Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law

[David Yirchott]

Sorry for the delayed response on this. I have been distracted with other 
things and I sat down yesterday to reply, but my response turned out much 
longer than I expected. I am just now finishing it today. I hope it all 
makes sense and doesn't ramble on too much...


>i should let this conversation die...but it brings up so many good issues.
>David is also a good sport.

:)

>I saw this video today:
>http://waxy.org/random/video/shining_redux.mov
>Its completely illegal and the creator should be jailed and sued
>according to our current copyright law.
>i think its brilliant and am glad it exists.

I think it is funny and I am glad it exists as well. Funny how the right 
music can change the entire meaning of something, which is perhaps why the 
rights to it are so coveted, but I am probably getting ahead of myself.  ;)

For what it is worth, I am betting the piece isn't *completely* illegal, but 
probably raises enough of an eyebrow for a lawsuit (honestly, what doesn't 
nowadays). I would, however, guess that the litigation wouldn't come from 
the movie studio, as likely it would be seen as parody; rather the owners of 
the music might have a stronger claim.

The music chosen was excellent. It definitely set the tone that allowed the 
parody to be successful. But creating the music that set the mood is 
difficult. That is why there is such a premium on the rights and part of why 
such strong protections exist. If we were to devalue the rights, one might 
expect that to create such a piece is easy. I think most of us know how 
wrong that is. However, if the person who made the parody was unable to 
secure the rights to the Peter Gabriel song Salsbury Hill, he/she would 
fully be within his/her rights to create an original music track from 
scratch. That right is *never* taken away from any of us.


> > >do you believe the RIAA suing 12 year old girls is effective or a sign
> > >of desperation?
> >
> > Both. Again, what choice do they have? If an increasing number of people 
>are
> > costing you millions because they are illegally stealing your product, 
>what
> > do you do?
> > If you have a home and it has a termite infestation, wouldn't you call 
>an
> > exterminator?
>
>and are you inferring that people using the web for file sharing are
>like bugs that need exterminating?

The analogy I was attempting to draw is that sometimes one must lash out and 
hurt someone to make them stop. Sometimes it has to be extreme. In the case 
of the insect infestation one would have to kill them all.

As a rule I do my best not to kill things. I have a cup specifically set 
aside for catching spiders to set them free outside, for instance. I'm not 
mentioning this to show what a swell guy I am, but to set the backdrop for 
this: if my house was infested I would call the exterminator. Really, it is 
either that or lose the house. Sometimes extreme measures are called for.

Now, I'm not suggesting we kill downloaders, but one of the tools the music 
industry has at its disposal right now is to sue to recoup lost revenues. I 
think most people would fight back if their rights were being taken away by 
others. It is the same for corporations.

How the downloading issue differs from the termite one is that the bugs are 
killed to protect the house matter-of-factly, whereas the RIAA is motivated 
to move against online pirates with extreme prejudice to set an example for 
anyone else contemplating such behavior. Think of it as pest repellant. They 
are probably thinking that if they win some attention-grabbing cases now, 
there will hopefully be fewer for them to fight in the future.


>this is the exact attitude that is killing the traditional media.

I would agree that traditional media is dying/changing/evolving. I would 
disagree that it is necessarily because they are being too restrictive with 
their rights. I think it has more to do with the fact that most of it is 
crap.

I agree that MSM is not meeting the needs of many users: a lack of 
interactivity, alternative programming, community building, etc. However, if 
the media decided to give away the store that would only hasten their 
demise. Here's why:

First off, they make money selling the rights to things. To give them away 
would likely cost them billions in lost merchandising, syndication, DVD 
sales, archival footage, etc.

Secondly, traditional media stays in existence because of advertisers. 
Advertisers pay premiums based on how much exposure a 
show/magazine/newspaper/etc. gets. If we put things into public domain too 
quickly who do they pay? Should you be able to run a Simpsons episode online 
and earn advertising revenue without giving any to the creators? Also, if 
you run an episode online, many of those who saw it won't in turn watch it 
on TV, thereby stripping the creators of an audience thay can charge 
advetisers for, meaning they have to charge less -- in other words, they 
will lose potential revenue.

Thirdly, if things go into public domai

Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law

[David Yirchott]

>From: Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > If you don't wanna do the time, don't do
> > the crime.
>
>I'm sorry that line is a trademark of Universal Studios.

D'oh!
(oh, crap! Now FOX is after me too!)

-David




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law

[David Yirchott]

>From: Brett Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > The other end of
>>that is that the strong protections are also there to defend our  economy.
>
>When they make sense.  And they are also softened in various cases to  
>encourage growth.  It doesn't seem to me that "strong protections"  are 
>doing the music industry much good right now.  They ought to take  another 
>approach.

Strong protections are just starting to do the music industry good. The 
protections are allowing litigation to successfully proceed against people 
who pirate their property.

What other aproach would you suggest?


>>Some people do drugs, some people pirate music, some people speed  when 
>>they
>>drive. To me, that is each individual's choice. But those things are
>>illegal;
>
>But if an entire generation thinks that the laws are ridiculous and  ignore 
>them, what kind of effect is this having on society?

Probably more people are getting arrested/ticketed.

>Shouldn't the laws be changed?

Not necessarily. There is a history of laws aimed at bettering the lives of 
female and minority populations that were not exactly welcomed or followed 
at the time they pased, for example.

I can't think of any law an entire generation is ignoring, but why is that 
generation's opinion of law more important to members of society from other 
generations? Anyway, if a group feels strongly about something they should 
work together to influence change.



>---this debate can go on for a long time

Very true. :)


>-
>Brett Gaylor
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>www.etherworks.ca
>

-David




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law

[David Yirchott]

> > Fair Use is a broad guideline open to interpretation. If you don't
> > have
> > legal representation that can beat a team of lawyers for a major media
> > conglomerate, I would definitely advise thinking twice before using
> > any
> > copyrighted material.
>
>I agree that that is a fair assessment of the current climate.
>However, how fucked up is it that it's that way?  Pretty damed fucked
>up if you ask me!  The problem is that moneyed interests use our
>elected officials as tools for creating the laws that serve their
>bottom line.

Unfortunate or otherwise, money and clout are power. That has always been 
the way the political game has been played.


>One of the things they'd like to prevent through self-
>censorship is people like me making things like this:
>
>http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/09/16/hail-to-the-thief/ >

I am sure the vagueness of fair use causes a lot of self-censorship. And not 
just propaganda stuff either like your piece. The threat of expensive 
litigation has, I am sure, kept many from expressing themselves as they 
might like.


>On Sep 21, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Yirchott wrote:
> > Creativity is helped when there is a return on investment. Also, if
> > you
> > can't steal other people's stuff you'll have to create your own --
> > which
> > spurs creativity. I would suggest that reusing content chills
> > creativity
> > more.
>
>See above example as proof that this argument holds no weight.

I am not sure that the above example proves the argument holds no weight. I 
never said reusing content cannot be creative, just that reusing content 
chills creativity more than having to invent stuff on one's own.



>Verdi
>http://michaelverdi.com/ >
>http://freevlog.org/ >
>http://node101.org/ >


-David




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law

[David Yirchott]

> > True. Laws do change, but copyright laws seem to be changing in favor of 
>the
> > copyright holders, due most likely to powerful media lobbies that are
> > recognizing how technology is making pirating simple. Look at what's 
>going
> > on with DRM. There's a lot of money at stake.
>
>yep. you help show why the laws are becoming corrupt.
>Elected officials are modifying Copyright laws for powerful media
>compnaies without the people in mind.
>the cash cows are dying...new streams of income need to be found
>becasue the modes of distribution are changing.

I wasn't defending powerful lobbies influencing legislation, just stating 
the facts. Though, honestly, I do believe in order to give creators the 
incentive to create there needs to be strong protections. The other end of 
that is that the strong protections are also there to defend our economy.


>people are trading my music/movies illegally.
>i can do 2 things:
>punish people and make them buy CD's the old fashioned way...or make
>it easy to buy good quality media online.
>which is smarter?
>unfortunately media compnaies are dragging their feet so that decision
>is made for them every single online second.

I think the smart plan is to do both, and many companies do: they put out 
CDs and offer songs for downloading on iTunes. But that has not stopped 
pirating. Same for software.


>do you believe the RIAA suing 12 year old girls is effective or a sign
>of desperation?

Both. Again, what choice do they have? If an increasing number of people are 
costing you millions because they are illegally stealing your product, what 
do you do?

If you have a home and it has a termite infestation, wouldn't you call an 
exterminator?


> > Not really, we can look at everything from traffic tickets to spankings 
>to
> > public executions to honor killings and many other horrible activities 
>meant
> > to serve as a deterrent to crime. Similar concept. Really, what other 
>choice
> > do they have to protect their rights?
>
>i guess you agree that current copyright laws are good..so yes, they
>must find extremely harsh punishments to protect current laws.


I believe to some extent that everyone should do what they want. In a sense 
things are only illegal if you get caught. However, if you are caught you 
should be willing to pay the price. If you don't wanna do the time, don't do 
the crime.

Some people do drugs, some people pirate music, some people speed when they 
drive. To me, that is each individual's choice. But those things are 
illegal; if you get caught you have no one but yourself to blame for the 
punishment you receive. You knew the rules and you made a choice to defy 
them. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But until it 
changes that is our reality. To pretend otherwise is at one's own expense.


>I guess it makes sense to stone homosexuals in Afghanistan becasue
>thats the law.
>people continue to be gay in Afghanistan.

This is two different points. 1) To me it does not make sense to stone 
homosexuals (or punish them in any way). 2) If you are gay in Afghanistan 
and that is the punishment, I would advise moving. If you stay and are 
caught in homosexual activities then it shouldn't surprise you if you are 
stoned to death. I don't agree with the law, but it is the law. Work to 
change it or move. Same with America. Disagreeing with a law offers no 
protection from it.


>i feel like im in HS debate class.
>David, lets bring this down to videoblogging.
>i have my personal fun videolbog where i keep my friends and family in
>touch with how i live.
>I edit a montage of my trip to amsterdam to the music of Bon
>Jovi's"Dead or Alive".
>I post a video of my worklife...adding in a small soundbite from
>"Glengary Glen Ross" to illustrate that my boss is such a hardass.
>you're saying Im a pirate and that I should feel lucky that the MPAA
>and RIAA do not choose to make me an example in the US federal court
>system?

Short answer: yes. They would probably be within their rights to do so. Do I 
think they would go after you for that? Not at all. It would be difficult to 
show much damage in your example, especially with so many other worse 
offenders out there. But they could decide at any moment to go after every 
single violation. They could be compiling a database right now. So, you 
would be using that material at your own risk. Password protect the site to 
limit your vulnerability, though, again, I would think you'd be so far under 
their radar it wouldn't matter much.

FWIW: Do I think you should be punished because of it? Not really, but the 
law, I believe, would require permission.


> > No, I think I understood you. You are talking about a requirement to 
>allow
> > people to use your creation against your will in a way which could 
>impact
> > your profits. I would suggest that the current system is sane to the
> > copyright holder, but restrictive to the end user. I personally think 
>the
> > creator deserves more protecti

Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law

[David Yirchott]

>in this discussion, i will take the side against present copyright law.
>it's like following the laws of the Old testament.
>they were written for a different time in human consciousness.
>brothers and sisters. I bring you the New testament.
>these are just laws. they can be rewritten as we change.
>(look at how we're having this conversation--we're changing)

True. Laws do change, but copyright laws seem to be changing in favor of the 
copyright holders, due most likely to powerful media lobbies that are 
recognizing how technology is making pirating simple. Look at what's going 
on with DRM. There's a lot of money at stake.


> > As for violations, they cannot sue every violator, which is why at some
> > point they are going to have to start making examples of people like the
> > RIAA has/is. They may not sue everyone, but who wants to be one of the 
>ones
> > sued?
>
>huh, weird way to go about it.
>so much fear.

Not really, we can look at everything from traffic tickets to spankings to 
public executions to honor killings and many other horrible activities meant 
to serve as a deterrent to crime. Similar concept. Really, what other choice 
do they have to protect their rights?


> > Because someone spent blood, tears, and money to create it. If it 
>belongs to
> > them, why should you be alowed to take it without permission?
>
>because its part of the culture. TV/music/movies is all around us.
>its in our memory and in our language.
>I speak about the things i see and hear around the water cooler...
>how can you say i cannot use it in my voice which is also audio and
>video on a blog?

You can use your voice and image in a vlog because you have permission. It 
is like taking a camcorder into a movie theatre -- just because you see it 
doesn't mean you can record it and it certainly doesn't mean you can 
distribute it. But you are welcome to talk about it all you want. But just 
because something is in your memory doesn't mean you own it, you only own 
the memory of it. Should I be able to kick the people out of my childhood 
home?



> > Creative Commons is a licensing agreement determined by the creator not 
>by
> > the user. What you are describing seems to take control away from the 
>person
> > who invented/created something.
>
>youve misunderstood me.
>and the point is that creators(big and small) need to move from
>traditional, ineffective copyright law to a more flexible and sane
>system.
>as the creator, you can own the work...but you let people use it under
>certain conditions.
>
>for example, youll let me play with your work for fun...but if i want
>to make money...you get a piece of the action.
>
>why is this important?
>you ever try contacting a major media company to use a video/audio clip?
>its a no go.
>bascially any commercial content will always be off-limits to regular 
>people.
>is this sane?
>like andrew said, dont drive 56 mph.


No, I think I understood you. You are talking about a requirement to allow 
people to use your creation against your will in a way which could impact 
your profits. I would suggest that the current system is sane to the 
copyright holder, but restrictive to the end user. I personally think the 
creator deserves more protection than the user.

You mention using copyrighted material for fun, but giving a cut of profit 
if money is involved. If I stream a movie/show/song for free I make no 
profit, but the users don't have to go buy the material. So, even though I 
made no money the copyright holder lost money.

That's the beauty of the Creative Commons license, if someone wants to give 
away more rights they can, if they don't they don't have to.


> > Ah, but money is the driving force behind many creations. Not everyone
> > creates to get more "play." If someone quits their job and slaves for 
>three
> > months to write  a great novel and then I come along and print the text 
>out
> > and give it to every person in the country is that fair? Hey, just 
>because
> > the author isn't making money and isn't on the bestseller list I am 
>helping
> > him out because now more people can read his book? That doesn't sound 
>like a
> > great deal to me.
>
>lets think this through.
>what i would most likely be playing with is pop-culture...becasue its
>part of our language.
>so its already popular and getting lots of money.
>Coke wants me to wear their t-shirts all the time..."coke, never forget".
>
>if i play with a work of an obscure artist...then im giving him/her 
>exposure.
>and by giving exposure...commercial attention will follow.


Coke want you to wear their shirts, but they -- like most companies -- are 
very protective of their brand and may not appreciate the t-shirt you make. 
Maybe the font is off or the color isn't right or the context isn't how they 
would present their image. Also the t-shirt maker would lose a lot of 
business if everyone could make their own shirts -- shirts he paid Coca-Cola 
for the exclusive rights to make. So now, because we'

Re: [videoblogging] the gray area of copyright law

[David Yirchott]

>Would Fidel have a case?
>http://canf.org/es/chistes/FUNNY-AS-HELL-Strohs-NEED-SPEAKERS.mpeg

A case of Strohs? :)

That's pretty funny, I hadn't seen it before.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but I would hazard a yes. I could not imagine 
dubbing over Brittney Spears' voice to have her unintentionally pitch a 
product. In fact, I believe lawsuits have been brought by the estates of 
dead actors whose computer generated images were used to pitch products.

Perhaps this qualifies as satire, or maybe the creators benefitted from 
strained relations with Cuba. Or maybe this just came out when everyone was 
a bit less litigious.

It is funny, though :)

-David




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [videoblogging] Self Moderation

[David Yirchott]

Hmmm

I for one was very glad VileKyle sent out a link to his HD post on his vlog 
the other week. I would never had known about it if he hadn't. Same with the 
vlogmap and other great stuff. If someone is doing something in the 
community I personally don't mind hearing about it.

And I would suggest that discussions about cameras and editing problems are 
relevant to the community in the same way people talking about their Macs 
are relevant even if not everyone has one (myself included). These are the 
tools being used to create video blogs. If we are unique, then we will 
certainly encounter unique problems. And who better to help solve them then 
the members of your community who may have already encountered the same 
problem or something similar. Also, sometimes someone asks a question about 
something others didn't even know they could do.

I am a little unclear as to what you would like people to talk about other 
than introductions. If we cannot discuss what is being created or how, then 
what is left? Maybe there should be a list of exactly what is acceptable and 
how to format a subject line.

Definitely your suggestion of people checking the archive and other 
resources first is a good one, but even similar situations sometimes can be 
significantly different.

Anyway, if you don't think Jay and others are doing a good job of moderating 
this board, you could always ask them for more power so that you can control 
what is being said here.


