  
> > > advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's
> why  
> > > we have more and more commercials and less and less content.
> > 
> > I agree.  It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the
> > televison model.  The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards
> > video production.
> > 
> > The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get.  You
> > get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint
> > in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go
> > for vacation.  You can't serve an "advertisement channel", because
> > nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people
> > to sit there and watch your advertisements.
> > 
> > The content is made by a production team.  The production team gets
> > its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on.  To sell
> > a show, you 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Bits on the Run

[Brook Hinton]

It looks like old school server streaming. Bleh. Am I missing something?


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

[videoblogging] Re: Bits on the Run

[Steve Watkins]

Im not sure if it is oldschool streaming, or a sort of pseudo-streaming using 
httpd server.

But on these wider subjects 2 things spring to mind as relevant streaming news 
over the 
last year, not sure if they got mentioned here much before:

1. Adobe vastly reduced the price of its media server software, and it will 
also support 
h264.

2. On the iphone/ipod touch, if the web server is configured properly, you can 
jump to 
any point in a movie even if that part hasnt been downloaded yet.

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It looks like old school server streaming. Bleh. Am I missing something?
> 
> 
> ___
> Brook Hinton
> film/video/audio art
> www.brookhinton.com
> studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
>

[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Heath]

What was the point again?  Oh, yeah...Gena sending a message to 
Robert Scoble.kinda funny if you think about it...

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ease up, lads.
> 
> Keep it on point.
> 
> Jan
> 
> On Dec 28, 2007 2:44 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Then I suggest you look in the mirror then, cause you have done 
your
> > fair share of "nit picking".
> >
> > heath
> > http://batmangeek.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > And just to bring things back to the topic at hand.  This is 
exactly
> > > the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the 
group
> > > down.  Where was the comment on everything else I brought up?  
This
> > > kind of stuff only starts flame wars.
> > >
> > > On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it
> > reveals a lot.
> > > >
> > > >  It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more 
than
> > one
> > > > article
> > > >  and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some
> > cases,
> > > >  attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those
> > accuracies is shut
> > > >  down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even 
with
> > > > irrefutable
> > > >  scientific proof in hand.
> > > >
> > > >  Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly 
trusting
> > anything
> > > >  else.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Jake Ludington
> > > >
> > > >  http://www.jakeludington.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> http://wburg.tv
> aim=janofsound
> air=862.571.5334
> skype=janmclaughlin
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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

[Ron Watson]

Well this whole thread I've been wondering what the blowback is going  
to be on my free speech, Steve.

I'd like to solicit some sponsorship. I've been trying to do it for a  
long time. I would be an excellent spokesperson for somebody's  
product. I'm good with the media, I'm articulate and friendly, not  
too terribly bad looking.

I don't have problems speaking in favor of products that I believe  
in. I don't have a problem with others doing so.

I don't have problems with corporations.

I do however have a problem with corporations controlling society -  
writing laws, exploiting people, and creating problems for society  
without accountability or responsibility. Limited liability is good,  
leveraging power and freedom to dominate is bad.

I speak out online pretty strongly about these things, but I don't  
speak out about them in public in my backyard the way I should. The  
reason is that I'm afraid of the repercussions on my business at home.

We might have a lot of free speech, but that speech can be very  
costly. People lose their jobs for what they do on their off time  
these days.  I could lose clients for speaking my mind.

We've got all this freedom, and yet are so trapped in our day to day,  
trying to get by, we can't afford to step out of line. It's a real  
juxtaposition. The Land of the Free, but we can't do that. It might  
hurt us.

I think that the vast majority of people on this planet are in a  
precarious situation. It's one of the things driving our economy.  
Listen to Alan Greenspan, he'll tell you. Of course it'll be couched  
in language like 'Flexible Labor markets' and 'Churning' instead of  
'Fearing the loss of your job' and being 'unable to support your  
family', but it's right there, and it's lauded as if it's an asset.  
It's crazy, but it's real.

People that are in a precarious situation are easy to exploit. They  
shut up, keep their heads down and take care of themselves and their  
family. It's a real bummer, man. It's great way to make cheap labor,  
a cowed and apathetic citizenry and to assume control without having  
to fight.

That's my problem, I guess. I don't like to see people exploited and  
I don't want to be exploited myself. I want to be able to stand up  
for my community and help protect my family, neighbors and friends  
and I'd like them to do the same for me. I want to be in control of  
my life and have a decent opportunity for a happy and healthy future,  
but I don't see those things happening for many people given the kind  
of corporate sponsored public policy that we've been existing under  
for the last couple of decades. Much of this problem can be laid  
directly at the corporate media's feet.

