http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2009/11/22/day-22-return-vlomo-2009/
My contribution to the 30 videos by 30 vloggers in 30 days chain.

@David Lee King - The torch has been passed. Vlog on my friend...


Mike
Site: http://vlog.mikemoon.net
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/MoonEchoes
My 30in30 all-in-one player: http://mikemoon.net/vlog/30-things-countdown/

Edited to the music beautifully

Nice work

Ernie

http://www.ernmander.com


On 22/11/2009 18:34, "mgmoon" <mgmoon@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2009/11/22/day-22-return-vlomo-2009/
> My contribution to the 30 videos by 30 vloggers in 30 days chain.
>
> @David Lee King - The torch has been passed. Vlog on my friend...
>
> Mike
> Site: http://vlog.mikemoon.net
> RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/MoonEchoes
> My 30in30 all-in-one player: http://mikemoon.net/vlog/30-things-countdown/
>
>
>
>
>



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

I read somewhere ( I believe it was in YouTube and Video Marketing in an Hour a
Day ) that when music in a video is flagged as a copyright violation, the owner
of the copyright has two choices:

1)  They can get the video pulled.
2)  They can choose to have an ad placed over the lower third of the video for
their music ( you know those ads that have a link to buy on Amazon or iTunes). 
So if you do use copyright music, you are giving YouTube tacit approval to run
adds for the music on your video.

YouTube changes every 3 days or so, so I don't know if this remains true.

All the best,

Rob Schultz
http://www.magicalmultimedialive.com
http://www.blockbustermultimedia.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull <sulleleven@...> wrote:
>
> for a client i would not even consider using any assets that were not
> legally cleared.
>
> for personal hobby videos... i am willing to risk it and promote music for
> free :)
> i plan to do this for an entire album soon.
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Roxanne Darling <okekai@...> wrote:
>
> > Ok so I got hood-winked - a little - as I figured you would know this stuff
> > Mr John but then why ask the question?
> >
> > Sorry I was gone while you were in Hawaii...
> >
> > And yes, I to am in favor of push back - but like Jay, for client work I'm
> > not gonna go there unless they insist.
> >
> > Like David says, there are lots of missed opportunities here due to old
> > world thinking. And, there are missed royalties too, as you can't squeeze
> > 'em out of an old system that people just don't respect anymore. If people
> > weren't pushing against the rules, the enforcers wouldn't realize how much
> > they are due for change.
> >
> > Carry on,
> >
> > Rox
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:02 PM, David King <davidleeking@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't remember who, but I heard someone say music companies should
> > embrace
> > > the personal copying/reuse of their music, and instead of blocking it in
> > > YouTube, for example ... notice it, and then add targeted ads when the
> > song
> > > is played.
> > >
> > > Music companies would end up with more money, individuals wouldn't hate
> > the
> > > music company for blocking their perfect song for the video, and
> > everybody
> > > would kiss and make up.
> > >
> > > Ok, probably not quite to that extent, but you get my drift... :-)
> > >
> > > David Lee King
> > > davidleeking.com - blog
> > > davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog
> > > twitter | skype: davidleeking
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...
> > <jay.dedman%40gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Jay, I thought you like to break the rules?
> > > >
> > > > haha yeah. break away. I dot see how music companies will slow down
> > > > the use of music in personal creation. and as we all know, its free
> > > > advertising for them.
> > > >
> > > > jay
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://ryanishungry.com
> > > > http://jaydedman.com
> > > > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> > > > 917 371 6790
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Roxanne Darling
> > "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian
> > Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more
> > http://reef.beachwalks.tv
> > 808-384-5554
> > Video --> http://www.beachwalks.tv
> > Company -- > http://www.barefeetstudios.com
> > Twitter--> http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

that was very cool!

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:34 PM, mgmoon <mgmoon@...> wrote:

>
>
> http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2009/11/22/day-22-return-vlomo-2009/
> My contribution to the 30 videos by 30 vloggers in 30 days chain.
>
> @David Lee King - The torch has been passed. Vlog on my friend...
>
> Mike
> Site: http://vlog.mikemoon.net
> RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/MoonEchoes
> My 30in30 all-in-one player: http://mikemoon.net/vlog/30-things-countdown/
>
>
>


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

that was very cool!

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:34 PM, mgmoon <mgmoon@...> wrote:

>
>
> http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2009/11/22/day-22-return-vlomo-2009/
> My contribution to the 30 videos by 30 vloggers in 30 days chain.
>
> @David Lee King - The torch has been passed. Vlog on my friend...
>
> Mike
> Site: http://vlog.mikemoon.net
> RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/MoonEchoes
> My 30in30 all-in-one player: http://mikemoon.net/vlog/30-things-countdown/
>
>
>


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

I was just complaining about netflix and roku today.  I suppose this bit of
news will appease me for a while longer.

Some new channels:
blip.tv, Facebook Photos, Flickr, FrameChannel, Mediafly, MobileTribe,
Motionbox, Pandora, Revision3 and TWiT

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/11/22/roku-announces-roku-channel-store-adds-face\
book-and-pandora-and-maybe-porn/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campa\
ign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29


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

Here's my video -
http://davidleeking.com/etc/2009/11/23/navlopomo-wheres-daddy/

In Mike Moon’s
video<http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2009/11/22/day-22-return-vlomo-2009/>,
he appears and disappears a time or two, and his familiar backyard scene
keeps jumping around. That reminded me of my busy work and travel schedule,
and how I might be constantly appearing, disappearing, and reappearing again
to my kids.