I look forward to reading your FAQ entry,
-David





>From: Mat Wall-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: "videoblogging@yahoogroups.com" 
>Subject: [videoblogging] Self Moderation
>Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:43:33 +1000
>
>Self Moderation:
>
>Hey All..
>
>Its great to see watch this community grow exponentially. I also hope it
>becomes more international and continues to proliferate all kinds of kewl
>vidblogging projects worldwide.
>
>But..
>
>A. Can we keep it about video-blogging
>
>-This means that you use your blog for posts like the one below. Don't
>repost a link here just to push your latest entry. Your Blog is for your
>blog content. Your feed is for delivering it. Fine to introduce yourself 
>but
>that's all we need.
>
>-This also means that this isn't necessarily the best place to ask 
>unrelated
>technical questions about cameras, computers, editing software errors, DVD
>players, making DVD's or BetaCam.
>
>B. CHECK THE ARCHIVE
>
>Before posting think about the fact that we have been here for sometime 
>now.
>Your question has probably been answered ad nauseum. There is an ARCHIVE.
>Check it before asking a question that has been ask fifteen times before.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mat.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hmm5bk8/M=362131.6882499.7825260.1510227/D=groups/S=1705554021:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1124992720/A=2889191/R=0/SIG=10r90krvo/*http://www.thebeehive.org
">Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job) Welcome to the Sweet Life 
- brought to you by One Economy.
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))

[David Yirchott]

>Some would say words are defined by the dictionary ;) And their usage
>is defined by their definition and the communicator's intent,
>
>
>But "usage" requires comprehension by the listener. A dictionary
>definition, and a communicator whose face is red with righteous wrath
>isn't enough. Thus...

I would disagree. Usage seems to only require someone with intent to use a 
word as they see it defined. A receiver is another step in the equation who 
is responsible for interpretation. Although, certainly comprehension is 
essential for truly effective communication, but that wasn't what we were 
discussing, or we were discussing different things.



>If more Toyota Camrys are sold than any car
>and more red Toyota Camrys are sold than any other color, that does not 
>mean that a
>car is only defined as a red Toyota Camry or that all Toyota Camrys are 
>red.
>
>
>... if the overwhelming number of Camrys are red, then the prototypical
>Camry becomes red, and when people hear the word they will imagine that
>particular type of red car, and a person can say "the color of a Camry"
>and listeners will understand -- even though a few blue Camrys exist!

Perhaps, but we aren't discussing imagined or popular cars. Just because 
someone has a specific image in their head when they hear a word doesn't 
mean there is no actual definition for that word, nor does it mean that the 
person doesn't understand that.

For instance, if you say, "I Love my mother." The word "mother" may trigger 
me to think of my mom. But I would not think you meant her. Nor would I 
assume your mother and my mother looked alike or sounded alike or dressed 
alike, etc.

So, regardless of common or popular examples stuck in our heads, there are 
distinct definitions of both car and mother that preclude them from being 
mistaken for each other, for instance. Yet there is still no definition of 
blog that would preclude it from being mistaken as just another word for 
website.


> >If I rip the rear view mirror off a car, it's still a car. But how
> >many parts can I remove until it ceases to be a car?
>
>One: the engine ;)
>
>
>So, if I bring someone to an apparently intact car, open the hood, and
>reveal the engine lacking, I should expect most people to turn to me
>and say "That is not a car"? Are you willing to stand by that as a
>prediction of the behavior of English speakers, or do you want to
>re-think this?


It is the body of a car. Give them a choice: is this a car or is this the 
body of a car?



>but let's get
>back on point: what is unique and exclusive to a blog that makes it by
>definition different than a website?
>
>
>I won't discuss blogs until I prove to you that the conceptual
>fuzzyness of "blog" is equivalent to that of "car" or "mother",


That puts us at a bit of a stalemate. I cannot agree that "blog" is as fuzzy 
as "car" or "mother" because it is not as sharp. In other words, as I stated 
before: There is a definition of "car" and there is a definition of 
"mother." Both are defined in terms that are specific, unique, and universal 
to what they describe. You have not offered up the same for "blog."

It sounds like you want to get to a point where "If I strip this away is it 
still a blog?" and I can play that game, but only if I know where we are 
starting from. Give me a definition of "blog" that is specific to blogs, 
unique to blogs, and universal to blogs first, so that we are both starting 
from the same point.



>and not
>at all resembling the nonsensical pseudo-statements involved in
>theology, as you have so callously implied.


I went back and re-read the following (which I am fairly sure is what you 
are referring to):

"Which, I suppose, sort of puts us back to the beginning. So, "blog" is
either indefinable because it is:

1) Infinite and awesome and our tiny human brains and our petty language
cannot begin to describe it. Like God, some might say.

2) Non-existent. Like God, some might say.

So therefore, either way blog=God. Perhaps we should end this here and go
worship our possibly non-existent master.  :)"


I can definitely see how that might be taken in a way it was not intended. I 
apologize if I offended you or anyone else. For what it is worth, the last 
statement is meant to refer to worshipping (as in paying more attention, 
which I have not done since this discussion started) blogs, not God.

I am about eight hours behind on my sleep and that number keeps growing. I 
should have re-read my email before posting it when I was tired. I'm on a 
crappy schedule that means I should be going to bed at 8pm, which isn't 
happening. Excuses/reasons aside, I am truly sorry for my poor choice of 
wording. It was a lame, sleep-deprived attempt at syllogistic humor. It was 
stupid of me.



>We can go no further until you agree that, even though we all know what
>a "car" is, and we all agree that a heap of parts is not a car, we
>cannot agree upon a specific point at which the carness vanishes and
>the it

RE: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))

[David Yirchott]

> > Charles,
> > I was rather hoping you'd respond to:
>
>
>I'll come back to the specific case of "blog" after I've proven that
>most definitions are fuzzy and prototypical.


Isn't that what this discussion is really about? The definition -- or lack 
thereof -- of a blog. Why wait? If we are in agreement that there is no 
definition of blog, how can there be requirements to be a blog?

As I said in a previous post: "I do find it interesting that at the same 
time you claim there can not be a definition, you are adamant that it has to 
have RSS and trackbacks."


> > This isn't about majority. This is about definition.
>
>Words are defined by their usage. Usage is determined by observation
>of human beings; it is inescapably statistical.


Some would say words are defined by the dictionary ;) And their usage is 
defined by their definition and the communicator's intent, but let's get 
back on point: what is unique and exclusive to a blog that makes it by 
definition different than a website?


> > The exception disproves
> > the rule. If any blogs do not have RSS, then "blog" by definition
>cannot [snip]
> > It is like saying that the Toyota Camry is the most prevalent
> > car, therefore a "car" by definition is required to be a Toyota
>Camry.

Again, statistical superiority does not equal a requirement for definition. 
In fact, any factor that varies cannot be part of a set definition (unless 
the part is saying that the variable exists), unless you are defining a more 
specific item: If more Toyota Camrys are sold than any car and more red 
Toyota Camrys are sold than any other color, that does not mean that a car 
is only defined as a red Toyota Camry or that all Toyota Camrys are red.


>If I rip the rear view mirror off a car, it's still a car. But how
>many parts can I remove until it ceases to be a car?

One: the engine ;)

What is being lost here is that definitions are not as fuzzy as you would 
like us to believe. Definitions -- by definition -- define something in 
specific terms. What is a car? We could define it as a vehicle with a metal 
frame, wheels, and a steering mechanism. But that could also describe a 
bicycle, so it isn't a useful definition. We need something that 
specifically describes a car so that we can differentiate it from a Radio 
Flyer wagon, or a van, or a tank. And that is what I haven't yet seen: a 
definition of blog. What is unique about it that makes it a blog? If there 
isn't anything definitive, then perhaps it is just another name for website.


>Is there a
>well-defined threshold? If it were well-defined, wouldn't all people
>who know "what" a car is have to agree on it?
>
>Rather, as you remove pieces, it gradually becomes less and less of a
>car. There is no precise threshold, and there are states at which
>reasonable people would disagree. Same with Techno, and adolescent
>dogs, and websites with some blog-like features.


That's great, but you're talking deconstruction from a point you haven't yet 
constructed. I still haven't heard a minimum level or maximum level 
definition from you that isn't leaving out what are widely considered blogs 
or including what is widely believed to not be blogs.

As I said in a previous post: "If you have a list of characteristics, 
shouldn't you end up with a clearcut
answer? If you cannot, then I would suggest that the list isn't good enough. 
Or there is no differentiation to be found."


-David








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] dot tv

[David Yirchott]

As a General rule, .com is the best. No question. It is the default and much 
more memorable.

That's not to say people aren't successful with .org .net .info etcetera. 
You just have to be prepared that most people you tell your URI to are 
likely going to visit the .com first.

Between a .org.uk or .tv, as a lazy American I'd prefer the .tv as I would 
be more likely to remember it.

And I wouldn't worry too much about the whole TV thing, afterall it doesn't 
really stand for television it stands for Tuvalo. Anyway, the association 
with television may help people remember it.

-David


>From: Starfire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [videoblogging] dot tv
>Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:11:56 -0500
>
>I'm considering a new domain for myself for my Vlogging ventures. The
>only suffixes available for the name I want are .org.uk or .tv.
>
>I kinda like the sound of .tv but vlogging is not TV. I suppose I
>could keep brainstorming names and find a .com out there that I like
>but I really wanna use a certain domain name.
>
>And with everybody getting content through a feed now days how
>important is a name? Is dot com the best?
>
>Thoughts, ideas?
>
>thanks.
>
>Starfire**








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))

[David Yirchott]

Charles,
I was rather hoping you'd respond to:

>If you respond to this post, I'd love to see your answers to:
>1) Can a website with periodic personal posts, but no RSS or trackbacks be 
>a blog?
>2) What if it has periodic posts and RSS, but no trackbacks?
>3) What if it is a television station website with periodically posted news 
>stories and an RSS feed?
>4) How often is periodic? If someone fails to update their blog in two 
>weeks, does it stop being a blog?



>David Yirchott wrote:
>If there is a useful list of blog characteristics, shouldn't that equal
>a
>clearcut blogness test?
>
>
>Can such a list be "clearcut" when items can have some of the
>qualities and not all of them?

If you have a list of characteristics, shouldn't you end up with a clearcut 
answer? If you cannot, then I would suggest that the list isn't good enough. 
Or there is no differentiation to be found.



>Anyway, the true problem is that none of the items
>on the list you've given is 1) required for a blog or 2) exclusive to a
>blog.
>
>
>That's how it is with most definitions as well. Do you think
>"blog" is more ill-defined than "mother"?

I disagree that most definitions fail in the same way. Also, I think we can 
both agree that "blog" is not as defined as mother. Things required for 
mother: female. Things exclusive to mother: has given birth; has taken legal 
guardianship of a child.



>Are all current blogs without RSS not full blogs?
>
>I'm still waiting to hear of these "many" blogs that aren't
>running RSS + trackbacks. What is their number compared to those that
>do? Remember, these words are description of reality, not axiomatic
>constructs. If the vast majority of websites called "blogs" start using
>a background color of #d5691a, that will become one of the defining
>characteristics of blogs.

This isn't about majority. This is about definition. The exception disproves 
the rule. If any blogs do not have RSS, then "blog" by definition cannot 
require RSS. It is like saying that the Toyota Camry is the most prevalent 
car, therefore a "car" by definition is required to be a Toyota Camry.



>"I have a new blog."
>"That's not a blog! It's only a 75% blog!"
>
>What would the other 25% be considered? What if a site scored 50%? At
>what
>level does one have a legitimate blog?
>
>
>
>At precisely the dividing line between Industrial and Techno, or when a
>painting is considered Cubist, or a puppy becomes a dog.


Ah, at a virtually indefinable moment it becomes a virtually indefinable 
entity called a "blog." I see.

So, to recap:

"Blog" cannot be defined
Blogs have characteristics
Those characteristics are not neither unique to blogs nor possessed by all 
blogs
There is a checklist by which to check if a site is a blog
There are -- as far as I can tell -- three criteria on that list upon which 
to judge blogness
At an immeasurable point a site may slip below or achieve blogness

Which, I suppose, sort of puts us back to the beginning. So, "blog" is 
either indefinable because it is:

1) Infinite and awesome and our tiny human brains and our petty language 
cannot begin to describe it. Like God, some might say.

2) Non-existent. Like God, some might say.

So therefore, either way blog=God. Perhaps we should end this here and go 
worship our possibly non-existent master.  :)

-David





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))

[David Yirchott]

>>Hmmm I am not sure that I'd agree that "blog" is defined
>>heuristically
>>-- and if that were so, perhaps now it does mean all websites. Though,
>>perhaps you could be more clear in what you mean (I think either you
>>have
>>the wrong word or I have the wrong definition). To me heuristically is
>>like
>>trial and error; solving a problem through discovery.
>
>Your search for clarity is exactly the issue here. I can empathize with
>the desire, but natural language will simply not permit it.


Charles, if you don't know, just say you don't know. ;)

Seriously, while the psycholinguistic autopsy is interesting, I think we've 
gone a bit off track. I think the initial idea is just that there is no 
agreed upon definition of what a blog is -- and insofar as I can tell, we 
agree on that.

However, I think you believe that to be the case due to a failure of natural 
language (isn't the vast majority -- virtually all save for base words such 
as "ma" [which many suggest is the sound an infant mimicking suckling makes] 
and onomatopoeia -- of language unnatural?) whereas I question whether there 
are any defining characteristics.

I do find it interesting that at the same time you claim there can not be a 
definition, you are adamant that it has to have RSS and trackbacks.



>As far as semantic drift is concerned, couldn't it have drifted enough
>to
>mean all websites?
>
>
>No. It simply hasn't and I daresay it never will. However it's quite
>possible that, increasingly, most new websites heretofore will
>be blogs.


I am curious how you know that semantic drift simply has not rendered "blog" 
as another word for website. And what seperates the new websites that are 
blogs from those that are not? Are you suggesting that *any* new website 
with periodic posts and an RSS feed *is* a blog?


>And how are we to chart the drift if no initial
>definition exists to serve as a starting point?
>
>
>I gave you the initial definition and a canonical prototype: Robot
>Wisdom.


The initial definition you gave me was:
"The term used to mean, very specifically, a periodic list of interesting 
links found on the web. The prototypical example remains Robot Wisdom. These 
days it is synonymous with the common features shared between several 
widely-used applications: periodic posts, rss, trackback pings."

A list of intersting links found on the web sounds sort of like the Google 
example. The rest of it seems to indicate that a blog is not synonymous with 
a website that has periodic posts but no RSS. That will confuse many people 
who consider themselves legitimate bloggers, I think.

If you respond to this post, I'd love to see your answers to:
1) Can a website with periodic personal posts, but no RSS or trackbacks be a 
blog?
2) What if it has periodic posts and RSS, but no trackbacks?
3) What if it is a television station website with periodically posted news 
stories and an RSS feed?
4) How often is periodic? If someone fails to update their blog in two 
weeks, does it stop being a blog?

Wikipedia's entry for blog seems to claim RSS and trackbacks aren't 
necessary, for what it is worth. Also, it seems strange to me that something 
that cannot be described has technical requirements like RSS and trackbacks: 
content cannot be pinned down, look cannot be pinned down, ownership 
requirements cannot be pinned down, but it must have trackbacks?



>  And no current one is
>available either. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression the
>definitions I've seen recently are up-to-date.
>
>
> >There is no
> >clearcut blogness test, but there is a list of blog characteristics,
> >and blogness is proportional to the number of them exhibited. RSS
>feeds
> >and trackbacks are certainly on that list.


If there is a useful list of blog characteristics, shouldn't that equal a 
clearcut blogness test? Anyway, the true problem is that none of the items 
on the list you've given is 1) required for a blog or 2) exclusive to a 
blog.

Are all current blogs without RSS not full blogs?

"I have a new blog."
"That's not a blog! It's only a 75% blog!"

What would the other 25% be considered? What if a site scored 50%? At what 
level does one have a legitimate blog?



>Yes, so is text, but again, just because a website has RSS and
>trackbacks
>and text doesn't make it a blog, does it? And if it is missing RSS and
>trackbacks, does that mean it cannot a blog?
>
>
>You've ignored what's been said here. "Blog" and "Mother" are sets of
>stereotypical characteristics. Is item X a blog or a mother? The answer
>is provided by the heuristic of checking off how many of those defining
>characteristics are exhibited by X. The result of these processes are a
>blogness score and a motherness score.


Sure, the list checking is perception. But I've not heard anything that 
would disqualify a site as a blog. No RSS? No trackbacks? I think many 
people would disagree with that. I've only heard three things that would 
qualify it as a blog: p

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)

[David Yirchott]

>Peter is exactly right. Like almost all natural language words, "blog"
>it is defined heuristically, not synthetically. (And that's indicated
>by the semantic drift the term has enjoyed since 1997.)

Hmmm I am not sure that I'd agree that "blog" is defined heuristically 
-- and if that were so, perhaps now it does mean all websites. Though, 
perhaps you could be more clear in what you mean (I think either you have 
the wrong word or I have the wrong definition). To me heuristically is like 
trial and error; solving a problem through discovery.

As far as semantic drift is concerned, couldn't it have drifted enough to 
mean all websites? And how are we to chart the drift if no initial 
definition exists to serve as a starting point? And no current one is 
available either. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression the 
definitions I've seen recently are up-to-date.


>There is no
>clearcut blogness test, but there is a list of blog characteristics,
>and blogness is proportional to the number of them exhibited. RSS feeds
>and trackbacks are certainly on that list.

Yes, so is text, but again, just because a website has RSS and trackbacks 
and text doesn't make it a blog, does it? And if it is missing RSS and 
trackbacks, does that mean it cannot a blog?

Maybe the reason a definition doesn't exist is because there is no such 
distinction: blog is just another name for website. Once more, I don't 
necessarily believe that, but who knows?