I don't see many people taking on the establishment. I see a lot of  
excuses, apathy and rationalization that is packaged as 'realism'  
that does nothing but exacerbate the problem. It's hard to risk  
speaking freely when nobody has your back.

Yea, we have historic levels of free speech, and unlike before, we  
actually have the right to be heard, given this internet thing, but  
we also have a system that demands conformity and is extremely  
unstable for most of us.

If I had more BALLS. I'd be talking about this on camera. Everybody  
here knows I have the opportunity to do so these days, but I'm too  
scared to do it.

One of the reasons that I talk about this here is because I think  
there is power in this group. There is power and understanding. I  
believe there are people here who will watch your back and have the  
capability to do it.

blah, blah blah... I could go on all day...

Cheers,

Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:

> Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of  
> content risky to them, and so
> if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting  
> effect. We now live in an
> era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the  
> possibility to make stuff that is
> free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people  
> see it. This has not thus far
> lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so  
> advertising is far from the
> only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be  
> considered to be asleep,
> and why there are not all that many people making compelling  
> content to wake them up.
>
> I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a  
> peak of free speech. The
> barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be,  
> but its not much of a
> threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free  
> ears and free minds to
> do anything with the free speech.
>
> If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and  
> will be crushed using
> all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up  
> on consumption, so its
> easie

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

[Patrick Delongchamp]

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

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

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

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

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



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

RE: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Jake Ludington]

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

I was validating your point by not commenting on things I agree with. ;)

I have no interest in starting a flame war.

Jake Ludington
 

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

[Jake Ludington]

> They care about crushing distributed media, just as power companies
> care about crushing distributed power.

> We are here because we believe in distributed media.

Please do not use the universal 'We' to sum up everyone on the list. I'm
here to get help with videoblogging and help others. My beliefs have nothing
to do with my participation/lurking on the list.  

> We're not targets at a personal level. We're targets at a conceptual
> level. And the corporate media is coming after the concept of
> distributed media.

I get contacted regularly by people in mainstream media companies who want
my involvement in projects because of my background in independent online
publishing. They aren't trying to target anything conceptual that I'm doing;
they want to understand it. Corporate media is trying to figure out how to
embrace what the little guy is doing in a way that maintains their relevance
while not eroding shareholder value in the process.

> If I had to guess, I'd say their going have their way with net
> neutrality, flood the tubes with content then price us out of the
> game. That way they get us to put our money into their wallets and we
> just go away.

That must be why NYTimes.com decided to offer their product for free - to
flood the tubes and make us go away; not because they realized they could
make more money doing things the way indie publishers were already having
success.

Jake Ludington

http://www.jakeludington.com

 

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Patrick Delongchamp]

lol, well said.

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

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

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Frank here.  I don't believe sitcom writers sit
> down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters
> strudel.  

That's true.  Nobody said that they do. :)  Your statement assumes
direct contact between the production company and the advertisers. 
You're cutting out the middleman, the network.

The network pays the production company to make the show.  The
advertiser pays the network to advertise ON that show (or on a
particular channel or whatever).  The production team wouldn't be
interested in writing for advertisers because A) they get their money
straight from the network that picked up the show, and B) you'll
notice that there are often SEVERAL advertisers on a particular show,
AND they might switch advertisers to boot.

To give an internet example... Ze Frank's last week of "The Show" was
sponsored by scotch-maker Dewar's
http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ When he started his
show, Ze Frank didn't know A) that his show was going to be
successful, B) that anyone would want to sponsor it or C) that it
would be Dewar's, so there's no reason that he would write his show
"to control his audience into buying Dewar's".

> I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic
> shows, etc. (keyword: try)  Shows that are likely to get good
> ratings/demographics get picked up.

Agreed.  Still, the demographic you choose is going to affect your
writing.  Since you know a lot of Americans were crying about Michael
Vick killing dogs, you're *NOT* going to write an episode about
killing dogs, BECAUSE you don't want to alienate your demographic. 
You're also not going to write an episode portraying Michael Vick as a
hero, for the same reason.

> I'd be interested in hearing a
> specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples
> showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content.

I'm not sure which theory you're referring to, but the way shows get
on the air is you come up with an idea, you pitch it to a production
team, get them to make a pilot (or pay for professional shooters,
producers and editors to do it out-of-pocket yourself), shop that
pilot to networks and hope they buy it instead of stealing your idea
and making it themselves. :)  There is *NO* part in the process where
average joes have any SAY over the creation OR picking up of shows. 
Their input is useful for focus groups, but that's it.  The viewers
are studied so you don't accidentally shop a pilot about killing dogs,
but other than that, the viewers don't have JACK to do with anything
except for tuning in or not after the fact.

