Re: [videoblogging] Re: It begins...
The real world isn't black and white, even if we'd like it to be. There are varying degrees of regulation. Some regulation can be good. Stifling regulation is rarely, if ever, good. Pink unicorns may have managed to bring us a chocolate river while some regulation existed, but you'd be hard-pressed to make a case for regulation on this basis. oh man, freemarket discussions. these are often very frustrating because no one has ever really lived in a freemarket where everything and everyone is equal. By nature, with examples again and again throughout history, anyone with power does his best to limit competition. if there is no group conscience (ie smart regulation keeping people honest), then you have monopolies. there is never one rule that you can lay down for ever situation. as a people, we must look at certain situations and decide how we want to live. if it's dog eat dog, fine. Let's at least really all agree on it. Help me follow this line of thought. Let's talk about Comcast charging for bandwidth usage. Lets say I dont like their service. In a freemarket, I would change broadband providers. But Comcast (like most cable companies) are usually the only game in town because they have signed monopoly agreements with each city...and then consolidated their power by buying up as many local cable companies as allowed. In the 70's and 80's, US cable companies demanded these monopolies (with limited regulation) because they were investing heavily and needed a guaranteed return. They laid down their cables on public property (streets and sidewalks) to build their networks. They also argued that you cant have 10 companies tearing up the street to lay their own cables either. It'd be madness. Yes, I could switch to DSL or Satellite internet, but these are still just 2 more choices. Both of which might not even be available where I live. (DSL is not on my street because im too far from the headend. Satellite is too limited and could never handle the masses) So I dont like an unregulated Comcast, but i don't have much choice but to go with them. Since they are a private company that are only loyal to private stockholders expecting large returns on unlimited profits, they do not have to share any of their data. Their network is busy? How busy? at what times? Can we all monitor and have access to this? Can we discuss alternative solutions rather than me paying out the nose? No. We simply trust their reasoning, call it a free market. Regulation and transparency is bad. Cable companies have cried for deregulation for years and gotten it for the most part. they said prices would go down. all evidence shows that cable bills steadily go up each year for one reason or another. how important is the internet to the functioning of our society? I wonder if we apply this thinking to water and electricity? where does free market stop? why cant i create my own electric company, water service, or cable company? do we really drop any sense of public spaces and public good? can I have my own army? 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] Disaster footage
Sorry I've not been around much (mainly lurking) but I am working on a video project right now that needs some disaster footage, think hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, extreme weather conditions... Also looking for some good city-scape stuff, lots of building in a big city. If anyone has some footage online already that might work (or if you can get it online for us to check out) please email me off-list. If we can use it, we can pay you. (We don't have a huge budget, but we're artists too, and artists deserve to get paid!) what kind of project is this for? 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] Re: It begins...
ok i have been fowwloing this thread for a while now, there are good aurgments on both sides of the isues. i do realy see one big flaw in your info mation. out of all the research i have done on this (google,talking to the people in the know) ill give you the facts . there are no pink unicons, (i think thre is cholick rivers beuse i seen some guy sing aubot cholic rain and he sounded real convining) in all of the cartoons i have ever sen they are all white. i know this may come to a shock to some of you as it did me. so evey one get there facts stright before posting to this list. gee and i thought u guys were so smart randy On Jan 19, 2008 3:53 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The real world isn't black and white, even if we'd like it to be. There are varying degrees of regulation. Some regulation can be good. Stifling regulation is rarely, if ever, good. Pink unicorns may have managed to bring us a chocolate river while some regulation existed, but you'd be hard-pressed to make a case for regulation on this basis. oh man, freemarket discussions. these are often very frustrating because no one has ever really lived in a freemarket where everything and everyone is equal. By nature, with examples again and again throughout history, anyone with power does his best to limit competition. if there is no group conscience (ie smart regulation keeping people honest), then you have monopolies. there is never one rule that you can lay down for ever situation. as a people, we must look at certain situations and decide how we want to live. if it's dog eat dog, fine. Let's at least really all agree on it. Help me follow this line of thought. Let's talk about Comcast charging for bandwidth usage. Lets say I dont like their service. In a freemarket, I would change broadband providers. But Comcast (like most cable companies) are usually the only game in town because they have signed monopoly agreements with each city...and then consolidated their power by buying up as many local cable companies as allowed. In the 70's and 80's, US cable companies demanded these monopolies (with limited regulation) because they were investing heavily and needed a guaranteed return. They laid down their cables on public property (streets and sidewalks) to build their networks. They also argued that you cant have 10 companies tearing up the street to lay their own cables either. It'd be madness. Yes, I could switch to DSL or Satellite internet, but these are still just 2 more