-David



>From: Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your 
>oldest vlog entry)
>Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:10:23 -0400

>
>petertheman wrote:
>
>Many categories have fuzzy boundaries. Take "mother". How can we
>classify something as a mother? Is there a list of defining
>characteristics? Not really. Given birth? Not really, how about a
>person whose child was adopted. Yet we still call her a mother. Taking
>care of a child? Not really, how about someone who gave birth but
>doesn't take care of the child. And so on. Yet, we all know when
>someone is a mother and when they're not. It just doesn't work by
>using in/out criteria.
>
>
>Peter is exactly right. Like almost all natural language words, "blog"
>it is defined heuristically, not synthetically. (And that's indicated
>by the semantic drift the term has enjoyed since 1997.) There is no
>clearcut blogness test, but there is a list of blog characteristics,
>and blogness is proportional to the number of them exhibited. RSS feeds
>and trackbacks are certainly on that list.








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)

[David Yirchott]

>Many categories have fuzzy boundaries. Take "mother". How can we
>classify something as a mother?

Actually, a mother seems to me to be a female that has given birth and/or 
has taken legal guardianship of a child. Of course there are breakdowns to 
this as well: birth mother, adoptive mother, etc. But certainly not all 
women are mothers. However, if I am reading your post correctly it seems to 
me you may have blurred the line betweenn a definition and word usage, e.g. 
The Mother Of All Wars is not literally a mother -- same with a woman who 
cares for someone or something like it were her child. A mothering 
relationship doesn't seem to necessarily make a woman a mother.

If we are to agree that the definition of blog is nebulous at best, just 
like the definition of art. Then that, to me, means two things: 1) we will 
never be able to define what a vlog is, and 2) just as art is a subjective 
term, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to interpret "blog" as just 
another word for website (which, again, I don't necessarily agree with).


-David




>From: "petertheman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest 
>vlog entry)
>Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:12:57 -
>
>
> > Is there a definitive characteristic that is exclusive to all blogs?
>I'm not
> > sure.
>
>As an information architect obsessed with categorization, I have to
>chime in :)
>
>There is no definitive characteristic that is exclusive to all blogs.
>It is a category with fuzzy boundaries, as we say.
>
>Many categories have fuzzy boundaries. Take "mother". How can we
>classify something as a mother? Is there a list of defining
>characteristics? Not really. Given birth? Not really, how about a
>person whose child was adopted. Yet we still call her a mother. Taking
>care of a child? Not really, how about someone who gave birth but
>doesn't take care of the child. And so on. Yet, we all know when
>someone is a mother and when they're not. It just doesn't work by
>using in/out criteria.
>
>The discussion of trying to define blogging in terms of a list of
>checkboxes we can check of to determine this is fruitless.
>
>Cheers,
>Peter
>
>
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Sony HD Camera, Under $2000

[David Yirchott]

Cool!

Thanks, Kunga. I'll definitely look into this more after I get off work! And 
thanks for the HD/HDV correction (I wasn't clear on the difference, but you 
inspired me to Google it).

Looking forward to seeing your HDV-sourced examples,

-David


>From: Kunga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Sony HD Camera, Under $2000
>Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:37:15 -0700
>
>Yes that is correct David with XLR connectors etc. The advantage over
>the original is size and weight about HALF the first model. Much
>better for undercover and field work. Still real HDV. BYW just a note
>- these cameras are not HD cameras. They are HDV cameras. They shoot
>NATIVE 1920 x 1080i HDV and when you dumb that footage down to our
>internet level it is going to look FANTASTIC! I have access to the
>original model as soon as he stops working with it and will be
>posting examples of HDV sourced video soon.
>
>If you subscribe to MacTV on iTunes he already posted an HDV shoot of
>the Apple Intel Mac announcement in HDV and it looks FANTASTIC!! Go
>look. It's up there for the taking.
>
>I would always ask the Chuckmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at
> where to buy my cameras for the lowest price.
>He makes it his business to know. And he has arrangements with
>reputable dealers to give his followers the lowest price. He is a
>global authority on all things DV and now HDV. I recommend everyone
>bookmark his site for the latest info on what's next and new from Japan.
>
>Taylor Barcroft
>
>Now listed in the iTunes Podcast Directory. FutureMedia, or future,
>media, parties, taylor, barcroft ...
>
>barcroft (gizmo) 
>kungax (Skype) >
>kungag5 (iChat-AIM) 
>
>
>
>
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)

[David Yirchott]

>When you say "blog" to most people who have heard the term more than a
>month ago, they will expect RSS and trackbacks, because the vastest
>majority of blogs are running on blogspot, blogger, typepad, wordpress,
>et al. I expect they far outnumber your "many blogs" that lack them.

Perhaps, but I guess one couldn't really say that in order to be a blog 
those things are required. Especially since 1)Not all sites considered blogs 
have them, and 2)many sites one (in my opinion) wouldn't consider a blog -- 
television station websites, for instance -- also have them (or RSS at 
least).

Is there a definitive characteristic that is exclusive to all blogs? I'm not 
sure.

I'm not trying to open a can of worms or re-tread old ground. My initial 
comment was just that the definition of a vlog isn't as simple as a blog 
with video, as people can't agree on what a blog is.


-David




>From: Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest 
>vlog entry)
>Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:34:28 -0400

>David Yirchott wrote:
>
>>Ah, Charles, but the website where I work has an RSS feed and it isn't a
>>blog (to me). Many website do now. Also, there are many blogs without RSS
>>and/or trackback pings.
>
>
>When you say "blog" to most people who have heard the term more than a
>month ago, they will expect RSS and trackbacks, because the vastest
>majority of blogs are running on blogspot, blogger, typepad, wordpress,
>et al. I expect they far outnumber your "many blogs" that lack them.








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)

[David Yirchott]

Ah, Charles, but the website where I work has an RSS feed and it isn't a 
blog (to me). Many website do now. Also, there are many blogs without RSS 
and/or trackback pings.

-David


>Are there any features specific to blogs that would differentiate them from 
>common websites?

>In the modern usage (being descriptive and not prescriptive), blogness
>includes rss and trackback pings because they are notable features 
>exhibited by the overwhelming majority of blogs, and lacked by most
>things that aren't called blogs.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hcm8s9p/M=362329.6886308.7839368.1510227/D=groups/S=1705554021:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1124691727/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
">Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!.
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)

[David Yirchott]

Charles,
Thanks for the great link, I just bookmarked it!

As far as I know, RSS and trackback pings are optional bells and whistles 
for both blogs and vlogs. Are there any features specific to blogs that 
would differentiate them from common websites?

-David



>From: Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest 
>vlog entry)
>Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:44:38 -0400
>
>
>The term used to mean, very specifically, a periodic list of
>interesting links found on the web. The prototypical example remains Robot 
>Wisdom. These days it is
>synonymous with the common features shared between several widely-used
>applications: periodic posts, rss, trackback pings.
>
>
>
>Yes, there are edge cases. There are always edge cases. Where would
>pedants be without edge cases?








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)

[David Yirchott]

Jen,
Thanks for the input, but I think you are referring to a change in 
technology brought about by time, not necessarily a defining characteristic 
of either websites or blogs.

Content Management Systems have made life easier for all of us. Heck, one 
doesn't even really have to know any programming languages to create or 
maintain a website anymore. But a CMS neither defines a blog nor a website. 
Either can be created and maintained with or without one.

I uses a template-based CMS at work and wouln't really call the end product 
a blog, though it seems to fit the definitions I've come across.

-David




>From: Jen Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest 
>vlog entry)
>Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:30:00 -0400
>
> > Now all you have to do is define what a blog is.
> > Some would argue it is just another name for website.
> >
> > -David
>
>I wouldn't be one of those people.
>
>I started building websites in 1998. I started building blogs in 2002.
>There's a big difference between the way a static html-based site works
>and blogging technology (using some sort of third party software that
>creates pages for you and automatically archives, moving older content
>off the home page without being asked.)
>
>To me, the revolutionary thing about the invention of the blog is in
>the ease of the technology -- making it so very much easier to keep a
>site always changing, always current -- especially for those of us
>who've always built sites as a one-person team (not a huge site with a
>staff / with programmers there to write custom backend aps) Of
>course it's always been technologically possible to update a website
>often using static html, but the human-power-reality of the amount of
>time it took to constantly post new pages by hand meant it didn't
>happen nearly as much as I wanted. I would have never dreamed seven
>years ago of updating as often as I do now, or of running as many sites
>as I do now, or of those sites being as large and as complicated as
>they are now. In the past, I was always stuck being the only person who
>had the tech-know-how to make any changes. Now I can build a blog into
>my client's page, teach them the interface, and let them be responsible
>for all the news and announcements -- leave me out of it!
>
>Blogs were definitely invented much later than html. And the invention
>has changed the way websites are made, and made it possible for many
>more people to be building websites.
>
>Now we just need the same kind of easy-of-use revolution for
>videoblogging...
>
>A blog is a kind of website, but not all websites are blogs. Just as
>the web is part of the internet, but just one part -- there's a lot
>going on (and has been for 40 years) on the internet, that has nothing
>to do with the wide world web (which is just over 10 years old).
>
>j
>








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)

[David Yirchott]

Adrian,
I am not sure that I would put myself in the camp of those whose broad 
definition of blog would include all websites, but as I mentioned previously 
some do. Although I will say I have heard that point made rather 
convincingly. For instance, I don't think most would consider television 
station website as blogs, but they do seem to meet all of the requirements 
(that I am aware of).

I am not familiar with your university's website, but if BoingBoing: a 
directory of wonderful things is considered a blog, then why not Google: a 
self-styled directory of all things? Afterall the search function is not 
unlike combing the archives of a blog -- one puts in a search term and is 
rewarded with a list of matching posts. In fact, it is almost as if Google 
is a more interactive version of a blog - it only ever gives you content 
tailored to what you ask for. There are many blogs that link offsite, so 
that alone shouldn't disqualify it. And surely a splash page is okay. And 
the fact that people purposefully alter meta tags, font sizes, and other 
qualities of their sites to get submitted to search engines makes it almost 
like a really, really large group blog with tons of contributors.

If I were asked, I wouldn't classify Google as a blog. Though I am not sure 
that I could give a convincing reason why. It's sort of like art. You can't 
describe it, but you know it when you see it. Though I'd definitely be 
interested in hearing why you think it isn't a blog, I suspect you've 
thought about this more than I have and will be able to put to words what I 
cannot.

That being said, we still haven't defined what a blog is, only examples of 
what it might not be. Are there any good, widely accepted definitions out 
there you can point us to? Because even if search engines are taken out of 
the mix, that still leaves us with a lot of websites.

Thanks!
-David


> >Now all you have to do is define what a blog is.
> >
> >Some would argue it is just another name for website.
>
>the list has discussed this at  length.
>
>No, it isn't. Specifics vary but the google site is not a blog, nor
>is my university's.
>--
>cheers
>Adrian Miles





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry)

[David Yirchott]

Now all you have to do is define what a blog is.

Some would argue it is just another name for website.

-David


>From: Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [videoblogging] Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog 
>entry)
>Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:38:04 -0700
>
>Claudio, your confusion stems from the fact that if you ask everyone here
>what a videoblog is, everyone will give a different answer!
>
>I'm going with the most open definition right now: video. on a blog. All 
>the
>other stuff, feeds/enclosures, citizen journalism, all of it: it's gravy on
>the toast. Video. Blog. Put them together in some way, and that's a video
>blog.
>
>--Stephanie
>
>On 8/21/05, claudio gherardini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ehm..I am still trying to undestand what is a videoblog and my
> > english is very poorsob
> >
> > Claudio Gherardini
> > 50126 - Firenze - via A. Traversari 75 - Italy
> > tel: +39055687618
> > icq: 74274967
> > msn messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > mobile phone: +39 347 8060186
> > mobile phone: +39 333 9237262
> > videophone +39 3932504859
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://www.claudiogherardini.net
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephanie Bryant wrote:
> >
> > I just found my first video-on-a-blog entry, from March 25, 2002, one
> > week after I got my first blog:
> >
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/mortaine/2900.html
> >
> > Wasn't, like, RSS+enclosures back then, but still. Video. Blog. Whee.
> >
> > What's yours?
> >
> > --Stephanie
> >
> > --
> > Stephanie Bryant
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.mortaine.com
> >
> >
> >
> >  SPONSORED LINKS
> >   
>Individual
> > 
>Fireant
> > 
>Explains
> >  --
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >    - Visit your group 
>"videoblogging"
> >    on the web.
> > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >    
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >    Service .
> >
> >
> >  --
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Stephanie Bryant
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.mortaine.com








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] Sony HD Camera, Under $2000

[David Yirchott]

I was just asking about this HDR-HC1 on the last videoconference. Has anyone 
had any good/bad experiences with it?

Supposedly in September the prosumer HVR-A1U is coming out. Read a preview 
here: ( URL: http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/articles/A1U/HVR-A1U.htm ). 
The article claims it'lll be priced at $2700, anyone know otherwise?

Also, Andrew, I'd be grateful for a link to where the HDR-HC1 can be 
purchased for $1700. The cheapest I've found it at is $1899.00 at B&H ( URL: 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=385368&is=REG&addedTroughType=search 
).


-David



>From: "Andrew Baron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [videoblogging] Sony HD Camera, Under $2000
>Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:34:50 -
>
>A review of the smallest and lest expensive HD camera, the Sony HDR-HC1:
>$1700
>http://tinyurl.com/dye2c
>
>
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] Re: CBS starting a podcast (Response To David)

[David Yirchott]

Andrew,
Congrats on the CBS interview!


Best,
-David



>From: "Andrew Baron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [videoblogging] Re: CBS starting a podcast (Response To David)
>Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:09:57 -
>
>Speaking of CBS, they also started to vlog and just ran a national story on 
>Rocketboom,
>like 5 min ago. Here it is documented on their website:
>http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/eveningnews/main3420.shtml








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] video conference today - special topic

[David Yirchott]

Maybe ( URL: http://www.script-o-rama.com/ )

Find something with a lot of parts :)

-David


>From: Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] video conference today - special topic
>Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:32:38 -0700
>
>Reminder - conference starts in a little over 20 minutes
>
>anybody got a script we can use to make a movie in the conference room?
>
>
>
>Markus Sandy wrote:
>
>
>Ryanne and Jay posted a video today asking about it...
>http://feeds.feedburner.com/RyannesVideoBlog?m=200
>
>Clint posted a great note about it...
>http://clintsharp.com/archives/2005/08/16/content-of-course/
>
>I was thinking it would be fun to bring it up in the conference today...
>
>*CONTENT!!!*
>
>So how about making it the topic for today's conference.
>Let's discuss what people are making.
>What are you watching?
>Let's discuss making a collaborative movie in the conference room itself
>(We'll need writers, actors, tech people)
>Please join in.
>
>Today at 5pm PDT - 8 pm EDT - mid GMT
>
>http://flash.kmi.open.ac.uk:8080/fm/index.php?pwd=2993e6-1457
>
>Markus
>
>--
>
>My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
>
>http://apperceptions.org
>http://apperceive.com
>http://app.etitio.us
>
>http://wearethemedia.com
>http://www.corante.com/events/feedfest/
>http://spinflow.org
>
>http://spinsummer2005.blogspot.com
>http://spinsummer2005meetup.blogspot.com
>http://vloggercuewest.blogspot.com
>
>aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>skype: msandy
>spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.

[David Yirchott]

Chris,
Good questions and ones I'll attempt to answer, however, I have not dealt 
with this per say. In my experience, either someone has contacted the sales 
or promotion department at the television station where I worked or the 
reverse, our sales or promotion department reaches out to them. In either 
case, I have been brought in after initial contact has been made.

That being said, I think who you should contact will vary by whom you seek 
out as a sponsor. If it is a local business, you might need to speak with 
the owner. If you want to approach Coca-Cola, you might need to go through 
their media buyer. It also seems like many businesses are set up 
differently: Is it the Advertising, PR, Sales, or Marketing department you 
want to speak with? It could be different at each one. I would suggest doing 
a little research -- checking out their website and whatnot -- to find out 
what you can about their structure. And it couldn't hurt to call up and ask 
to speak with whomever handles buying advertising.

Many business are used to being hit up to advertise on TV, on radio, and in 
print. So it shouldn't be like you're the first. I'd suggest calling rather 
than emailing. Email is spam and is easy to ignore. It is easier to 
trash/ignore an email than it is to say "no" to a person.

Ask yourself why the business would want to advertise with you. What are the 
benefits to them? Write them down and put it in front of you before you 
call. Last thing you want to do is be on the phone with a decision maker and 
sound like you don't know what you are doing. I'd go so far as to practice 
your selling speech. Record your voice and see what it sounds like. Try to 
eliminate verbal ticks like "um... " "ah..." "y'know" or "like." Become 
comfortable with silence -- often people are compelled to fill those small 
voids with word, any words; it can become problematic. Be very aware that 
when people are nervous, they tend to talk fast and breathe fast -- don't do 
this, it doesn't sound credible. Also, don't concentrate so much on not 
being nervous that you aren't paying attention to the conversation. Have a 
pen and paper with you to take notes. And you might want to put on a suit 
and tie -- research shows even though the person on the other end can't see 
you, it affects your behavior and attitude. Also, know what you want to sell 
and for how much -- or at least have a fairly strong idea. If they are local 
try to set up a meeting to show them what you can offer them.

If you do get a meeting, be prepared: ask to meet in a room with a computer 
connected to the Internet so you can show them your website. Bring your 
laptop if you have one. If you have time, do a mock-up of your homepage with 
their ads on it. Bring a CD with screengrabs of your website in case there 
is some crazy Internet/DNS issue. Bring several copies of a one-sheet that 
lists the benefits of advertising on your website. Bring documents to back 
up your claims (traffic numbers, etc.). Know how and when they will be 
billed and how and when they will receive whatever you promise them 
(pageview numbers, for instance). Dress professionally. If they say "no," 
say, "I can understand you aren't ready to do this right now, Is it okay if 
I contact you in a month or two to update you on any improvements I've made 
on my site and see if you guys might be ready then?" Or something like that 
-- in other words, give yourself an opening to try to resell yourself later. 
Thank them for their time.