The show sinks or swims with the viewers, for sure, but that's because
the viewers are the product that's being sold to the advertisers. 
It's like how you can't have a supermarket without food... that would
be just a useless building to someone that's hungry. :)

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com


> People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on
> the demographics they seek.
> 
> On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
> >  misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional
TV biz:
> >
> >  1) Ratings are king.
> >  2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to
advertisers.
> >
> >  Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the
audience is
> >  going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
> >  advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding
> >  what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of
> >  the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide
what to
> >  watch that influences these decisions.)
> >
> >  The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with
> >  audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if
> >  they think there will be an audience or not.
> >
> >  Regards,
> >  -Frank
> >
> >  http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
> >
> >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> >
> >
> >  wrote:
> >  >
> >  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
> >  > >
> >  > > Frank,
> >  > >
> >  > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate
> >  media a
> >  > > bit here.
> >  > >
> >  > > There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television
market with
> >  > > the one shot nature of the movies.
> >  > >
> >  > > They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales
> >  > > models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the
> >  > > movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by
> >  corporations.
> >  > > Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement
> >  and
> >  > > such

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

[Ron Watson]

I didn't respond because I found your tone to be dismissive and I  
found your argument to be extremely weak and didn't really think it  
merited a reply. Not trying to egg you on, just trying to be honest.

I've written far too much on this topic here, once again...

But come on...

Writers figuring out how to sell toasters?

Isn't that like Privates or Sergeants deciding what oil rich country  
to invade next year?

I thought the writers ideas were chosen specifically for their  
ability to sell toasters?

And I"d really like to get off the sitcom thing and talk about News,  
which is where the corporate media has not just failed miserably, but  
has committed heinous crimes. Their slavish devotion to the corporate  
agenda has all but killed this country.

We could talk about Fox and it's peddling of righteous indignation,  
creating the most tasteless television shows  and then furthering  
Rupey's global domination agenda by railing about it on their news  
properties. I believe they are classically conditioning people to  
hate self governance and democracy.

Or we could talk about the rampant militarization of the History  
Channel, the discovery channel and our heavily scripted Corporate  
Sponsored Sporting events.

We could talk about debasing and dehumanizing reality TV shows.

We could talk about CSI Albuquerque.

Sure it's the writers who make those decisions. Evil liberal media.

Don't blame the enlisted men for starting wars, it's the officers and  
civilian commanders that do that stuff.

When's the last time you saw a good love story?

When's the last time you saw a human interest show?

When's the last time you saw somebody feel good on TV?

It doesn't happen that often, and that's not because people don't  
like that. It's because it doesn't sell.

Cheers,

Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Dec 28, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:

> At this point, I'd like to thank Brooke and Steve for responding to  
> my comments.
>
> Steve, I hope you can appreciate the comments I made about how when
> people begin to agree, they stop contributing. If your posts feel
> ignored as you've often stated, please take into consideration. Even
> when you disagree with me, I still find your comments refreshing.
>
> I agree that people should comment where they feel they have something
> to say but I think that, in order to move a conversation forward, it's
> important to include concessions in responses. (e.g. the way i
> started off this paragraph) When members simply jump onto the first
> thing they disagree with, discussions tend to spiral down into
> bickering.
>
> Additionally, straw man arguments should be avoided...
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 2:41 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, give me a break, seriouslysomeone question's Wikipedia,  
> which
> > Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they
> > are, in your opinion, wackos.give me a break
> >
> > Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia
> >
> > Heath
> > http://batmangeek.com
> >
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Perhaps I should have said "people that distrust the Wikipedia
> > model."
> > > Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an
> > > important part of anything you read online. The threshold for
> > > inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much
> > easier.
> > > Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken
> > with
> > > a grain of salt. The content should of course be scrutinized in  
> the
> > > same way anything you read should be scrutinized.
> > >
> > > Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has  
> been
> > > found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your
> > > distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's
> > > policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth.
> > >
> > > Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what
> > scientific
> > > journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of
> > > certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant
> > > viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original
> > > research and synthesis of published material. This would
> > necessarily
> > > lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically,  
> make it
> > > less trustworthy.
> > >
> > > It's important to understand something before discrediting it.
> > > However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others
> > that
> > > universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own. They
> > > are:
> > > - creationists
> > > - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories
> > > - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution
> > > - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and
> > movie

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

[Patrick Delongchamp]

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

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

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

[Heath]

Great points Bill and on target as always.I could learn a lot 
from you, no doubt..