choices. Both of which might not even be available where I live. (DSL is not on my street because im too far from the headend. Satellite is too limited and could never handle the masses) So I dont like an unregulated Comcast, but i don't have much choice but to go with them. Since they are a private company that are only loyal to private stockholders expecting large returns on unlimited profits, they do not have to share any of their data. Their network is busy? How busy? at what times? Can we all monitor and have access to this? Can we discuss alternative solutions rather than me paying out the nose? No. We simply trust their reasoning, call it a free market. Regulation and transparency is bad. Cable companies have cried for deregulation for years and gotten it for the most part. they said prices would go down. all evidence shows that cable bills steadily go up each year for one reason or another. how important is the internet to the functioning of our society? I wonder if we apply this thinking to water and electricity? where does free market stop? why cant i create my own electric company, water service, or cable company? do we really drop any sense of public spaces and public good? can I have my own army? 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Disaster footage
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what kind of project is this for? I hope I hope I hope this guy's project is an indie answer to Cloverfield. :) Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
I don't think the rules are different at all. If someone quoted me in text, out of context, and to support something I find repellent, I would point it out. Same goes for images, same for video. Asking to have a link (or other part of a conversation) removed is a little extreme, but is sometimes warranted. I would not have done so in the case of my Lumiere videos except I didn't think Andreas was being clear about whether he would remove links if asked, so I asked for it in order to get the question answered. Cheryl --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But if Im using parts of your video to build on a bigger conversation, why are the rules different for video and text?
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Disaster footage
-Original Message- From: Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: 19-Jan-08 16:14 Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Disaster footage --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what kind of project is this for? I hope I hope I hope this guy's project is an indie answer to Cloverfield. :) Chris
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Disaster footage
-Original Message- From: Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: 19-Jan-08 16:14 Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Disaster footage --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what kind of project is this for? I hope I hope I hope this guy's project is an indie answer to Cloverfield. :) Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Disaster footage
Kfir, I'm not seeing anything in the body of either of the messages you sent... Chris --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kfir Pravda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: 19-Jan-08 16:14 Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Disaster footage --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: what kind of project is this for? I hope I hope I hope this guy's project is an indie answer to Cloverfield. :) Chris
[videoblogging] spoonch.tv
check out this: http://www.spoonch.tv/ a smart use of twitter. -- http://pepa.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Is Chipin any good?
I'm curious about ChipIn, since I see a few people on here are using it. Is it pretty reliable? I've tried to visit the site a few times today, but was only able to access it briefly. Thanks, Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Is Chipin any good?
chip in rocks! i've used them for the past year and whenever i've had hickups, they've patted my back and fed me warm milk. good people, good product. oh, and they are drupalistas which in my book is a good cookie to have. :* = cookie in beard. noneck -- join me on a trip around the world! http://ontheluckofseven.com noel hidalgo [ skype ] nonecknoel [ twitter ] http://twitter.com/noneck [ email/jabber/aim ] noel[a]noneck.org http://www.dopplr.com/traveller/noneck http://www.couchsurfing.com/people/nonecknoel
[videoblogging] Re: Is Chipin any good?
That's endorsement enough for me! Thanks, Noel. Chris --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, noel hidalgo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: chip in rocks! i've used them for the past year and whenever i've had hickups, they've patted my back and fed me warm milk. good people, good product. oh, and they are drupalistas which in my book is a good cookie to have. :* = cookie in beard. noneck -- join me on a trip around the world! http://ontheluckofseven.com noel hidalgo [ skype ] nonecknoel [ twitter ] http://twitter.com/noneck [ email/jabber/aim ] noel[a]noneck.org http://www.dopplr.com/traveller/noneck http://www.couchsurfing.com/people/nonecknoel
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
Excatlyhe didn't make it clear and that whole thing has really got me thinking about the overall practice of just linking willy nilly... it's got me thinking about context, it's got me thinking how people view it, how they don't view it, etcit's just got me thinking... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the rules are different at all. If someone quoted me in text, out of context, and to support something I find repellent, I would point it out. Same goes for images, same for video. Asking to have a link (or other part of a conversation) removed is a little extreme, but is sometimes warranted. I would not have done so in the case of my Lumiere videos except I didn't think Andreas was being clear about whether he would remove links if asked, so I asked for it in order to get the question answered. Cheryl --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: But if Im using parts of your video to build on a bigger conversation, why are the rules different for video and text?