As far as a directory goes, I did a quick Google search for list of media 
buyers, and one of the results I got was: ( URL: 
http://www.salesvantage.com/d/Media_Buyers/ ). I can't speak to how legit or 
useful the site is I just saw it for the first time, but there is stuff out 
there.

Maybe there is someone in the group who's had more experience in this area, 
who can contribute some additional useful information? Hint, hint to all you 
lurkers :)


Good luck! Let us know how it goes!

-David



>From: Chris Baudry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, 
>Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.
>Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:36:16 -0700
>
>David,
>  As a follow up to what you say about sponsors, a very practical question:
>after identifying a list of potential sponsors that might be interested, 
>how
>do you contact them? Do you contact their marketing dept. and what type of
>person are you trying to reach? Or communication agencies? Phone? Email? Is
>there a directory of these marketing and communication people?
>  Thanks,
>  Christian








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your gr

RE: [videoblogging] stats

[David Yirchott]

Steven,
I don't think there are any hard numbers on video blogging as it is still 
somewhat a new phenomenon. Certainly it is growing, but it should be pointed 
out that a Pew/Internet survey released January 2 of this year found that 
only 38% of Internet users even knew what a blog was -- 62% did not.

-David



>From: "Steven Livingstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: 
>Subject: [videoblogging] stats
>Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:55:57 +0100
>
>Anyone got stats/pointers to facts and research on the number of Video
>Bloggers currently, projected number and so on?
>
>
>
>thanks,
>
>steven
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: When the video camera makes the reputation...

[David Yirchott]

Aside for a permit so as not to obstruct the normal flow of people, another 
thing to be careful of is that it is possible to trademark a building or 
landmark. For instance, in Chicago all of Millennium Park is trademarked. 
Therefore in order to professionally shoot there you need to pay a fee and 
get a permit, as well. Casual photographers are exempted from this, but if 
you show up with a tripod be prepared to grease a palm or hit the curb.

BoingBoing article: ( URL: 
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/07/please_add_photos_of.html )

Many famous and not-so-famous buildings have done this. Particularly newer 
structures -- even public art installations. I've heard that the Eiffel 
Tower is wierdly not trademarked during the day, but is at night.

Here's a link to find out more about photog rights in the US and UK. I've 
seen this guy mentioned in a couple places. I think he's an ACLU lawyer. ( 
URL: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm )

Hmmm... the .pdf link doesn't seem to be working now. I'd suggest going back 
later or doing a Google search.

-David



>From: Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: When the video camera makes the 
>reputation...
>Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:20:31 -0500
>
>Frank Carver wrote:
> > Thursday, August 11, 2005, 7:55:12 PM, Pete Prodoehl wrote:
> >
> >>Permit for what? Do you need a permit to shoot video on the subway or
> >>other locations? (I'm asking because I really don't know. Are the
> >>videographers rights the same as the well known photographers rights?)
> >
> >
> > What you need to remember is that traditionally TV and moviemaking has
> > meant big budgets. Many big cities in the USA (where lots of such things
> > are shot), long ago decided to cash in on these lucrative activities.
> >
> > In such places (which (AFAIK) include LA, NY, and Chicago, for example)
> > you need to pay up front for a permit to shoot, and will be nabbed if
> > spotted doing something that looks like pro filmmaking without a
> > permit.
> >
> > In these cases, looking like a dumb tourist is actually an advantage
> > :)
>
>Hmmm, "what I need to remember" sounds just all wrong... I was never
>involved in traditional tv or moviemaking, so I would have no idea I'd
>need a permit to walk around a major city with a video camera.
>
>See? It always comes back around to money. The cities wanted to make
>money off of big media, and we have to suffer because of it. Sigh...
>
>Pete
>
>--
>http://tinkernet.org/
>videoblog for the future...
>
>








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] Evangelism?

[David Yirchott]

Not sure if anyone addressed this, as I am catching up on email, working my 
way up from the bottom, so I apologize if this redundant:

I am surprised DailyDancer.com is still up and creating new content. This 
site finished #7 in the Contagious Media Showdown ( URL: 
http://showdown.contagiousmedia.org/ ). Entrants must create new content 
specifically for the contest, so it seems this stunt was thought up for a 
competition and has continued on based on popularity and perhaps ad 
clicks/DailyDancer.com gear sales.

He got 89,324 unique visitors and 132 Technorati links between 5/19/2005 and 
6/9/2005.  Not bad for the first three weeks after launch. Lesson: Gimmicks 
work. Nifty.

-David



>From: Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [videoblogging] Evangelism?
>Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:56:15 -0500
>
>
>I'm wondering about videoblogging evangelism here...
>
>Take a look at this guy:
>
>    http://www.dailydancer.com/
>
>Tons of comments on his videos. Looks like he's using Blogger, the only
>thing missing is an RSS feed with enclosures.
>
>What would be the best way to contact the guy and say "Hey, you just
>need an RSS feed with enclosures and tons more people will see your
>videos, go to this site [url?] and set one up."
>
>I'm not volunteering to spend all my time doing this, but wondering if
>others have done this, or looking for the best approach to doing so.
>
>Pete
>
>--
>http://tinkernet.org/
>videoblog for the future...
>
>








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.

[David Yirchott]

Responding to this offline. Will cc Verdi.

-David



>From: Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, 
>Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.
>Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:00:01 -0700
>
>I disagree with you David.  I do not think Verdi's response was unfair
>or cruel at all.
>
>I think the point is to "raise the bar".
>
>Markus
>
>David Yirchott wrote:
>
> >Wow, Verdi. I think that response is, to say the least, a bit unfair. I
> >don't see the point in trying to cruelly shame somebody out of their 
>dream.
> >I also don't see the point in publicly damning a member of the community 
>for
> >simply asking for some help.








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Explains
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[videoblogging] Stream vs. Download (was: Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, e

[David Yirchott]

On the issue of streaming vs. downloading commercials: the problem with the 
download is that the advertiser loses control of distribution of the 
commercial. As far as I know, AFTRA ( URL: http://www.aftra.org ) still 
requires commercial actors to receive royalties based on the number of times 
a commercial is aired. If it is let loose upon the Internet, the advertiser 
could very well wind up with a large bill to pay actors -- even years later. 
Also, if the advertiser is paying on a CPM basis, that too could result in a 
large bill years later to the website.

Also, Andrew, in response to your email about your busy life and your 
ever-expanding to-do list, I have a simple solution: Much like Kramer in 
Seinfeld, I think you need to get an intern. More than one, actually. 
Seriously, I would think it would be fairly easy to set up with a local 
college/university and I am sure there would be students who would love to 
be part of what you are doing.

Good luck,
-David





>From: andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Questions Regarding Sponsorships, 
>Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.
>Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:56:19 -0400
>
>Apparently, with QT files at least, I hear you can install a
>hyperlink ping to occur at some reference point. So, every time
>someone watches the end of the commercial, say, you could have the QT
>file ping a server.
>
>On Aug 13, 2005, at 1:48 PM, t.whid wrote:
>
> > My 2¢ regarding videoblog :
> >
> > If you really want to make money you might want to try streaming
> > instead of download.
> >
> > There is a market for video advertisements*, but you need to
> > provide numbers or the
> > advertisers won't pay. At least that's how it works presently.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12huicv8f/M=362335.6886445.7839731.1510227/D=groups/S=1705554021:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123987687/A=2894361/R=0/SIG=13jmebhbo/*http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/education/digitaldivide/?source=YAHOO&cmpgn=GRP&RTP=http://groups.yahoo.com/";>In
 low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help 
bridge the Digital Divide!.
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [videoblogging] Re: MSM Dialogue (was: CBS starting a podcast (Response To David)

[David Yirchott]

Gena,
Sorry about the late response, I was hoping to have responded earlier. I get 
sidetracked too easily sometimes.


>"Actually, 18-34-year-old males are the most desired audience, and
>even thoughI still fall in that range, I agree the programming choices
>stink."
>
>This provides an opportunity for video bloggers to fill in the various
>gaps in programming. I see no shift in behavior on the broadcast TV
>side of the fence. With everyone in MSM chasing the same demographic
>group they cast aside millions of people. Segments of the population
>are aging. Other demographic groups demands will take center stage
>(Latino/Latina/Hispanic) Old line media will have a hard time getting
>anyone to pay attention to their petitions.
>
>You might want to beef up your 401K plan to be on the safe side. ;-]

LOL, very true.  I believe there are great opportunities awaiting 
independent producers, the seeds of which are being planted as we speak. Old 
media is faltering, but while they have been complacent, it doesn't mean 
they aren't smart. I am sure there are a few tricks up their sleeves.

You know, it wasn't that long ago that if you wanted to see an independent 
or foreign movie you'd have to go to a tiny arthouse theatre somewhere. How 
strange it is to find those little gems projected on the big screens of 
theatres in the mall. All the major studios have divisions devoted to 
creating or finding them and running them through the Hollywood ad machine. 
What was independent becomes mainstream.


>===
>Video on Demand
>
>The future form of video blogging and related compatriots will have to
>establish distribution/syndication accessible to non-technical folks.
>This will happen. If I know who was gonna do it I'd start saving for
>the IPO right now.
>
>There will be more players than just American MSM. When the
>bandwidth/distribution situation is worked out, you will have content
>from around the world. I could choose to watch a performance from
>Ghana or Rome.
>
>The BBC is much more web savvy than any current American broadcaster.
>And they are planning to go further. They understand about
>connectivity, audience participation, and retention. They are still in
>learning mode but are years ahead of CBS.
>
>Sorry.


I agree with this. In fact CBS, ABC, and NBC have all just recently 
announced the creation of Internet divisions to take that brand new internet 
thing seriously.

Part of the difference between US networks and the BBC is that the BBC is 
funded by taxes that come straight from UK citizens. The government keeps an 
eye on them to constantly maintain a very high standard and prove they are 
delivering a useful service. CBS and other US networks work differently. 
While the FCC polices -- to arguably varying extents -- the content on-air, 
the networks are beholden to advertisers who desire a certain demographic 
make-up. And because of that they were on top and weren't paying attention 
when the Internet snuck up on them.


>===
>Carpetbagging Part 3
>
>You cannot steal an audience that walked away or was discarded. They
>chucked women, smart people, politically alienated people, creative
>people and millions more in the unwanted pile.


Sure, but many more of them became loyal viewers and maybe 'lured away' is a 
better term. Though I would debate whether they "chucked women, smart 
people, politically alienated people, people and millions more." I guess it 
depends if we are counting cable. And are we only counting TV. I don't think 
they chuck those groups, just mostly the choices suck. Same for everyone. I 
know plenty of non-18-34-year-old-white-Christian-males who happen to enjoy 
television. A lot. There's no accounting for taste and that goes across the 
board.

It's like the old joke: How is TV like a steak? It's a medium that is rare 
to find well done.


>Television has not yet acknowledged the need to adapt. Not just to the
>distribution methods but viewer choice and participation. They ain't
>got a clue about that one.

True, but they are catching on. They are beginning to pay more attention to 
their own industry it seems.


>This might be a harder shift for MSM to make. Blogs, podcast,
>videoblogs, gaming and those 24 hour nooky films web sites are
>alternatives. Don't hate people for wanting more than what was or is
>currently offered.

Agreed!

>You are not gonna change my mind about the "contest" thing. Okay. It
>is a step. I'm not saying what they have stepped into.

:)


>Video bloggers will have to adapt too. Like panty hose, one size does
>not fit all.
>
>There are people here who will run to MSM with content for money. I am
>not knocking this, it is a choice. Some will hook up with like-minded
>affiliates in a co-op income stream.
>
>Some are on a mission/vision and no amount of cash money will stop
>production. A few don't give a damn about mission it is more of "how
>can I exploit this to my benefit."
>
>It is import that "we de

RE: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.

[David Yirchott]

RadioMike,
Congratulations on your new project. I wish you and your colleague all the 
best!

Below I will share my thoughts and knowledge, but this is still somewhat 
uncharted territory. I am not an expert and your mileage may vary:

First, I agree with your assessment of securing an underwriter/sponsor. If 
you can get one, it often means more money than a typical advertising rate 
card will pay out and the opportunity to build a solid business relationship 
with a company that has similar interests and target audiences as your own.


>My questions regarding this are mostly how does one present statistics
>and audience numbers to a potential underwriter when the potential
>podcast has not been produced and downloaded by anyone yet (I can
>probably dig up statistics and audience numbers from my one-time podcast
>that I had to put on hiatus due to the emergency of finding paid
>employment in Austin.


First and foremost, you should ask yourself, "What does the potential 
sponsor want?" That simple question will keep the rest of your work focused. 
Is it a local sponsor? National? What sort of demographics are they looking 
for? At this point, without a show-specific track record, you aren't selling 
a product, you're selling a concept. Which means a certain amount of 
forecasting is acceptable, but back it up with whatever data you can get. 
For instance, if there is a similar podcast, try to find out what numbers 
they get. Get general information about podcasters. I recently posted a link 
to a survey that showed people who read blogs tend to be younger and 
wealthier than typical web surfers. Find out what you can about podcast 
listeners.

The numbers you have from your previous show are great, especially if this 
new show is similar. First of all, it is good that the numbers from your 
last show (July 6, 2005) are recent. But the next question is what kind of 
numbers do you have? Do they support the goals of the potential sponsor? If 
you can track the location of downloaders, are your numbers from local 
sources? Keep in mind that not all local users will appear to derive from a 
local source. AOL users, I believe, generally show up coming from Virginia. 
But if you have numbers from Malaysia and you have a local sponsor that may 
not be seen as a benefit.

Find out if you can, your previous show's numbers of pageviews and unique 
users. Keep in mind that if you are delivering your podcast in a feed, 
people with podcatchers don't have to visit your site, which can, of course, 
decrease pageviews and unique user numbers. And will make any of the 
sponsor's banner ads and links on your site underperform.

What I'd suggest: certainly mention the sponsor in the podcast, but try to 
drive traffic to the sponsor's site, your site, or both. Have something on 
your website a listener will not get from just the podcast: pictures, a 
blog, articles, links for more information, or a way to give feedback. 
Create a contest: have your sponsor donate his/her product and give it away 
on your website. Set up a contest entry form on your website and tell people 
about it on your show. That makes it easy and more acceptable to mention the 
sponsor, and it should drive traffic to your homepage.

Tell the sponsor What it is about your new podcast that is likely to 
increase your numbers over the previous one. Do your numbers show a loyal 
audience that will function as a foundation for your new show? Did your 
numbers indicate a steady audience growth? Will you have more advertising 
this time around? Will you be listed on iTunes (again, likely not a benefit 
for a local sponsor)?

Also, you may not want to mention stopping your show to find emergency 
employment. I do not Know the details surrounding the situation, but a 
business wants to know that they are making an investment in a stable 
project. last thing you want is a potential sponsor wondering if -- after 
they invest in you -- you're going to go on another hiatus.



>And also, how does one determine
>an underwriting rate or fee for a new podcast or videoblog?


This is virtually uncharted territory bacause it is a new distribution 
model. What impact do you suspect this sponsorship will have for you and for 
the sponsor. Sometimes it is worth losing money to be affiliated with a 
certain business. If that is not the case here, come up with a number that 
will give your sponsor the perception of value and you a reason to keep them 
around. Do Internet searches. Often

there is a lot of guidance than can be derived from Google searches.



>The same questions also apply for the websites themselves where the
>podcast is hosted or originated, but in relation to Banner ads
>Googleads, Adwords, Blogads, etc and what is the most effective out of
>the bunch for that and how much should be charged for the various types
>of the above whether they be Underwriters, Sponsors, etc.


I am not sure I understand this part. Adwords, for instance is a service 
where y

Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.

[David Yirchott]

Wow, Verdi. I think that response is, to say the least, a bit unfair. I 
don't see the point in trying to cruelly shame somebody out of their dream. 
I also don't see the point in publicly damning a member of the community for 
simply asking for some help.

RadioMike, I have to get some sleep as I work in the morning. I'll post a 
legitimate (I can't guarantee it will be helpful, but it'll be legitimate) 
response Saturday.

Congratulations on the new project.

-David



>From: Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Questions Regarding Sponsorships, 
>Underwriting, Ads, and Rates, etc.
>Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:43:51 -0400
>
>On Aug 12, 2005, at 8:25 PM, RadioMike Perazzetti wrote:
> > My colleague and I have been brainstorming podcasting ideas and we
> > figure the best way to do it and do it right is to obtain
> > underwriting,
> > sponsorships, and the like with advertising coming in at a close
> > second
> > or third.
> >
>
>Hey Mike,
>This is pretty much a flame.  Don't take it personally, I don't even
>know who you are.  Your email though brings up what I think is a
>really important point that I didn't want to let slide.
>
>Personally, I think that quote above tells me your looking at this
>whole thing as a means to make a buck.  In my opinion this dooms you
>to a life of producing complete and utter bullshit.  Listen, if your
>stuff hit the right demographic and was bland enough you'd be on the
>radio or TV already.  Since it's not, you must be looking to be a low
>budget imitation of bland, mindless crap.  That doesn't seem like a
>very good business plan.
>
>Here's my suggestion: you and your colleague should go get yourselves
>on the radio or TV if that's what you want.  If, on the other hand,
>what you really want is to podcast or videoblog, I have a few places
>to start:  1. Brainstorm some good ideas about content and forget
>about good ideas for underwriting.  2. Better yet, fuck
>brainstorming, if you're creative you probably have some stuff you're
>just dying to do - do that instead.  3. Quit lurking around and just
>get started.  Then get better at it.
>
>Peace
>
>--
>Verdi
>http://michaelverdi.com
>http://freevlog.org
>http://graymattergravy.com
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] MSM Dialogue (was: CBS starting a podcast (Response To David)

[David Yirchott]

Gena,
Sorry this is a long response. If we keep this up we may have the second 
book to come from this group! I separated the points with lines to make it 
easier to read. I promise I'll try to make any future posts shorter!



