I agree, the big opportunity is to work with distributors to setup workable arrangements for video distribution. In the Film business, I've heard several filmmakes say that the biggest problem they have is distribution. Distributors are probably mainly the filmmaking gatekeepers for getting financing to make a film, advertising the feature, where it opens, how many screens and the length of runs. There's an opportunity to set standards for net distribution and the relationships that can be formed.
-- Enric -======- http://www.cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think there's an irony in the fact that myheavy.com was making money > of vloggers videos when most of them aren't making any money > themselves. > > I see opportunity here. Heavy is a broadband website specializing in > rich media advertising. They obviously have some tremendous > advertising chops. > > I think there's really some opportunity for some opt in revenue share. > > What's cool about this is the advertising would only be on your > content on MyHeavy.com... you'd need to do nothing... it won't affect > your viewership on your vlog... it's non-exclusive... not affecting > your relationship with others... it's just added revenue and a chance > to reach consumers you might not otherwise meet and make a little > money on the side. > > I say great opportunity. > > That said... MyHeavy was blatent copyright infringement... sue away if > you like... but I think the vlogosphere might be better for taking > this proposal to them. > > Maybe Mike Hudack will suggest it when he meets with them > > Money flow straight to my favorite vloggers = best thing ever > > I'd love to see Human Dog syndicate it's different shows on MyHeavy... > a great chance to experiment and learn from differnet markets and make > money. > > I'd love to see rocketboom on MyHeavy... maybe some others. > > It'd be your choice, you'd have the control. > > It makes a hell of a lot more sense than advertising right on Blip, or > with Revver or Adbrite or any of the others. > > Heavy has it's own built in market, a market you otherwise wouldn't be > reaching anyway. > > A great chance to syndicate. BTW... it's a similar way that cable TV > stations work... but of course they demand exclusivity. > > If you wanted to build your own media empire, that's the model I'd be > looking for. Destination sites that'll let you reach new markets > without compromising your own, not your direct link to your audience. > > At the very least you'll learn something. > > I say this... because a lot of you are syndicating your media to > youtube... but youtube is never going to offer you a revenue kick > back... after all they're doing the "favor" of hosting your videos now > they have to make their 1.6 billion to get positive... you think > anything is going to come your way anytime soon from them? > > MyHeavy is opportunity knocking. > > Demand opt in, demand a good revnue share, demand tracking and > numbers. They've got the best advertising setup I've seen. > > and/or sue their asses off... it's a great bargaining chip. Look at > all the major media companies and Youtube. Heah, MyHeavy.com... we > won't bring a class action suit against you if you help get us paid! > > Bargaining chip! > > Peace, > > -Mike > mefeedia.com > mmeiser.com/blog > > On 1/4/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do we know how much revenue they generated dsirectly from blip & > > google videos? Do we know how long they had the 'search engine' aspect > > of their site running before it got pulled down? > > > > I support you on one level with what you are suggesting, but there are > > several hurdles Id think carefully before trying to jump: > > > > 1) The company to be taken to court neds to be a serial offender who > > doesnt shift when there is a verbal web backlash. So far all the major > > offenders have corrected themselves, have listened, which makes it > > harder for me to see them as worthy of being made a legal example of. > > > > 2) Would any compensation actually even cover legal costs let along > > build up a slush-fund? > > > > 3) Consider the possible legal-precedent setting - could an > > undesirable outcome ensue where things are locked down? Some people on > > digg etc seemed to think this stuff would mean the end of the internet > > as we know it, which I dont agree with, but there is some potential > > danger of going too far I suppose? Dont want to end up penalising > > viewers, just commercial leeches. > > > > 4) Double-standards. During the network2.tv rant, it became clear that > > some of the old friendly homegrown services may be getting cut more > > slack by this group than new 'obviously commercial' services that we > > rage against. For example Michael Verdi noticed that fireant directory > > had added some adverts since he opted in, I didnt notice them > > responding here at all. > > > > I suppose at the end of the day I feel any money for legal battles > > could be better spend elsewhere, technology and blip.tv etc's > > influence, word of mouth and blogosphere backlash seem to have served > > the cause well so far. I guess I dont feel like seeing lawyers become > > another group that gets a load of cash ahead of the video creators! > > > > Although Im on the wrong continent I would love to help with some sort > > of content creators guild that would publicise and discuss these > > issues, if not go down the legal route. Although theres still a huge > > lack of detail, things like Baron & Pulvers 'Abbey Corp' seems > > interesting, but my overriding cynicism means Id probably be more into > > such things if they were not-for-profit, or indeed a new type of UK > > company that has emerged in recent years. Listen to this description > > and ponder if it makes sense... > > > > "Community Interest Companies > > Community Interest Companies (CICS) are limited companies with special > > additional features created for the use of people who want to conduct > > a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for > > private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and > > "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established for community > > purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these > > purposes.Registration of a company as a CIC has to be approved by the > > Regulator who also has a continuing monitoring and enforcement role." > > > > Wibble! > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz" > > <schlomo@> wrote: > > > > > > I agree with you Mike that Litigation is expensive and difficult, but > > > honestly, heavy.com can afford to pay for back revenues they have > > > generated. That's all I want. > > > > > > In Web2.0 Land, part of the money-making scheme is having users > > > populate a site with content to make the site "valuable". We have > > > brought value to heavy.com and some sort of compensation should be > > > asked for. > > > > > > It's the beginning of the year; perfect time for tipping over large > > > monuments. Or rattling cages. Or just asserting the fact that what I > > > do has some value to these companies. YOU BRING VALUE TO MULTIPLE WEB > > > COMPANIES. Time to get paid when someone steps up and takes your > > > value for granted. > > > > > > And then, with this money, maybe we could have a slush fund to help > > > others. (Though I just want to give my part to blip.tv to pay for > > > hosting for the last year!:) > > > > > > We are ripe for a beautiful lawsuit. One that will take these > > > companies to task and make a new chapter in the Court of Copyright. > > > This is trail-blazing stuff that can affect online video makers for > > > the foreseeable future. > > > > > > I'm serious. I haven't had coffee yet, and I'm still ready to sue! > > > (I hope this doesn't make me sound like a Sue-Happy American, I'm not > > > really like that. I just think this is important to lock down.) > > > > > > Schlomo > > > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com > > > http://hatfactory.net > > > http://evilvlog.com > > > > > > On 1/4/07, Mike Hudack <mike@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Litigation is expensive and difficult. I've been on the phone with > > > > them, and I'm hopeful that we can resolve this issue with simple > > > > communication and without the need for lawyers. That said, if we have > > > > to, we'll have our attorneys send them a nastygram. We're not at that > > > > point yet, though. Soon, maybe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
