Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty, the trailing ... seemed to show doubt and hesitation. Just being silly. ;) Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist? You would thoroughly enjoy it. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia streams that make ours look silly. I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay for each separately. Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out. If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller footprint... It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD... peace, Ron On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball park. However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian expression, stir up things if you like). I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is bandwidth pollution. Emails with stupid large attachments, videos that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth. It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly, think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model of I should have as much as I want translates poorly outside of very specific cultural and political economies. On 05/11/2008, at 7:42 AM, Heath wrote: I just did another post about this from another communications company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting bandwidthAT T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, will go awayit's scary.its real scary cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
I have seen Zeitgeist. I did enjoy it. I liked the myth stuff more than the current events, but I liked it nonetheless. I tend to over use the triple period thing... what is that called again? ;-) Certainly not hesitation, just an incomplete thought. I've noticed it cropping up more and more in my internet correspondence. Bad, bad writer. peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Nov 8, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty, the trailing ... seemed to show doubt and hesitation. Just being silly. ;) Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist? You would thoroughly enjoy it. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia streams that make ours look silly. I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay for each separately. Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out. If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller footprint... It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD... peace, Ron On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball park. However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian expression, stir up things if you like). I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is bandwidth pollution. Emails with stupid large attachments, videos that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth. It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly, think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model of I should have as much as I want translates poorly outside of very specific cultural and political
[videoblogging] Joomla as Media Platform?
Hi all, I do a lot of work with Joomla, and after upgrading to 1.5 and adding some mods, I've found it to be a pretty nice multimedia platform. http://k9disc.com is the current project I've been working on. It's a bit more than a videoblog, and because of the nature of the community and my lack of video content of late, I'm not really utilizing it as well as I could be, but the old joomla embedding problems and such have been smoothed over quite a bit. Which reminds me I need to check back with Blip and see if the automagic export function works with J1.5. If anyone is interested in talking about this further, I'd be happy to share some information. Peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Joomla as Media Platform?
Hey Ron, Nice to meet you. I've only used joomla a little, but a good friend of mine was just telling me he uses it for his site, and i might be helping them with some stuff: http://www.lifelighttec.com/ ... so I'm very glad to meet you. I keep hearing about it more and more, and am curious about it's potential and limitations so anyway... like i said, nice to meet you :-) lisa Lisa Rein http://onlisareinsradar.com http://www.lisarein.com Hi all, I do a lot of work with Joomla, and after upgrading to 1.5 and adding some mods, I've found it to be a pretty nice multimedia platform. http://k9disc.com is the current project I've been working on. It's a bit more than a videoblog, and because of the nature of the community and my lack of video content of late, I'm not really utilizing it as well as I could be, but the old joomla embedding problems and such have been smoothed over quite a bit. Which reminds me I need to check back with Blip and see if the automagic export function works with J1.5. If anyone is interested in talking about this further, I'd be happy to share some information. Peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] download video podcasts direct to iphone in next version
What about flash on the iPhone? Anyone heard anything? Adam W. Warner http://indielab.org http://wordpressmodder.org From: Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 12:01:52 AM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] download video podcasts direct to iphone in next version On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] com wrote: It appears that the next iphone firmware will allow people to download audio video podcasts directly to the device, as opposed to having to sync with itunes or watch videos on a website. I was wondering when this would happen. Schlomo also sent a link with more info: http://www.iphoneal ley.com/news/ podcast-director y-coming- in-22-over- the-air-download s-confirmed Now i also want a torrent client so I can get the bigger donwloads. And an iPhone version of VLC. Jay -- http://jaydedman. com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: VIDEO_TS
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, DeVictor or DK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, can anyone tell me how to take the files in that folder and convert it to video streaming on YouTube (or similar services)? Please respond directly to my email, and thanks for your help. D.K. in L.A.
[videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying them either by the way. I have seen many of their graphic designers and photographers come and go, which slowly started making sense to me that they just want to parasite off other people's energy and skills. I would truly appreciate any input you may have regarding this situation or content ownership before I head out to court to fight for my rights. Thanks everyone! Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org
Re: [videoblogging] VIDEO_TS
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:50 PM, DeVictor or DK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, can anyone tell me how to take the files in that folder and convert it to video streaming on YouTube (or similar services)? You can use the free Quick Media Converter to convert VOB files to Flash or WMV.
Re: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
First of all, I'm not a lawyer. Secondly, that is a crappy (and all too familiar) situation. Thirdly (and sadly), I don't think your chances are good to get any money back. I once found myself, like you, battling against a company for whom I created videos on the promise of back-end reimbursement and further employment once they had more stable cash-flow. We never had a written contract in place...it was all based on handshakes, smiles and good faith. Needless to say, I lost out on that deal. It did, however, teach me two very valuable lesson: 1) always have a contract, 2) always make sure the contract stipulates and outlines project phases and a payment structure. First, without a contract, it's nearly impossible to get money from someone -- at least, much to my fiercely principled dismay, so says my attorney. Secondly, if you break up the project into several phases with partial payment due at the beginning of each phase, you can cover yourself if all of a sudden the client starts reneging on the agreement. If you don't get paid at the start of Phase 2, for instance, you have a contractual right to stop working. And if the client refuses the final delivery payment, at least you're not out the ENTIRE amount. Don't get me wrong, it still stings to get stiffed (and always will), but at least you probably won't LOSE money on the deal. But, and here's the extra sad part, if you do need to legally enforce a contract the legal fees can make it all worthless. If you're going to spend more on attorney and filing fees than you would make from the job, you may want to consider just chalking it up to life experience and keying the deadbeat client's car (no, wait, that's not legal -- dang!). Unless you're wealthy enough to prove a point, of course. That would be the life. :-) On the other hand, if you threaten to take someone to court, there will be legal fees on their end as well, and that might encourage them to settle (after all, they'll be using the same logic as you -- will going to court to defend ourselves cost more than just paying for the videos?). So, that's my $0.02 in general. Hopefully it helps save someone the same pain that you and I (and, I'm sure, most of the other members on this list trying to make a living with this crazy video stuff) have experienced. With respect to your specific issue -- ultimately, who owns the work: you or them -- I don't think you could win. You gave them the videos without a contract stipulating that they could only use them if they paid you. And, as they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law...insofar as you now have the burden of proof on this one. They'll argue, he gave us the videos for free...and NOW, after we've done *all this work* to put them online and have been using them to promote ourselves, he's telling us that we have to pay! That's not fair! Whine, whine, whine! And then the judge will look at you and say, Ok, so...do you have a contract? Honestly, I feel for you and I'm certainly not trying to make your day worse than it already is. I wish I had a sunnier perspective. :-( Hopefully there is an actual lawyer lurking on the list somewhere who can fill in with more precise advice, but based on my experience I think you're stuck. Good luck, though!! And keep fighting the good fight. -- Kris Boustedt | First Sight Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 206.354.5031 Filmmaker | Editor | Apple Certified Trainer Associate Faculty, Shoreline Community College http://www.firstsightproductions.com On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video