>>I really understand about having too much to do and no time to do it. I 
>>read your other post about full disclosure and now have a concern that you 
>>might get job whacked for "blogging." It has happened. It is
>>not just MSM I have distrust for but what companies are currently
>>doing to employees that express themselves via blogging.


Yeah, maybe I need to do a little more "full disclosure." I am, I think, the 
only person currently on this list that does not yet blog or vlog. I have 
mentioned it before. I am lame. I am still in academic mode and trying to 
find my voice. But soon, soon I shall join you all in the Promised Land of 
free expression. I was going to dive in the other week, but my work schedule 
got switched, I didn't (and still don't) know what to call my vlog, I am 
sort of waiting for Movable Type to release 3.2 (any day now), and, well I 
suppose there will always be excuses. Anyway, hopefully very soon.

That being said, I don't expect I'll blog much about work. Television and 
media theories, perhaps, but not specifics of my day-to-day job or the 
people there. That's typically where people go wrong. Although, who knows, 
maybe someday something blogworthy will happen at work. I guess I'll cross 
or burn that bridge when I get to it.

===

>>*Podcasting has cut into bottom lines and ...it is still 
>>young/increasingly bad financial situation.*
>>
>>No they kind of did it to themselves by marketing their product to 13 to 
>>39 year old boys or cheap reality programming. They listened to the bean 
>>counters and advertisers who told them to target and slice up the 
>>demographics.


Actualy, 18-34-year-old males are the most desired audience, and even though 
I still fall in that range, I agree the programming choices stink. That's 
why I don't miss my television. But you are right, they listen to the 
advertisers and they serve up banal or sensationalized programming to appeal 
to the widest desired audience (AKA: lowest common denominator). But they 
are in a business to make money, so while I don't necessarily like it, I do 
understand it. It is the same with movies, unfortunately.

The other part of this as Clint Sharp, myself, and others have stated: They 
get one program to air at any given time to the entire country. If you tune 
in at 8pm tonight, any station you go to is going to offer you one choice 
(unless you go to a Video On Demand station). Think of the possibilities the 
Internet can open up when they -- and we -- are not restricted to a 
single-program delivery model. Will they change or just offer more of the 
same? I don't know. But they might invest more in higher-quality second-tier 
programs that will bring in sizeable cash even if it is less than what they 
make off of "I Want To Be A Hilton" because they can effortlessly show both 
at the same time.

When TV and the Internet become joined, however, it'll bring with it a host 
of new issues for businesses to deal with: Instead of competing in a 
500-channel universe, they will be competing against every web page in 
existence. What will the advertisers do? Pay lower Internet rates instead of 
high television rates? If they do, then networks will lose money. If TV and 
Web become the same, there will be no reason for network affiliates anymore. 
Network shows would be accessible via the network website/stream or from 
other non-local affiliates (unless they figure out how to restrict it). 
Likely they'll lose many affiliates and the cashflow from them. If 
Internet/Web is the same, in theory the whole world could watch a show -- 
but will US companies want to pay ad rates if the show is seen by a large 
number of people outside the US? Same for political ads. I am off on a 
tangent. Sorry.

To get back to yourpoint: MSM has gotten rich off of the coveted 
18-34-year-old male. But they haven't really understood him. So, they were 
taken somewhat unaware when research started showing that that demographic 
is watching less television. They play video games. They use the Internet. 
Internet usage=less TV. Broadband=even less TV. Broadband saturation is over 
50% in the US.

Is MSM killing itself by putting such a high focus on men 18-34? Yes and no. 
As this demo continues to migrate away from TV, networks will have to make 
adjustments. However, if relevant high-brow content was truly what people 
wanted, PBS might likely be the richest network. Afterall, unlike 
traditional networks it gets significant funding *directly* from its 
viewers. And viewers have sway when it comes to picking shows.

If television networks had been the ones who pioneered alternative media 
distribution methods, they might have controlled it, now they are playing 
catch-up and they don'

[videoblogging] MSM Dialogue (was: CBS starting a podcast (Response To David)

[David Yirchott]

Gena,
Sorry it took so long for a reply. It's like my life has ADD, I kept getting 
interrupted. Anyway, I wanted to stress again that I don't mean to single 
you out. This isn't intended as a personal attack. In fact, I think we both 
expressed ourselves fairly well. However, I will pick among the bones to see 
if there is anything else to clarify:


>>Thank you for telling me that you work for Viacom. Disclosure is
>>important for true communication.

Thank you for acknowledging my post and responding with a thoughtful and 
meaningful post.



>>Point 1. Yes. You are correct. I did react. I shared how I felt when I
>>read about a huge multi-billion dollar corporation with multiple
>>routes of access using a tool they really don't need.

I disagree that they are using a tool they don't need. Podcasting has cut 
into bottom lines and it is still young. Plus, as a media company they 
*need* to explore alternative media outlets, refusing to do so is part of 
why I consider them a dinosaur industry and part of why they are in an 
increasingly bad financial situation.


>>I see it more of the carpet baggers are coming to town.

Yes, hatred of carpetbaggers was also based on a blind, knee-jerk disdain. 
But look now, their families live peacefully alongside those of native 
southerners as neighbors.


>>Point 2. I have no intention of entering the contest. Trust me, they
>>don't want someone like me and the feeling is mutual.

Fair enough.


>>Point 3.  You are correct. That is exactly what they are doing.
>>"Appearing" to be on the vanguard is not the same as taking the time
>>to find out what is actually needed.

True, but perception is reality. Most people accept illusion as fact. Sad, 
but true. Also, sad but true: business don't have to care about what is 
needed. They are out to make money, not help people. However, their desire 
to appear hip and make money is also spreading the word about podcasting. A 
recent Pew/Internet survey from May - June of this year found that only 13% 
felt they have good idea that they know what Podcasting is, 64% were not 
really sure, and 26% had never heard of them. ( URL: 
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Data_Techterm_aware.pdf ) A media Blitz 
campaign could help change that.


>>It just seems like a huge wolf in
>>sheep's clothing.

I think it is more like that awkward person at a party that so desperately 
wants to be popular, and just tries too hard.


>>I am not and could not deny Viacom anything. They
>>have the right to explore new business avenues.  Go for it. It doesn't
>>mean I have to like or trust it without a foundation of facts.

I agree 100% with this. My main issue with your post was that you kind of 
went off and sarcastically ridiculed something that someone on the list 
might have found exciting. All based on previous judgements and not based, 
it seemed, on any facts. It was opinion. Negative opinion.



>>Point 4. MSM have been napping. Some companies haven't a clue and will
>>no longer exist. I'm not a total luddite. I know that in the future
>>there will be interesting synergies with independent producers and
>>media outlets. I hope the compensation for the IPs is a lot more fair
>>than in the past. But that is a long way off.

Again, 100% in agreement



>>Point 5. I mean this type of contest is old hat. It was done by radio
>>in the 30's. Teen magazines use to do this, Early TV did this.

True, and each found it successful or it would not have been used in this 
case. Also, they never claimed the contest was a new idea.


>>This is a controlled marketing campaign. Nothing more. This has
>>nothing to do with letting alternative podcasters do their thing. If
>>you want to do it, go for it and I support you. Prove me wrong. (I am
>>at wrong at least six times a day!) I stand by my statement. Crap.

As I see it, yes and no. I do not believe the podcasters will get to fully 
"do their thing" they will be doing their interpretation of Viacom's thing 
(and I am sure Viacom will have veto power). However, it is a chance for 
someone to quickly gain a monster-sized audience and hopefully bring them 
back to their independent content when the contest is over. Or continue on, 
with, perhaps, more control. But when someone else is paying the billls I 
don't think requiring them not to break FCC rules is too much to ask.


>>Point 6. Anybody who make the effort to put together a show is jake
>>with me. Even MSM. I wish MSM would do it better but I am not holding
>>my breath. I gave my thoughts as to what I believe they are thinking.

Once more I'm in for 100% (assuming jake is a good thing)


>>Point 7 & 8  They have done what!?! They don't even know what CJ or
>>Participatory Media is. They are scared to death of it. Please show me
>>a MSM web site that consistently takes video content from bloggers and
>>post that video as a news story.

I cited NECN.com, and while I do not monitor their site, my understanding is 
that is what they are doing. Are the

RE: [videoblogging] Disclosures, disclosures

[David Yirchott]

If I may, let me present a fuller disclosure than before:

I am not a CBS/Viacom spy. I am not one of the higher-ups at Viacom. I am 
not participating in this group for my job. I am not a "comapny man." I am 
not what I do (Jean-Paul Sartre aside, perhaps I should rephrase that as: I 
am not what I do for a living).

In fact, I joined this group before I worked for CBS, though I had a 
different username then. That's not too important as I did not participate.

As I explained in my introductory post, I work for a television staion. A 
CBS O&O, to be precise. What is an O&O? It is a television station that is 
Owned & Operated by the network. Most television stations in the US are 
affiliates, which means the stations belong to a company that pays for 
network programming. Sort of like a franchise. My last job was at KRON in 
San Francisco. It is an independent (meaning no network affiliation) station 
owned by Young Broadcasting. Young Brodcasting owns something like ten 
television stations of different affiliation (URL: 
http://www.youngbroadcasting.com/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=YBTVA&script=11905&item_id=%27stations.htm%27 
).

When I was three, I decided I wanted to make movies. I was a film/video 
major in college. I ended up in television and then the Internet side of 
television. I have always been interested in communication, particularly 
visual communication. I know that television is evolving and/or dying. I 
agree wholeheartedly with those who think there is almost nothing but crap 
on the tube.  I annoy people at work by telling them we'll all be out of 
jobs in a few years and television as we know it won't exist. I am excited 
by the possiblities that are now available to millions of individuals who 
want to communicate and create.

I guess what I am saying is: I am not CBS. I am not Viacom. They just happen 
to sign my paychecks. It's a job. In my television career I have worked for 
Viacom, Young Broadcasting, Lin Television, Argyle, and PBS. I never swore 
an oath of fealty to any of them, though I do like to do good work. I am 
involved here because I choose to be and because I want to participate in 
the evolution that is underway.

Anyway, I hope that quells any fear others may have about my affiliation 
with the MSM. If you have further questions of me, post them or email me.

For what it is worth, I have enjoyed reading the disclosures others have 
posted. So, I hope there are more to come.

-David




>From: "R. Kristiansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [videoblogging] Disclosures, disclosures
>Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:00:35 +0200
>
>Hey all,
>
>The recent disclosure of David stating that he works for CBS/Viacom is
>interesting. Not surprising as such, but interesting. I am happy to
>know, at least.
>
>How about we all disclose our affiliations? Too radical, eh?
>
>There are many actors in this field with plans. Plans for how to use
>the information we achieve through this forum for our own projects,
>goals, economic growth. This mailing-list is very rich with content,
>and it is amazing how potent it still is.
>
>Sometimes, we as a group react like an angry mob when someone tickles
>with us. I can only refer to the story of a certain film producer.. We
>as a group provide important feed-back to tool-makers like FireANT,
>Apple (for iTunes), feedburner and so on. If you are working on a tool
>for videobloggers and go about your promotion of your site in a good
>way (like Matt did with vlogmap.org), you can get a Lot of link love
>within days.
>
>Disclosures are important, but we cannot expect that all those lurkers
>will disclosure their identity. We know that we are being watched,
>though. I sometimes get frigging paranoid with I think that over 80
>individuals are subscribed to my lousy videoblog. Who are they? What
>do they want? Entertainment? A piece of Norway? Unlike Josh Leo's
>site, for instance, I don't get a lot of comments so people are being
>mostly quiet about how they are watching.
>
>I expect that we will see a lot of instances like "Hello, I am from
>Warner Bros, I have been observing this community for months now, and
>we will now be launching X concept". No wait, they won't write it
>here. They will issue a press release ffs.
>
>So, disclosures. My own, in case you haven't seen it: I work for
>BlogSoft, a Norwegian blogging software company. We are thriving well
>in the Norwegian and Swedish market (where Six Apart is not active),
>and we are working on tools for videoblogging now. Tools like Youtube
>or Blip.tv. but more centered around a blog and with better blogging
>tools. We create portals for media companies like the Norwegian tv
>station TV2. We are looking at ways to do video mobileblogging. I am
>part of this community, and also I observe this community. Sometimes I
>feel rather xenophobic :)
>
>Out of the 1100 subscribers to this mailing list, I guess we have
>heard from pe

RE: [videoblogging] Re: CBS starting a podcast

[David Yirchott]

Gena,
I don't understand this reactionary response.

If you do not wish to enter the contest, then I would suggest you don't.

You said:
>I guess I ought to steel myself cuz a lot more of this crap is coming
>down the pipe.

I think we all agree mainstream media is going to notice and try to take 
advantage of what is being created. Some would say to notice things and 
participate with the intent of furthering one's goals is a key trait for any 
successful person/business. Isn't that why we are all here? We noticed the 
germination of an evolution/revolution and we want to participate so that we 
can have a hand in shaping the outcome? Why deny Viacom its chance? Let's 
not also forget that Viacom is a media company -- shouldn't it be expected 
that all media companies will find this movement of interest? We are, 
afterall, trying to make them -- to some degree -- obsolete.

I am not sure what you mean by "crap":
-- A contest that gives a voice to an independent podcaster and allows 
him/her the chance to gain the same access as the "Big Boys" and puts 
him/her on the same level as established MSM personalities
-- A contest that further promotes and validates podcasting and -- by 
association, I hope -- other alternative media distribution methods to 
consumers, other MSM outlets, and advertisers who all were either previously 
unaware of them or dismissed them as fly-by-night
-- A legitimate effort by a media empire to assess the power of independent 
media producers
-- A contest that may inspire some people to finally start creating their 
own media


You said:
>It is like "see, we are cool, we will let actual
>people, (citizens) ask the same stupid question as our paid folk for
>zero the cost."

First, I am sure there are already independent podcasts in existence with 
the same premise. Are they crap? Or is it only crap when a large 
organization gives a small independent producer a once-in-a-lifetime (okay, 
that might be a bit of hyperbole, but you get my point) chance? And, again, 
I guess I don't get what is wrong with this -- sure it might seem like an 
old lady in a mini-skirt, but maybe they can pull it off. It doesn't really 
appeal to me, but I am sure some people have been waiting for an opportunity 
like this.


You said:
>Poor CBS. Via Viacom there just isn't enough billboard space, radio
>space, cable access and broadscast time to say all the junk they want
>to promote.

I know you mean this sarcastically, but CBS would probably agree.


>Hark, is that the sound of MSM stumbling into "citizen journalism"?

First, I am not sure getting to interview Mariah Carey on a press junket 
would fit my ideal concept of citizen journalism, but to each their own, I 
suppose. Anyway, MSM has been legitimizing citizen journlism and its tools 
for a while now. Many MSM outlets have blogs, for years some have let 
viewers send in emails to be read on-air or posted online, and the same goes 
for digital pictures. An increasing number of MSM outlets have podcasts. 
NECN.com actively asks for citizen journalist video submissions. There are 
other examples, of course. But, again, even if they were "stumbling into 
'citizen journalism,'" so what? Why is that a bad thing? Isn't that what we 
want?

I guess I do not understand those who criticize mainstream media outlets for 
not recognizing or emulating the concepts of citizen journalism that we hold 
dear, but the second they move an inch in our direction damn them for their 
audacity. Don't we want them to change?

There seems to be a smattering of media distrust/hatred here similar to the 
"all corporations are evil" thread. Don't worry, the media will eventually 
see the error in its old school ways or die off. But like it or not, right 
now they can be our very powerful allies.

For full disclosure I should probably mention that I work for Viacom/CBS 
(however, I also do not own a television). I understand that they -- and 
other mainstream media outlets -- do a lot wrong. But maybe we shouldn't be 
so critical when they try to do something right.

And Gena, I by no means intend to single you out. You just happened to send 
this email and I responded. I still think you are great. I just do not 
understand bright, compelling people with cynical, knee-jerk hatreds.

-David



>Can we allow one more silly reality show not to be seen by the teeming
>rejecting masses? Can we combine buzzwords we really don't understand
>with a old fashioned contest?
>
>Yadda, yadda (yawn) yadda.
>
>Gena
>http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
>
>--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, leslye james
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't this be better as a videoblog??? Then again that's what
> > "Entertainment Tonight" is for I guess...
>
> >
> > CBS TO CONDUCT WORLD'S FIRST POD-CASTING CALL
> > Released by CBS
> > Network Looks for Amateur DJ to Interview CBS Stars and Create
>Podcast about New Fall Season
>
> > http://www.phatalspin.com/vlog
>
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GRO

Re: [videoblogging] Re: off on a (valuation) tangent

[David Yirchott]

Steve Garfield wrote:
">"An Internet commercial typically costs about $15 to $20 for each 1,000
>viewers, nearly as much as broadcast networks charge. The price is high
>because there is more demand from advertisers than there is Internet
>video programming available."
>
>If a videoblog averages 2,000 hits per episode, would you pay $40 to
>place a short video at the end of the video?"