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  wrote:
> >
> > I have to agree with Frank here.  I don't believe sitcom writers 
sit
> > down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying 
toasters
> > strudel.  
> 
> That's true.  Nobody said that they do. :)  Your statement assumes
> direct contact between the production company and the advertisers. 
> You're cutting out the middleman, the network.
> 
> The network pays the production company to make the show.  The
> advertiser pays the network to advertise ON that show (or on a
> particular channel or whatever).  The production team wouldn't be
> interested in writing for advertisers because A) they get their 
money
> straight from the network that picked up the show, and B) you'll
> notice that there are often SEVERAL advertisers on a particular 
show,
> AND they might switch advertisers to boot.
> 
> To give an internet example... Ze Frank's last week of "The Show" 
was
> sponsored by scotch-maker Dewar's
> http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ When he started his
> show, Ze Frank didn't know A) that his show was going to be
> successful, B) that anyone would want to sponsor it or C) that it
> would be Dewar's, so there's no reason that he would write his show
> "to control his audience into buying Dewar's".
> 
> > I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic
> > shows, etc. (keyword: try)  Shows that are likely to get good
> > ratings/demographics get picked up.
> 
> Agreed.  Still, the demographic you choose is going to affect your
> writing.  Since you know a lot of Americans were crying about 
Michael
> Vick killing dogs, you're *NOT* going to write an episode about
> killing dogs, BECAUSE you don't want to alienate your demographic. 
> You're also not going to write an episode portraying Michael Vick 
as a
> hero, for the same reason.
> 
> > I'd be interested in hearing a
> > specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples
> > showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content.
> 
> I'm not sure which theory you're referring to, but the way shows get
> on the air is you come up with an idea, you pitch it to a production
> team, get them to make a pilot (or pay for professional shooters,
> producers and editors to do it out-of-pocket yourself), shop that
> pilot to networks and hope they buy it instead of stealing your idea
> and making it themselves. :)  There is *NO* part in the process 
where
> average joes have any SAY over the creation OR picking up of shows. 
> Their input is useful for focus groups, but that's it.  The viewers
> are studied so you don't accidentally shop a pilot about killing 
dogs,
> but other than that, the viewers don't have JACK to do with anything
> except for tuning in or not after the fact.
> 
> The show sinks or swims with the viewers, for sure, but that's 
because
> the viewers are the product that's being sold to the advertisers. 
> It's like how you can't have a supermarket without food... that 
would
> be just a useless building to someone that's hungry. :)
> 
> --
> Bill Cammack
> CammackMediaGroup.com
> 
> 
> > People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money 
on
> > the demographics they seek.
> > 
> > On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
> > >  misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the 
traditional
> TV biz:
> > >
> > >  1) Ratings are king.
> > >  2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to
> advertisers.
> > >
> > >  Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the
> audience is
> > >  going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
> > >  advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in 
deciding
> > >  what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the 
end of
> > >  the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide
> what to
> > >  watch that influences these decisions.)
> > >
> > >  The great part of new media is that you have direct contact 
with
> > >  audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to 
decide if
> > >  they think there will be an audience or not.
> > >
> > >  Regards,
> > >  -Frank
> > >
> > >  http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
> > >
> > >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 

> > >
> > >
> > >  wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  
wrote:
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the 
formatting
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Frank,
> > >  > >
> > >  > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the 
corporate
> > >  media a
> > >  > > bit here.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > There are the loyal viewers of the 

[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Heath]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> When's the last time you saw a human interest show?
> 
> When's the last time you saw somebody feel good on TV?
> 
> It doesn't happen that often, and that's not because people don't  
> like that. It's because it doesn't sell.
> 

NBC did "Clash of the Choirs" about a week or so ago.  It was fun, 
wholesome, it got ratings (at least to my knowledge it did) of couse 
the writers strike helped that, but it made me feel good and not just 
cause the Cincinnati team won  ;)

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

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

[Ron Watson]

Jake
You obviously care about distributed media.

You want to help people do that. So your beliefs have something to do  
with being on this list.

I, want help with media. That's why I'm on this list.

I think you are missing an important point. the Corporate Media would  
like to coopt this space to make it stream profit to them.

We are basically stealing their profit by giving people another  
outlet for their media consumption. How much has Youtube taken from  
their bottom line? TV is going down the toilet. People are networking  
socially, watching independent video online, and that's a problem for  
the corporate media.