The tricky part is that advertisers pay those rates for either beginning or 
interstitial (in between) ad placements. Most valued are the ones that run 
before the content. I haven't heard of anyone paying to run a commercial 
after the viewer has gotten what he/she wanted.

I am asssuming the rates you quote are for successfully completed commercial 
streams and not based on the number of people only watching the content.

-David



>From: Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: off on a (valuation) tangent
>Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:24:23 -0400
>
>That post says this:
>
>What would you pay to place an ad on a videoblog?
>
>More People Turn to the Web to Watch TV - New York Times:
>
>"An Internet commercial typically costs about $15 to $20 for each 1,000
>viewers, nearly as much as broadcast networks charge. The price is high
>because there is more demand from advertisers than there is Internet
>video programming available."
>
>If a videoblog averages 2,000 hits per episode, would you pay $40 to
>place a short video at the end of the video?
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Freeplay Music: Warning

[David Yirchott]

Something to be careful of: On Freeplay's site the terms of use state:

Podcasting and Blogs
$25.00 per Freeplay Music title for 12 months.

If you plan on archiving any content, be prepared to pay $25 for each year 
your stuff lives on the 'Net.  If you would like to pay less per year, they 
offer 3, 5, and 7-year licenses as well.


-David




>From: "Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Freeplay Music: Warning
>Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:16:54 -0600
>
>Hi everyone:
>
>At 04:26 AM 8/3/2005, you wrote:
>>Steve - Yeah, as said before, it was my neglect of checking things out
>>completely before using their music. I never denied that. One reason I
>>feel funny about others helping me out with the bill! I just "assumed"
>>several things... and went to their site based on recommendations from
>>other websites for "free" music. I just wanted to post a warning
>>because I've seen others of you use it, and wondered, do any of you
>>really pay $25/song/year? I guess I thought maybe I was
>>misunderstanding the terms because I can't see anyone paying that who
>>is just using it for fun. Anyway, if any of you were ignorant like me,
>>now you know! :) Thanks Steve.
>
>ErinHow many tracks have you used in your video blog to be hit up for 
>$200?  I only use the one for my open and close and a 30 second cut of 
>another for my political rant (and even that is only when I have one).  
>Also, did they hit you up for past violations or did they just say 
>something like "Give us $200 and you can use all the tracks you have on 
>every video blog post you want for a whole year" and call it even?
>
>>--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Your complacency seems misplaced to me.
>
>It may be Steve, but the definition of the word "free" in almost any 
>dictionary is pretty self-explanatory.  In this context, it basically means 
>you don't have to pay for whatever it is you are using.
>
>> > Freeplay site clearly includes the following under uses that must be
>> > paid for:
>
>[snip...]
>
>> > 8. Personal Website Use (Non-Commercial)
>
>A Blogger page would qualify as this.
>
>> > 12. Podcasting /Blog Use
>
>Well then, the music *ain't* free.  So they should stop calling themselves 
>"Free Play Music" because *it isn't*.
>
>> > Then Freeplay Music requires a signed license agreement and a license
>> > fee payment as described in the Freeplay Music Rate Card.
>
>That brings about the question as to how much the card costs.
>
>> > Then on the fees page it says:
>> >
>> > Podcasting and Blogs
>> > $25.00 per Freeplay Music title for 12 months.
>
>Fine then.  So I shell out $50 to cover the whole year retroactive to last 
>April or so.  No real biggie (but no thrill either).
>
>I think it's quite clear that they need to have someone on their staff on 
>both this group and the podcasters group available to explain just exactly 
>what the options are.  They also need to change their name of their site to 
>something that's a little more accurate in the description of their content 
>as the word "free" would be a poor choice of words to describe what they 
>offer.
>
>On top of that, I think this is yet another reason why the music industry 
>needs to get its collective head out of its f*ckin' collective a*s and 
>realize we live in a digital age and that means that people *will* share 
>their digital videos with family and friends *and* use the Internet as a 
>means to deliver said content to said family & friends via such things as 
>websites and blogs.  As such, the labels need to either accept this fact as 
>reality or *get the f*ck out of the way and make way for labels who *are* 
>willing to accept it.
>
>But alas, like all other rants before the one above, it's pretty much a 
>certainty that it'll fall on deaf ears when it comes to those in the music 
>industry.  :-(
>
>Just my opinion...
>
>> > Cheers
>
>Pat Cook
>Denver, Colorado
>AS PAT'S WORLD TURNS - http://aspatsworldturns.blogspot.com/
>PAT'S REAL DEAL BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.blogspot.com/
>PAT'S PODCAST - http://patspodcast.blogspot.com/
>PAT'S VIDEO BLOG - http://patsvideoblog.blogspot.com/
>DUMBASS IDIOTS VIDEO BLOG - http://dumbassidiots.blogspot.com/
>AGAINST THE STORM (Online Soap Opera) - 
>http://againstthestorm.blogspot.com/
>RSS Feeds Available On Each Page








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Naming The Group

[David Yirchott]

I am definitely in the call-it-whatever-you-want camp. I don't think it is 
vitally important -- especially at this point.  It seems too early to define 
us. I was merely suggesting that as communicators it is sort of our jobs to 
be sensitive to how we comminicate. This is not an American phenomenon. This 
is not an English-speaking phenomenon. This isn't a phenomenon limited to 
just our group. And if we present ourselves as believing we are the one and 
only videoblogging group, what message are we sending? If we are going to 
change the world, we have to acknowledge it exists.

Right now, I believe the most descriptive name is The Videoblogging Group On 
Yahoo! (or some variation). Does it sing? Not really. Am I a fan of 
including Yahoo! in the name? No, but as someone mentioned, it is the system 
we use to communicate. Also, when you tell people they know exactly where to 
go to join.

Anyway, maybe the question we need to ask isn't "what is our name?" but "do 
we need a name right now?"

-David


>From: Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Naming The Group
>Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:43:28 -0400
>
>Coming from someone who tends to try and move definitive discussions
>along i must admit this conversation is getting silly.
>The Power of "THE". ok, legit point taken but in the grand scheme of 
>things,
>i dont think it would cause any controversy only for those that are
>linguistically sensitive and insecure. whethere their is a 'The' or not,
>people will say 'The' =)
>
>How about - VBYG or VBG? ;-)
>abbreviations can go a long way ;-)
>
>
>--
>sull
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>http://vlogdir.com -is- The Videoblog Directory
>http://interdigitate.com -is- my personal site





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Naming The Group

[David Yirchott]

The only thing I might mention about naming ourselves The Videoblogging 
Group, is it seems like we would be discounting the validity of any other 
group of vloggers by using the "The" at the beginning. Seems a bit 
definitive and harsh.

It seems to me that when other groups come out of the woodwork as many 
suspect -- even hope -- will happen, it might seem a little exclusionary. If 
it is important for people to define the name of our group, I would suggest 
we find something that embodies the spirit of commmunity many are trying to 
build worldwide.

Just my two cents,
-David




>From: Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Naming The Group
>Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:38:56 -0400
>
> > I propose "The Videoblogging Group"
>
>this is my vote for the name of this group.
>simple.
>
>jay
>
>--
>http://www.momentshowing.net>
>Adventures in Videoblogging








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] videoblogging GROUP home to dirty trickster(s)

[David Yirchott]

Okay, This is my last post on this issue (God, I hope that is true).

I like to assume the best about people. So when someone has an accusation, I 
expect there to be sufficient proof.

>Several of the women in the group have contacted me offline directly and 
>told me that someone has reported me to yahoo
>and others as a "spammer" etc.

>Someone on this list is up to their dirty little tricks again. This isnt 
>the first person this has >happened to after talking on this list  I 
>just got an email from Cheryl OFF LIST and it went to >my "bulk" folder. I 
>mean come on, reporting Cheryl as a spammer to Yahoo-- what kind of 
>videobloggers are you?

These statements seemed pretty definite. I am not an email guru and assumed 
there was a factual basis for the accusations. I still stand behind the 
statement that reporting someone as a spammer just because you disagree with 
or dislike them is low. However, in the apparent absence of any proof that 
anyone here did that: I profusely apologize for the implication or 
assumption that someone did. I apologize. I am sorry. I will try to be more 
careful in future.

Now I am turning off the computer.
-David



>From: kinganti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] videoblogging GROUP home to dirty trickster(s)
>Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:06:12 -0700
>
>are you guys nuts?
>that shit just happens sometimes. every once in a while a machine
>doesn't work perfectly, it jsut happens.
>
>sometimes an email from my friends and/or family will wind up in my spam 
>box.
>
>shit happens.
>
>and believe it or NOT. everyone once in a while, i get spam in my inbox.
>
>rumors spread fast in this group.
>
>WHO STARTED the spam reporting rumor? because that is just as lame as
>what the rumor was about.
>
>seriously, folks. im a stoned califnornia kid, and *I* know this.
>whats the deal?
>has everyone gone mad?
>
>On 7/20/05, David Yirchott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  I second that, Josh. Anyone who has a problem with Cheryl or anyone 
>else in
> >  the group should address that person. Like I said in my last email: we 
>are
> >  like a big family. And like a family, you may not always get along with
> >  everyone, but you don't stab them in the back. To go behind someone's 
>back
> >  and report them as a spammer is low.
> >
> >  -David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  >From: Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >  >Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> >  >To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> >  >Subject: Re: [videoblogging] videoblogging GROUP home to dirty
> > trickster(s)
> >  >Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:47:35 -0400
> >  >
> >  >I would have to agree that if someone did report another member of the
> >  >group
> >  >as a spammer (if they aren't, as it is in this case) that is pretty 
>lame.
> >  >
> >  >I didn't even know it was possible to do that...but i did notice some 
>of
> >  >Thomas G Henry's mail going to my spam box...maybe it was because of 
>his
> >  >lengthy signature...either way that is too bad.
> >  >--
> >  >Josh Leo
> >  >
> >  >www.joshleo.com <http://www.joshleo.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  SPONSORED LINKS
> >  Individual Fireant Typepad
> >
> >  
> >  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
> >
> >  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >  
> >
>
>
>--
>http://antidisestablishmentarian.blogspot.com





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] videoblogging GROUP home to dirty trickster(s)

[David Yirchott]

I second that, Josh. Anyone who has a problem with Cheryl or anyone else in 
the group should address that person. Like I said in my last email: we are 
like a big family. And like a family, you may not always get along with 
everyone, but you don't stab them in the back. To go behind someone's back 
and report them as a spammer is low.

-David




>From: Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] videoblogging GROUP home to dirty trickster(s)
>Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:47:35 -0400
>
>I would have to agree that if someone did report another member of the 
>group
>as a spammer (if they aren't, as it is in this case) that is pretty lame.
>
>I didn't even know it was possible to do that...but i did notice some of
>Thomas G Henry's mail going to my spam box...maybe it was because of his
>lengthy signature...either way that is too bad.
>--
>Josh Leo
>
>www.joshleo.com 








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: THE BLUERAY DISC

[David Yirchott]

Cheryl,
Please do not misinterpret the way some people are put off by unsupported, 
self-indulgent boasting as misogyny.

I sent two replies to your email. The first, admittedly kinder version 
actually arrived after the second due to some sort of email problem on my 
end, most likely -- Which is why I sent the second.

However, the tone of the second was due mostly to:
>keep in mind my firm gets information
>two years of more before the general public does
>It's like having inside information on both the CES Consumer
>Electronics Industry and the Film/Television Community
>
>Have you guys forgotten what I do for a living?
>
>hmmm??

First off, for such an insider, why didn't you know what Ro was talking 
about? But more importantly, perhaps, Cheryl, how could we ever forget what 
you do. It seems to me that you take every opportunity to remind us. Like 
others, I am happy for you success. But I don't think you fully understand 
the types of people who are on this list. I think, in large part, we are not 
casual web surfers. We are not interested to find out that Tommy Lee and 
Pamela Anderson are engaged *again*. We reject, to some degree, mainstream 
media -- even those of us who work for it. We stay informed. If we are 
interested in something we eat it, breathe it, and bathe in it. And, I 
think, most of us understand that there is no way we can know everything. I 
am certainly not trying to speak for everyone on this list; this is just my 
take.

But knowledge is not a tire iron to beat the defenseless with. And ignorance 
can be cured through teaching. I guess the best way I can relate this is, 
when you were new and you had questions I do not remember anyone saying: 
"You don't know what RSS is? Ha. I am an ubergeek and I've known about that 
since I was 12!"

Here, none of us are insiders and all of us are. We all come from very 
different backgrounds -- which is great.

For what it is worth, I don't have a problem with you as a woman. I love 
women. And strong ones at that -- I do, however, think it is a cheap shot to 
call upon the support of all womankindkind to defend you against the "evil 
men," when it is your attitude, not your gender to blame.

You are a professional communicator and so it boggles my mind a bit that you 
think you will reach and engage people with psuedo-elitist downtalking. 
Please don't. You don't have to impress us. Just be yourself.

Anyway, I guess we are like a big family here, and while we may never see 
eye-to-eye it doesn't mean I hate you. I hope my email made sense. Thanks,

-David




>From: Cheryl Shuman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: THE BLUERAY DISC
>Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:40:09 -0700
>
>I just love how these assholes pick apart everything I write just
>because I'm new and a woman.
>
>Where are the other fucking women out there? Do I have to stand up for
>all of us?
>
>Maybe we should form a women's only group?
>
>Cheryl Shuman
>
>On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:38 AM, ro9core wrote:
>
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Cheryl Shuman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> yeah, short on time and a lousy speller.
> >
> >
> > so what if youre a lousy speller?  youre still fabulous
> >
> > ro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] THE BLUERAY DISC

[David Yirchott]

Blu-Ray is one potential future. There are, to my knowledge, two formats 
vying to be the next recognized step-up from traditional DVDs. One is 
Blu-Ray, the other is HD-DVD.

Both have major players involved, so there is a lot at stake. Sony wants 
Blu-Ray, for instance, because those are the disks the Playstation already 
uses. Whereas, I believe, Toshiba is pushing for HD-DVD.

you can find much, much more online.

-David

>From: Cheryl Shuman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [videoblogging] THE BLUERAY DISC
>Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:36:00 -0700
>
>Have you guys heard of this? It's the future according to all of the
>entertainment industry execs?
>
>For archiving??? What do you think?
>Cheryl Shuman
>On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:18 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:
>
> > Perhaps one of the largest problems with the digital medium
> > altogether is that the issue of archiving has not been solved.
> >
> > CDs and DVDs rot. Tapes fade. Operating systems go obsolete.
> >
> > Professional digital archivists are always transferring archives to a
> > fresh medium.
> >
> > However, the best argument I have for keeping all your source files
> > and templates is the near future.
> >
> > About every 3 months, we have been upping file size parameters.
> > Bitrates, sizes, audio quality, etc.
> >
> > I believe archives are important to keep available online.
> >
> > In the future, people will look at all of our little videos as
> > nostalgic even when the matter is timeless.
> >
> > Thus, its easy to go back and re-export to a contemporary size, when
> > you take the extra time to simply save your work.
> >
> > Brush your teeth, insert a DVD and goto sleep.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Mark Cyr wrote:
> >
> >> In the Broadcast world generally everyone thinks that archiving and
> >> back up are someone else's problem, unless there is money involved
> >> somehow.  It is not unusual for old tapes to go missing because
> >> everyone thinks that they can always go back to the original producer
> >> for a copy.  We are the original producers of our material and should
> >> keep as many different elements as possible--who knows what you may
> >> want to do with it in the future.
> >>
> >> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> In general, I recommend to avoid recording over your original
> >>> (Master) material.
> >>>
> >>> What I do is backup my project file, which is generally very
> >>>
> >> small,
> >>
> >>> along with any original music/graphics. This will usually fit on a
> >>> CD. I then delete the media files in order to free up disk space.
> >>>
> >>> This accomplishes two things:
> >>> 1) I can always go back and re-edit the project (as I've kept the
> >>> project, original files, and Master material)
> >>> 2) I can re-use the Master material in future projects
> >>>
> >>> There's no way to predict the future, so you don't know if the
> >>>
> >> Master
> >>
> >>> material you've acquired will ever be worth something (at the very
> >>> least probably to your family/friends).
> >>>
> >>> For reference, I was told that when BET was sold to Viacom (for $3
> >>> Billion - yes, with a "B"), that Viacom was under the impression
> >>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>> BET had kept all of their interview and concert footage. Needless
> >>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>> say, the footage would be worth A LOT of money...only BET had
> >>> recorded over the Master material, so all that is left is what had
> >>> been edited and aired. BET was started with a $15,000 investment.
> >>>
> >>> My 2¢.
> >>>
> >>> - josh
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 19, 2005, at 8:37 PM, Starfire wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>  Hello fellow Vloggers.
> 
>  I have just spent the evening backing up my hard drive and making
>  room for future Vlog posts. This got me wondering how you guys go
>  about saving your work. I used to save the whole project I was
>  working on but I was filling up hard drives faster than I could
>  afford new ones. Now I have started saving a full-quality version
> 
> >> and
> >>
>  trashing the project. This saves space but makes it impossible to
>  change them in the future.
> 
>  I also tend to tape over the source tapes once I have completed a
>  project.
> 
>  So what do you do?
> 
>  Just wondering.
> 
>  starfire***
> 
>  Le Garage | http://starfire.perfectduluthday.com
> 
> 
> 
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> 
>   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
> 
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> 
> >> Service.
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: THE BLUERAY DISC

[David Yirchott]

First, Cheryl, I think you mean Blu-Ray, and if you had this knowledge two 
years in advance, that would put it at -- at the the latest -- around 2002, 
is that right?

I think Ro is referring to the hype surrounding both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. 
Both formats are competing to replace traditional DVDs. Sony supports 
Blu-Ray, and I think it is Toshiba that supports HD-DVD.

One of the great things about this board is we all get to learn new things.

-David

>From: Cheryl Shuman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: THE BLUERAY DISC
>Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:58:26 -0700
>
>Not sure what you mean Ro, but keep in mind my firm gets information
>two years of more before the general public does
>It's like having inside information on both the CES Consumer
>Electronics Industry and the Film/Television Community
>
>Have you guys forgotten what I do for a living?
>
>hmmm??
>
>Cheryl
>On Jul 20, 2005, at 9:38 AM, ro9core wrote:
>
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Cheryl Shuman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> Have you guys heard of this? It's the future according to all of the
> >> entertainment industry execs?
> >>
> >> For archiving??? What do you think?
> >
> > you'll see it when i believe it
> >
> > the ro does not enjoy hype
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Intro & RE: Apple Store Videoblogging Presentations

[David Yirchott]

>I'm in the north 'burbs, so technically not Chicago. But close
>enough, right?

Nope. You're out. Sorry.

just kidding ;)

Right on! One of these days we'll have to get all the Chicagoland people 
together.

-David



>From: kelly belly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Intro & RE: Apple Store Videoblogging 
>Presentations
>Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:09:22 -0500
>
>On Jul 15, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Kevin wrote:
> > Take care... now we got two Davids in Chicago... any other Chitown
> > lurkers?
>
>::raises hand::
>
>I'm in the north 'burbs, so technically not Chicago. But close
>enough, right?
>
>/Kelly
>--
>http://kellybelly.sytes.net





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Racism

[David Yirchott]

I am assuming the offending text is:
"





If that is the case, let's question Nathan's facts and figures before 
burning him at the stake or demanding an apology. If he can prove what he 
has stated then it isn't racism, it is life. If he is incorrect, then I 
trust he will apologize.

I, like most -- if not all -- here also despise racism. I have also been on 
the receiving end of it (not often, and certainly not to the degree of 
most.) But I like to assume the best of people.

It is important to note that not everything inflammatory about a race is 
racist; also there are many people who are hyper-sensitive about their race 
--- I am *NOT* saying that is the case here. But instead of a knee-jerk 
reaction, perhaps an email intended to enlighten would be in order. Public 
discourse/debate is best and most constructive when it is kept on an 
intellectual and not emotional level. That is not to say you shouldn't ever 
be outraged or go on a VerdiRant (TM). But it isn't always the best tool to 
use.

For what it is worth, perhaps I am also ignorant about this topic. I cannot 
speak for the BC reservations, but I do know (or perhaps I only think I 
know) that similar problems exist in the US. Many strides have been made 
since tribes have been able to open casinos. I know the tribe in Mt. 
Pleasant, Michigan, for instance, has done very well for itself. They have 
grown and strengthened their community with investments in businesses and 
education as well as health-related benefits for memebers of the tribe. But 
not all tribes are as lucky. I have seen documentaries on PBS and watched 
Michael Apted's "Incident at Oglala" all of which spotlight the very things 
Nathan referred to.

So, I guess, I don't think all Indians (I have been told that is the 
preferred term over Native Americans, BTW) are poor drunkards, or even 
casino magnates -- same for any other race, I suppose. I think Nathan was 
trying to describe conditions in a setting cut off from corporate North 
America. If you have an insight that contradicts his beliefs I would be very 
interested to hear it. And if you vlog it I will definitely watch!

By the way, I have started a new (and horrible) shift today. So, I am 
cruising on only about two hours of sleep -- not the smartest time to jump 
into a conversation like this. I hope that this post made sense and, 
honestly, if I said anything in it to offend I do apologize. Please set me 
right.

Thank you,
-David





>From: Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Racism
>Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:18:15 -0700
>
>I believe her point is that if this comment was made about a more
>prominent racial group (like blacks, of hispanics) then a. it wouldn't
>have been made, and b. there would be people everywhere screaming.
>
>Anne was trying to post to the group here, but her replies weren't
>showing up in the group thread.
>
>I am as guilty as anyone else that doesn't understand or realize how
>socially acceptable it is to 'racialize' one group and not another so
>I did not speak up earlier for fear of showing my own lack of
>understanding of this.  I am assuming that is the same reason there
>isn't more comments to this thread.
>
>Racism is racism.  It has no place here and an apology is in order to
>anyone that this broad-brush comment has offended.
>
>On 7/17/05, Nathan Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
> >
> >  ---snip---
> >  Assuming that every individual's character adequately can be determined 
>by
> >  racial or ethnic stereotypes is race prejudice, and granting or 
>withholding
> >  rights or privileges based on such stereotypes is racially 
>discriminatory
> >  prejudice. The term racism sometimes is used to mean a strong and
> > persistent
> >  bias or inclination towards these activities.
> >  ---snip---
> >
> >  I live near Vancouver where we have a beautiful multicultural mix of 
>people
> >  of all descents and races.  Chinese, Korean, Native, Japanese, 
>Tiawanese,
> >  East Indian, English, French all exist in a beautiful harmony that I 
>enjoy.
> >
> >  If an individual wants to communicate with me, the first thing I notice 
>is
> >  not their skin color.  I have had several people had to remind me of 
>what
> >  nationality they consider themselves because to me nationality is
> > irrelevant
> >  in the context of communication and friendship.
> >
> >  Look up the above definition.  If I make a statement like "Black people
> > have
> >  bigger cocks" that has nothing to do with racism.  I would make that
> >  statement whether I was black or white because it has been 
>scientifically
> >  proven that the average black person does have a longer penis than the
> >  average white person.
> >
> >  When I make blanket statement about other groups of society I am also
> > making
> >  those based on things I have read (
> >  http://www.waseskun.net/communi

Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out!

[David Yirchott]

Frank said:
>However, in reality, it's often much simpler (i.e more profitable) for
>an organization to adapt public opinion to suit its needs, rather than
>adapting the organization to meet the whims of the public.

True, but as long as both needs meet up in the end, both sides are happy. If 
not a little deluded.  :)

-David



>From: Frank Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out!
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:46:30 +0100
>
>Saturday, July 16, 2005, 7:53:12 PM, David Yirchott wrote:
>
>Some interesting thoughts, most of which I can see the sense of, but
>one bit worried me:
>
> > Anyway, as you stated:
>">>corporate culture is
> >>hopelessly, cravenly conformist"
>
> > Which I agree with. So there isn't anything to be upset about. It'll 
>always
> > conform to the will of the people.
>
>I think this is how it works _in theory_. After all, t's the basis of
>the "capitalism = democracy" argument.
>
>However, in reality, it's often much simpler (i.e more profitable) for
>an organization to adapt public opinion to suit its needs, rather than
>adapting the organization to meet the whims of the public.
>
>When was the last time you saw an advertisment that just told you the
>raw details of a product or service instead of trying to make you want
>something?
>
>--
>Frank Carver   http://www.makevideo.org.uk
>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out!

[David Yirchott]

Charles said:
>You seem to understand and agree with everything I'm saying, but then 
>express
>confusion. I'm not sure I know where the disconnect or dispute is.

Maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. It sounded to me like 
you wanted to force a change in the status quo, but it seems to me that the 
status quo will automatically change to adjust to the needs of the people.

Right on, maybe we agree. My apologies  :)




>From: Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out!
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:26:35 -0400
>
>David Yirchott wrote:
>
> > Which I agree with. So there isn't anything to be upset about. It'll 
>always
> > conform to the will of the people. I think someone previously mentioned 
>an
> > amorphous revolution -- the overthrow of nothing. I am not trying to
> > stir up
> > trouble, but I am honestly not sure what I am missing here.
>
>
>The Cluetrain people blew their content up to 95 Theses to mirror what 
>Luther
>nailed to that church door a while back. I'm not sure I agree with that
>specific gimmick. You might find the Hughtrain Manifesto
><http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000823.html> more 
>accessible.
>
>You seem to understand and agree with everything I'm saying, but then 
>express
>confusion. I'm not sure I know where the disconnect or dispute is.
><< charles.hope.vcf >>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out!

[David Yirchott]

Charles,
I am as much confused by this post as I am by the cluetrain website...

You wrote:
">The corporate culture is smarmy. It's press releases written in 
impenetrable
>jargon"

And then, you wrote:
">None of them are
>screwball idealists dreaming of a breatharian diet. What they and I are 
>against
>is the plastic scent of institutional alienation."

Is that the new clear?

I checked out cluetrain.com, and maybe it is me, but for a site about clear 
communication I am not exactly sure what they are attempting to convey. Most 
everything seems a bit obvious or non-sensical.

The site derides corporations for talking down to people then lists 95 (IMO: 
mostly obvious and/or redundant statements -- okay, in honesty I only made 
it through 45 before I got bored) things such as:
"The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply 
not possible in the era of mass media."

If, as you said:
">The users are demanding it with their feet and dollars."

Then, trust me, the corporations will follow. That's the beauty of our 
system and shows that it works.

Anyway, as you stated:
">corporate culture is
>hopelessly, cravenly conformist"

Which I agree with. So there isn't anything to be upset about. It'll always 
conform to the will of the people. I think someone previously mentioned an 
amorphous revolution -- the overthrow of nothing. I am not trying to stir up 
trouble, but I am honestly not sure what I am missing here.

-David




>From: Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out!
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:40:50 -0400
>
>Deirdre Straughan wrote:
> > Call off your old, tired labels. Speaking as a suit (I even wear one,
> > sometimes) and a certified MBA, can we please dump the old "corporate
> > = evil" equation? After all, many human beings are employed by -
> > hello! - corporations
>
>
>I am distinguishing corporate culture from the quest for profit.
>
>The corporate culture is smarmy. It's press releases written in 
>impenetrable
>jargon, advertisements that are laughably campy, and all the pomp and
>circumstance that corporations throw up exactly to HIDE the fact that they 
>are
>filled with human beings. And the customers are getting sick of it.
>
>What's more, I predict that the honest, open businesses are going to drive 
>out
>the old school. The users are demanding it with their feet and dollars. 
>Take a
>look at the Cluetrain Manifesto at . With the
>internet, it's impossible to avoid a bad reputation. And corporate culture 
>is
>hopelessly, cravenly conformist, and just as many in the NYC financial
>community started to wear khakis because khaki-wearing geeks were making 
>money,
>they will faddishly adopt this too.
>
>(Can they succeed? Adapt or die. But you can't fake the funk. This is a 
>topic
>for a different thread.)
>
>But if you remain in the old ways without a clue, you'd better count every
>dollar you make because they're all numbered like barrels of oil from here 
>on
>out. The people on this list are not against making money. None of them are
>screwball idealists dreaming of a breatharian diet. What they and I are 
>against
>is the plastic scent of institutional alienation.
>
><< charles.hope.vcf >>





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)

[David Yirchott]

Michael,
I admire your passion, but here are my thoughts:

You said:
>Corporations are set up to make a profit.  They have a legal
>responsibility to work toward this.  They also enjoy many legal
>privileges, that individuals do not, designed to help them in this
>respect.  In my opinion, profit making and doing good for people/the
>world are often at odds with one another.  It's often way easier to
>make money if you don't have to invest in not harming the environment
>or improving the working conditions in your business.

I am still not sure how that makes them intrinsically bad for the 
vlogosphere. Anyway, to set up an us versus them mentality isn't going to 
help anyone.

You said:
>I think how we got on to this discussion is that I had a problem with
>Wired highlighting Popcast, which happens to be a for-profit
>company.  I don't have a problem with them being a for-profit
>company.  My problem was that they haven't done anything and they got
>written about whereas there was no mention of the Archive or Ourmedia
>or FireANT or Mefeedia.  All of which have done great things that we
>all use and on top of that they've done them for free.

I am admittedly lame for not yet blogging/vlogging (I am getting there), and 
I am not as knowlegeable about a lot of vlogging-related software and 
services as others on this list, but I agree, it seemed very strange to me 
that Popcast -- which I hadn't heard of in my, albeit limited, experience -- 
was spotlighted when more established systems were not. It seems unfair to 
me too.

You said:
>Then Clint
>went on about how I seem to expect corporations to things for free.
>
>So here's the deal.  I do expect that from corporations.  Hell yeah.
>They get the privilege of making a profit - often at our (the people
>of the world) detriment.  It's payback.  They don't do enough of it.
>Some corporations are starting to get a clue or get on the clue train
>as Charles said there (Markus says this to me a lot).  They are
>starting to see that it makes sense to be a good global citizen and
>that often means taking care of people - not because it will make
>them money but because they are in the unique position of being able
>to do it.

Here, I disagree. First, I believe that most companies "do things for free" 
for the tax writeoffs and/or good PR. Less so to be good global citizen; 
more so to look like a good global citizen

But, more importantly, making a profit is not a privilege. Many businesses 
fold and struggle and lose money. Some do turn profit, but who knows what 
will happen next quarter. You seem to make profit sound like an automtic 
part of the process.

Think of shareholders like web site visitors. If you don't give people what 
they want (in the case of the shareholders it is money) they won't suport 
you. If no one supports you, perhaps your server costs or other overhead 
(free time, for instance) won't make it worth your while. So you stop.

If business shuts down, it is more than just the collapse of a faceless 
corporation. Everyone loses their jobs from CEO to janitor. But it goes 
further: the vending machine company and/or cafeteria company is affected, 
the trash service, snow service, anyone providing daycare for the employees, 
any local stores former employees shopped at, etc. all will take a hit. Look 
at what happened when GM closed its plant in Flint in Michael Moore's "Roger 
and Me".

The good service a big business provides is its existence. This is the often 
overlooked reason why we cannot cut our dependence on foreign oil. Sure a 
cheaper, greener car would be great, but if we cut off our oil use, we could 
literally collapse the economies of some developing nations. We are all 
connected.


Honestly, I love your passion,
-David






>From: Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:12:22 -0500
>
>On Jul 16, 2005, at 2:24 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote:
> > Not to point fingers at anyone in specific, but if this group wants to
> > influence how "corprations" see and use videoblogging, it would help
> > if you didn't start out with the assumption that you have a monopoly
> > on ethics.
>
>On Jul 16, 2005, at 9:35 AM, David Yirchott wrote:
> > I agree with Dierdre, I don't understand the prejudice against
> > corporations/people seeking financial gain.
>
>Boy has this thread gotten onto a whole different track!  It seems to
>have merged with the discussion about yesterday's Wired article.
>Here's my take:
>Corporations are set up to make a profit.  They have a legal
>responsibility to work to

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)

[David Yirchott]

Michael,
I agree with you 100%, as I said:
"However, the Internet isn't restricted to 500 channels and it doesn't have
to be driven by advertisers. It is driven by users and if they like your
stuff they will bookmark it; if they really like it, they'll tell their
friends. "

Unfortunately, mainstream media has to use old-school distribution, though 
Video On Demand departs from that a bit. They are also serving content for a 
national audience and appeasing the mighty advertiser. It's a formula that 
ends up with lowest-common denominator shock value tripe (for the most 
part).

But definitely, that is what excites me about vlogging and the current 
evolution of television. We're going from mass media to media for the 
masses.

And I think that most corporations will understand the shift (okay, I HOPE 
they will). My point in all this is what if the small-time publisher 
referenced in the article you linked to had said, "no, I don't want 
Amazon.com to list me, they are a big business and big business is evil."

Mainstream book outlets didn't give the guy a second look. It was only 
because Amazon.com wanted to increase its profits by selling more stuff that 
he was given a chance. In the end he sold books, people who were interested 
in the subject got a good read, and Amazon.com made a profit. Sounds good to 
me.

Sign me up!
-David




>From: Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:31:27 -0500
>
>On Jul 16, 2005, at 11:17 AM, David Yirchott wrote:
>
> > But that isn't what people want. They want sex and violence and
> > sensationalism, etc. So what is a business supposed to do? Know your
> > audience and deliver what they want.
>
>That's what they'd have you believe.  Not necessarily true.
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html
>This is the lesson of videoblogging - when people are given a choice
>of things recommended by like-minded people they find that they are
>interested in many more things that what big media pushes at them.
>-Verdi
>http://michaelverdi.com
>http://freevlog.org





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)

[David Yirchott]

Gena,
Not to speak for Dierdre, but I think you have it a little wrong. You are 
blaming corporations and media outlets for delivering what people want. I 
think you should be blaming the people.

Corporations, as you said, are out to make money. That is their goal, plain 
and simple. If they thought people wanted gospel rap, you can bet there 
would be several record companies (are they still called record companies?) 
flooding the market with gospel rap CDs. If people wanted to see shows about 
growing celery or book reviews or whatever else, you can be sure there would 
be entire channels devoted to it.

But that isn't what people want. They want sex and violence and 
sensationalism, etc. So what is a business supposed to do? Know your 
audience and deliver what they want.

I mentioned in my previous post that capitalism is democracy... but it isn't 
as simple as I tried to make out when it comes to media because media is 
also influenced by advertisers. Advertisers want to target specific 
demographics thereby setting up a class system based on age, gender, income, 
etc.

Right now advertisers want to reach the coveted 18-34-year-old male 
demographic. So many shows are geared toward them. There are certainly other 
offerings and channels such as WE and Lifetime and AMC, but not as many for 
sure.