Of course they're going to come to someone like you. You know the  
space. You will give them information to be more competent in this  
space. Just because they approach you doesn't mean they support you.

As far as the NYT goes, I don't see the logical connection there. Old  
Media is dying. We are killing them. They'll do what they have to do.

They already dropped their 'special' pay to play Op Ed stuff, didn't  
they? Why? Because it wasn't profitable. It didn't fit the space.

Streaming video allows them to sell ads. If nobody watches it, nobody  
gets paid. Give it up for free and you get more viewers.

Again, the viewers are the product being sold, not the customers.

Cheers,
Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Dec 28, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Jake Ludington wrote:

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



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

[videoblogging] Media and the web

[Heath]

2 stories that have not been brought up yet, but are interesting none 
the less.

One, Wal-Mart abandons it's video download service, leaving only Itunes 
and Amazon as the only othter major players left.

http://tinyurl.com/382ev3

And Warner Music has started selling DRM free music, unprotected MP3'3 
on Amazon and only Amazon for the moment at least.

http://tinyurl.com/22wgtc

Just seems to me, that there is still a long way to do with online 
media...

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Epic Fu frontend?

[Jay dedman]

>  we use movable type 4 to publish epic-fu, but it's pretty heavily modified
> with dynamic
>  stuff and PHP to accomplish everything we need on the front end. if you
> want to shoot
>  me a note off-list, I can answer any specific questions you might have.

We liked the style of Jet Set/Epic Fu so much...that it was the
inspiration for http://showinabox.tv/wordpress/about/
This summer it became clear that Steve and Zadi were making it more
than just video on a page.
we have a lot more work to do.

I remember when they used Ning to create "Mix", their own social
network connected to their videos.
Now I see Ning sites everywhere on videoblogs.
they got good thinking.

Jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

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

[bordercollieaustralianshepherd]

Yes, this is better said than I could have ... stick together. Be
supportive. Be honest. Be yourself. and Blah Blah Blah...

Stickman! Posse! Goomba!

To both you and Steve W, good stuff.

D

Yeah ... I got your back ANY DAY.



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One of the reasons that I talk about this here is because I think  
> there is power in this group. There is power and understanding. I  
> believe there are people here who will watch your back and have the  
> capability to do it.
> 
> blah, blah blah... I could go on all day...
> 
> Cheers,
>

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

[Chris]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well Madonna said that she wanted to be like Gandhi, John Lennon,
Martin Luther King, 
> Jesus, but she wanted to stay alive! Lol on several levels :D

If only she wanted to be like Marcel Marceau...  ;)

[videoblogging] question for "show in a box" peoples

[David S Kessler]

i'm starting a new wordpress vlog and i want to use show in a box.  i
didn't want to spend the money to pay for hosting service so i went
with a wordpress hosted site.  http://studioscopic.com.  
so my question, can show in a box work on a blog hosted by wordpress?
so far i have not seen access to all the files but i can edit CSS (if
 i knew any CSS)
this question is also for just using Vpip on a wordpress hosted site too.

thanks guys,

David Kessler

Re: [videoblogging] question for "show in a box" peoples

[Markus Sandy]

On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:03 PM, David S Kessler wrote:

> so my question, can show in a box work on a blog hosted by wordpress?
> so far i have not seen access to all the files but i can edit CSS (if
> i knew any CSS)
> this question is also for just using Vpip on a wordpress hosted  
> site too.


i do not think that wordpress.com supports user installed plugins

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

[videoblogging] Re: question for "show in a box" peoples

[David S Kessler]

yeah, i gave up.  going back to blogger.  now to get it to recognize
my domain (headache #2)

[videoblogging] iSight Cameras and e waste

[Tim Street]

So I've been doing a little Spring cleaning and I found an iSight  
camera that I never use anymore. I went to eBay and noticed that  
iSight cameras are selling at and for more than their original retail  
price and that got me thinking...

Are there any other used electronics that are selling for more than  
their original MSRP or are we just creating more e waste?

Have you ever wondered where your used video blogging gear goes?

It's not going to Steve Garfield, Jason Calacanis or that Robert  
Scoble guy ;)

Here's a little video about where it really goes.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EXzsqTFwV3Q

If you got some new gadgets from Santa please think twice before you  
get rid of your old gear.

I know several of you have offered up your old gear on this list and I  
think that's a great tradition to continue.

Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Charles HOPE]

Patrick Delongchamp wrote:

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


Hitler was a vegetarian. This is why I eat meat.