However, the Internet isn't restricted to 500 channels and it doesn't have 
to be driven by advertisers. It is driven by users and if they like your 
stuff they will bookmark it; if they really like it, they'll tell their 
friends. I think Clint is right on with his assessment of micro-media niche 
content. If you can attract 100,000 senior citizens to your website a day 
try to get AARP to sponsor it. Or don't.

Gina said:
>Or, once they get the lay of
>the land, will they shut us out or restrict what we can and can't
>do?

How can they do this? No one controls the Internet. Could vloggers be 
dropped from iTunes or any future method of reaching a mass audience? Sure. 
But what makes people think we have a right to be carried on anyone else's 
system. Could they post content restrictions? Sure. If you don't like it, 
move on to a system that works for you. Or publish your site alone -- they 
can't restrict that.

I spoke before about my fear of advertisers controlling online media (it's 
in one of the videoconference archives, but I forget which one). I see it as 
a potential danger. However, I think good content will always be found and 
linked to and it will grow.


Anyway, thi might be a good topic for today's videoconference,
-David




>From: "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:15:30 -
>
>I gotta jump in on this. I am old enough to make distinctions:
>
>Altruism does not have to = poverty.
>Corporations does not = evil.
>
>But Deirdre, the motivations of corporations are different than a
>group of individuals trying to accomplish a community goal. This is
>not wrong or evil. It is what it is.
>
>A business or corporation is a living entity. Its goal is to survive
>and prosper. Companies must evolve and move forward. It knows that if
>it does not it will cease to exist. Microsoft ignored the Internet and
>World Wide Web until it became clear to them that to continue to do so
>threatened the company.
>
>The smart corporate sniffers are concerned. They don't want to be
>seen as being behind consumers or creators. That is why so many of
>them have assumed the look of blogs and pseudo open communication with
>regular humans.
>
>One of my local public radio stations (KCRW) jumpedright into
>podcasting (not a bad idea) but they are trying to figure out how to
>place or embed sponsorship information without offending their
>listeners. Other commercial media outlets are working on the same
>things. Advertisers are strongly interested in alternative forms
>of distribution.
>
>Traditional TV and radio are losing views in huge chunks. People are
>going elsewhere. That is why companies are interested in podcasting
>and videoblogging. That is why Apple opened up to accept new content.
>Again, not bad not evil.
>
>But is it compatible with the current state of video blogging? With
>this group? Can we learn from each other? Or, once they get the lay of
>the land, will they shut us out or restrict what we can and can't
>do?
>
>I don't know.
>
>I point to the example of the early days of rap music when there was a
>true diversity of style, comedy, political commentary, gospel (yes,
>gospel rap). The record companies saw the format make hand over fist
>money for the independents.
>
>They started to create distribution deals with the small independents.
>Once they learned the language and parts of the culture they focused
>in the aspects that made money quickly - violent/misogynist music to
>the exclusion/suppression of other forms. They killed off the
>

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)

[David Yirchott]

Maybe it is a bit forward of me to jump into a potentially contoversial 
message board discussion one day after posting my introduction, but here 
goes...

I agree with Dierdre, I don't understand the prejudice against 
corporations/people seeking financial gain. It is very similar to the notion 
that people who aren't as motivated by money are "dirty hippies."

Have people been hurt by corporate goals? Sure. Have people been hurt by 
people who are doing things for the "good of world/humankind"? Sure. Having 
lived in San Francisco, one example jumps immediately to mind: there was a 
movement to raise minimum wage in the city to $10 an hour. On first blush it 
sounded like a great plan to economically empower people in one of the 
country's most expensive locations. However, restaurants, for instance, that 
couldn't afford to pay waitstaff so much (they were cleaning up just fine 
with lower wages and tips) had to close. Now a waiter/waitress who was 
getting by fine doesn't have a job. The restaurants that did stay in 
business had to raise prices to keep a smaller staff, and some people don't 
eat out as much. It made living in the city more expensive. I didn't stay in 
the city long enough to determine if rents were raised on crummy apartments 
because lower-wage workers were making more.

Maybe it would be helpful -- if the corporation-wary posters could, instead 
of expressing a broad prejudice: beware corporations are evil -- post what 
we need to be afraid of. (If corporations get too close we may have to watch 
out for: example 1, example 2, example 3).

Someone posted recently that we should make sure a viable non-corporate 
RSS-type feed is maintained so that the Big Guys don't squeeze out or 
control the Little Guys (it was something like that - it is early for me). I 
thought that was a great way to present a specific and important point.

However, let us not forget that if not for the pursuit of money we would be 
without many, many great innovations that we take for granted.

Prejudice is generally a response to fear, and I suppose I can understand 
that some are afraid of losing control of the vlogosphere, but isn't that 
our goal? To let it grow and evolve? Isn't corporate interest expected, 
isn't it desired?  It seems sort of like some people are saying "we are 
controlling the vlogosphere because we don't want anyone to control it." Add 
that to an ethical high horse and it sounds like the makings of a 
dictatorship.

Let us also remember that ethics are great, but unlike capitalism, there is 
a much more limited external feedback system. Capitalism is democracy: if 
people want something it will succeed; if they think it is bad for them it 
will fail. Hitler thought what he was doing was great for the world, but if 
he had sold fascism in a box, he would have been a lot less succesful.

I guess, I don't think any corporation can take over the Internet; none have 
so far. Plenty of corporate and anti-corporate sites abound on the thing. 
Everyone on this board ihas been vlogging longer than I have, so maybe I am 
missing something. But please tell me: what exactly are the threats posed by 
corporations taking a notice of video blogging?

**BTW, just to clarify: I DO NOT think anyone on this board is like 
Hitler or any other dictator, those comments were used to illustrate a 
point.**

-David




>From: "Chuck Olsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:36:38 -
>
>
>Dierdre,
>
>It's easy to poke at corporations because they're faceless entities,
>and yet of you rightly point out that's a falsehood. Of course
>there are lots of good people working for corporations - most
>of the western world I suppose.
>
>At the same time, I've had conversations with corporate people
>about vlogs that ultimately revolve around one thing: MONEY.
>
>That's a different set of values than "Let's to this for the good
>of humankind and the world." And I don't have a problem saying
>the "good of world/humankind" is more ethical, generally, than
>making money. That doesn't mean making money as a goal is
>UNethical obviously - my new vlog MN Stories is for-profit because
>I can't afford to fill my tank with gas right now. (Oh please god let it
>be for-profit!)
>
>BUT it's a different set of rules, a very different ultimate goal, than
>"how can we milk this sucker." Again, we can't generalize that sentiment
>but I have most definitely encountered it in Corporate Land. Certain
>individuals probably have it too. So maybe it's more fair to say
>it's the "Money Firsters" rather than the false overarching stereotype
>"Corporate" or "suits."
>
>Oh I don't know... it's time for bed!
>
>Vlog Anarchy.
>
>--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > Call off your old, tired labels. Speaking as a suit (I eve

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Intro & RE: Apple Store Videoblogging Presentations

[David Yirchott]

David,
Thanks!

I checked out both your site and your brother's. Good stuff.

So are you the evil twin? The goatee makes me wonder...

I have been thinking about getting a new video camera. Without it, I will 
have to vlog with my webcam which is a bit too limiting. I was surprised 
that your still-picture-looking camera did such a good job. I might just 
have to look into those...

-David




>From: "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Intro & RE: Apple Store Videoblogging 
>Presentations
>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:47:35 -
>
>Woo! More Chicago vloggers (or soon to be vloggers)!  Welcome David!
>Chicago needs a few more vloggers :-)
>
>- Dave
>http://www.davidmeade.com>http://www.davidmeade.com
>
>--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Welcome David!
> >
> > I'm happy that you spoke up and that you are in Chicago. We should
>all go to the Apple
> > store and I can tell you what to buy! I'm really good at that!
>Hopefully you will get involved
> > with videoblogging soon, it seems you have the interest and thats
>all you need.
> >
> > Steve, I'm also interested in the dates you might be thinking of
>having a presentation in
> > Chicago. I'm not sure if you are just thinking about doing it, or
>definitely going to do it,
> > but I was curious being that I will be out of town the second week
>of August.
> >
> > Take care... now we got two Davids in Chicago... any other Chitown
>lurkers?
> >
> > Kev!
> >
> >
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David Yirchott"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hello, all,
> > > I have been lurking in this group for about three months now, but
>Steve's
> > > call to action is bringing me a bit more out of the shadows.
> > >
> > > Some of you know me a little as I have been participating in the
> > > videoconfences, but I haven't felt validated enough to post on the
>message
> > > board before now, as I am probably the only member who doesn't yet
>vlog or
> > > blog (yes, I know: lame).
> > >
> > > Part of the reason I haven't created anything yet, is that I have
>been
> > > marinating in thoughts about the overall uselessness of
>communication in
> > > general and what I might possibly hope to bring to a world where
>words often
> > > seem as valuless and plentiful as dirt. This group, however, is
>helping me
> > > realize that sometimes a seed planted in dirt can blossom into
>something
> > > worthwhile.
> > >
> > > (Damn, that was cheesy! But I will leave it up as I have been
>trying to
> > > limit my obsessive need to self-edit, in order to prepare myself
>for being
> > > comfortable in front of a camera and exposed online.)
> > >
> > > I guess what I am trying to say is: I am trying to find my voice.
> > >
> > > I was a fim/video major in college. I have been working in
>television since
> > > 1992, and doing television station websites since 1998 (though
>they are
> > > mostly template-based -- I am not a tech person, so much. I deal
>more with
> > > content and whatnot.).
> > >
> > > I am attracted to blogging, vlogging, and podcasting because I am
>interested
> > > in how people will receive their news and entertainment content in
>the
> > > future. As most -- if not all -- on this group know, the
>television industry
> > > is dying -- at least, it is evolving in very dramatic ways.
> > >
> > > I am thrilled and impressed by the strong community that has been
>built up
> > > and I look forward to being able to participate and contribute
>more, and, of
> > > course learn.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I discovered this group after I moved away from the
> > > burgeoning San Francisco vlog community in March. Before San
>Francisco, I
> > > lived in Grand Rapids, Michigan (givin' a shout out to Josh Leo).
>  I've
> > > moved around my whole life: several places in Michigan; Pittburgh,
>PA,
> > > Poughkeepsie and Highland in NY, SF, and Chicago (twice, actually).
> > >
> > > Which brings brings me to the original purpose of this email: I
>would love
> > > to help with a Chicago vlogger presentation, if you'll have me. As
>I do not
> > > blog, do not vlog, and do not own a Mac I probably am not the best
>person to
> > > be

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Intro & RE: Apple Store Videoblogging Presentations

[David Yirchott]

Kevin,
Thanks much, any help is definitely appreciated!

-David



>From: "Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Intro & RE: Apple Store Videoblogging 
>Presentations
>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:43:57 -
>
>Welcome David!
>
>I'm happy that you spoke up and that you are in Chicago. We should all go 
>to the Apple
>store and I can tell you what to buy! I'm really good at that! Hopefully 
>you will get involved
>with videoblogging soon, it seems you have the interest and thats all you 
>need.
>
>Steve, I'm also interested in the dates you might be thinking of having a 
>presentation in
>Chicago. I'm not sure if you are just thinking about doing it, or 
>definitely going to do it,
>but I was curious being that I will be out of town the second week of 
>August.
>
>Take care... now we got two Davids in Chicago... any other Chitown lurkers?
>
>Kev!
>
>
>--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David Yirchott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
> > Hello, all,
> > I have been lurking in this group for about three months now, but 
>Steve's
> > call to action is bringing me a bit more out of the shadows.
> >
> > Some of you know me a little as I have been participating in the
> > videoconfences, but I haven't felt validated enough to post on the 
>message
> > board before now, as I am probably the only member who doesn't yet vlog 
>or
> > blog (yes, I know: lame).
> >
> > Part of the reason I haven't created anything yet, is that I have been
> > marinating in thoughts about the overall uselessness of communication in
> > general and what I might possibly hope to bring to a world where words 
>often
> > seem as valuless and plentiful as dirt. This group, however, is helping 
>me
> > realize that sometimes a seed planted in dirt can blossom into something
> > worthwhile.
> >
> > (Damn, that was cheesy! But I will leave it up as I have been trying to
> > limit my obsessive need to self-edit, in order to prepare myself for 
>being
> > comfortable in front of a camera and exposed online.)
> >
> > I guess what I am trying to say is: I am trying to find my voice.
> >
> > I was a fim/video major in college. I have been working in television 
>since
> > 1992, and doing television station websites since 1998 (though they are
> > mostly template-based -- I am not a tech person, so much. I deal more 
>with
> > content and whatnot.).
> >
> > I am attracted to blogging, vlogging, and podcasting because I am 
>interested
> > in how people will receive their news and entertainment content in the
> > future. As most -- if not all -- on this group know, the television 
>industry
> > is dying -- at least, it is evolving in very dramatic ways.
> >
> > I am thrilled and impressed by the strong community that has been built 
>up
> > and I look forward to being able to participate and contribute more, 
>and, of
> > course learn.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I discovered this group after I moved away from the
> > burgeoning San Francisco vlog community in March. Before San Francisco, 
>I
> > lived in Grand Rapids, Michigan (givin' a shout out to Josh Leo).  I've
> > moved around my whole life: several places in Michigan; Pittburgh, PA,
> > Poughkeepsie and Highland in NY, SF, and Chicago (twice, actually).
> >
> > Which brings brings me to the original purpose of this email: I would 
>love
> > to help with a Chicago vlogger presentation, if you'll have me. As I do 
>not
> > blog, do not vlog, and do not own a Mac I probably am not the best 
>person to
> > be in charge, but I would love to assist. If nothing else, I live four 
>or
> > five blocks from the Apple Store and am happy to offer floor space to 
>anyone
> > who might be traveling to atend.
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: [videoblogging] Apple Store Videoblogging Presentations
> > >Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:46:20 -0400
> > >
> > >Hi,
> > >I'm coordinating videoblogger presentations at other Apple Stores.
> > >
> > >Who is located in Chicago and London that would want to coordinate
> > >locally?
> > >
> > >Apple Store North Michigan Avenue (Chicago)
> > >
> > >Apple Store Regent Street (London)
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >--Steve
> > >--
> > >Home Page - http://stevegarfield.com
> > >Video Blog  - http://stevegarfield.blogs.com
> > >Text Blog - http://offonatangent.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >Like Paul Revere, leading the citizen's media revolution.
> > >
>
>






  
  





  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [videoblogging] Intro & RE: Apple Store Videoblogging Presentations

[David Yirchott]

Thanks, Clint!

The vlog juices are percolating, I just need to set aside some time to make 
it all happen.

Hopefully soon...
-David






>From: Clint Sharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Intro & RE: Apple Store Videoblogging 
>Presentations
>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:25:46 -0700
>
>David Yirchott wrote:
>
> > Hello, all,
> > I have been lurking in this group for about three months now, but 
>Steve's
> > call to action is bringing me a bit more out of the shadows.
> >
> > Some of you know me a little as I have been participating in the
> > videoconfences, but I haven't felt validated enough to post on the
> > message
> > board before now, as I am probably the only member who doesn't yet
> > vlog or
> > blog (yes, I know: lame).
> >
> > Part of the reason I haven't created anything yet, is that I have been
> > marinating in thoughts about the overall uselessness of communication in
> > general and what I might possibly hope to bring to a world where words
> > often
> > seem as valuless and plentiful as dirt. This group, however, is
> > helping me
> > realize that sometimes a seed planted in dirt can blossom into something
> > worthwhile.
> >
> > (Damn, that was cheesy! But I will leave it up as I have been trying to
> > limit my obsessive need to self-edit, in order to prepare myself for
> > being
> > comfortable in front of a camera and exposed online.)
> >
> > I guess what I am trying to say is: I am trying to find my voice.
> >
> > I was a fim/video major in college. I have been working in television
> > since
> > 1992, and doing television station websites since 1998 (though they are
> > mostly template-based -- I am not a tech person, so much. I deal more
> > with
> > content and whatnot.).
> >
> > I am attracted to blogging, vlogging, and podcasting because I am
> > interested
> > in how people will receive their news and entertainment content in the
> > future. As most -- if not all -- on this group know, the television
> > industry
> > is dying -- at least, it is evolving in very dramatic ways.
> >
> > I am thrilled and impressed by the strong community that has been
> > built up
> > and I look forward to being able to participate and contribute more,
> > and, of
> > course learn.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I discovered this group after I moved away from the
> > burgeoning San Francisco vlog community in March. Before San Francisco, 
>I
> > lived in Grand Rapids, Michigan (givin' a shout out to Josh Leo).  I've
> > moved around my whole life: several places in Michigan; Pittburgh, PA,
> > Poughkeepsie and Highland in NY, SF, and Chicago (twice, actually).
> >
> > Which brings brings me to the original purpose of this email: I would
> > love
> > to help with a Chicago vlogger presentation, if you'll have me. As I
> > do not
> > blog, do not vlog, and do not own a Mac I probably am not the best
> > person to
> > be in charge, but I would love to assist. If nothing else, I live four 
>or
> > five blocks from the Apple Store and am happy to offer floor space to
> > anyone
> > who might be traveling to atend.
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>David,
>
>Welcome!  I've really enjoyed your insights on the videoconferences and
>you're a most welcome addition to our little group here.  I look forward
>to your first vlog, but you're far from the only participant here who
>isn't putting up videos of themselves talking to the camera :).  Please,
>feel free to contribute whereever you think you can!
>
>Clint
>
>--
>Clint Sharp
>New Media Guy & Technologist
>ClintSharp.com    Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/
>
>We are the media.
>






  
  





  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.