Hence, I appear and disappear a bunch in the video, which is set to echoey
music.

Special thanks to the crow who somehow chirped in time to the beat.

David Lee King
davidleeking.com - blog
davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog
twitter | skype: davidleeking


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

So, you've submitted a Life Story. Or, maybe you're going to submit, but aren't
sure when. What now?

Now is the time to submit, and get people to comment on it, because The WGBH Lab
is "Sweetening The Pot" for you. We will be giving away 1 iPod Nano to each of 3
people who have submitted the videos that have the most comments.

That's right, people talk about your work – you win.

Here's the quick rundown:

1) You submit to The WGBH Lab Open Call: Life Stories
(http://thewgbhlab.org/nova-splash).

2) Your submission follows our Eligibility and Guidelines
(http://thewgbhlab.org/eligibility-and-guidelines).

3) Your video gets comments. Lots. And remember, all comments must come from
REAL people, and not from spam robots.

(Just tell ALL of your friends that you need a favor!)

In addition to receiving an iPod Nano, your submission will also be featured on
The WGBH Lab site, and potentially broadcast with NOVA programming on life and
evolution.

Remember, We are looking for videos that capture "life". Happy, sad, any
emotive… just as long as it's organic, it's nature, and it's life.

You can't win, if you don't submit. You can't comment if you don't register.
Submit! Comment! Vote!

Please visit the site for complete details, and submission deadline dates:
http://thewgbhlab.org/ipod-giveaway.

Brilliant continuation on Mikes theme.

Ernie

http://www.ernmander.com


On 23/11/2009 17:06, "David King" <davidleeking@...> wrote:

> Here's my video -
> http://davidleeking.com/etc/2009/11/23/navlopomo-wheres-daddy/
>
> In Mike Moon‚s
> video<http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2009/11/22/day-22-return-vlomo-2009/>,
> he appears and disappears a time or two, and his familiar backyard scene
> keeps jumping around. That reminded me of my busy work and travel schedule,
> and how I might be constantly appearing, disappearing, and reappearing again
> to my kids.
>
> Hence, I appear and disappear a bunch in the video, which is set to echoey
> music.
>
> Special thanks to the crow who somehow chirped in time to the beat.
>
> David Lee King
> davidleeking.com - blog
> davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog
> twitter | skype: davidleeking
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

So just to be clear... you guys are all cool with someone (oh, I dunno,
let's say a "musician") taking your video, and using it in any way they
like, for whatever purpose they choose, even if you don't agree with it,
and even if you have not released it under a sharing license?

So if a multinational corporation uses your video and makes money from
it, you're OK with that? If a huge record label uses it as they please,
it's all good?

I'm a huge supporter of Creative Commons, but I'm also respectful of
people's work and allowing them to choose how they share it/how it is
used, and not just being a jerk and taking it. I'd expect all creatives
to think in a similar way, but sadly, I'm always amazed by people who
work hard in one craft (let's say video) are so willing to take what
someone else has created (let's say a musician) and do what they please
with it without permission, or attribution, or anything else.

(Sorry for the rant, it's been a while! :)


Pete




John Coffey wrote:
> What  is copyright music? I've been BUYING lp's, 45's, 78's, cassettes mp3's
cd's for over 40 years now. Is any ot this copyright music?
> John Coffey
>
>
>

thanks!

David Lee King
davidleeking.com - blog
davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog
twitter | skype: davidleeking


On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ernie <djshabb@...> wrote:

> Brilliant continuation on Mikes theme.
>
> Ernie
>
> http://www.ernmander.com
>
>
> On 23/11/2009 17:06, "David King" <davidleeking@...> wrote:
>
> > Here's my video -
> > http://davidleeking.com/etc/2009/11/23/navlopomo-wheres-daddy/
> >
> > In Mike Moon‚s
> > video<http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2009/11/22/day-22-return-vlomo-2009/>,
> > he appears and disappears a time or two, and his familiar backyard scene
> > keeps jumping around. That reminded me of my busy work and travel
> schedule,
> > and how I might be constantly appearing, disappearing, and reappearing
> again
> > to my kids.
> >
> > Hence, I appear and disappear a bunch in the video, which is set to
> echoey
> > music.
> >
> > Special thanks to the crow who somehow chirped in time to the beat.
> >
> > David Lee King
> > davidleeking.com - blog
> > davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog
> > twitter | skype: davidleeking
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

Hey Pete,
I'm cool with that. It would be great to get attribution (or even $)
but really I just want people to see what I make. I don't pretend that
I've made anything wholly original (I don't think anyone has) and I'm
happy for people to use it as inspiration. Artists build off of the
work of others without permission all of the time and to pretend
otherwise is dishonest. In this world I think (and it's the case for
myself personally) artists are more often negatively impacted by
obscurity than by someone using their work without permission.

Here's a recent video I made using some music from The Flaming Lips:
http://michaelverdi.com/2009/11/03/embryonic/
The band did not loose anything in this transaction. Hopefully they've
gained a new fan or two. In fact the whole reason I even bought that
album was because I'd fallen in love with other albums of theirs that
I'd downloaded illegally. Again that transaction (the illegal
download) didn't cost the band a dime because I wasn't going to
purchase those albums anyway and it resulted in me purchasing their
latest. In fact I'd love to give them some more of my money to see
them in concert (and probably buy a t-shirt) during their current
tour.

This craziness that publishing something entitles you to a monopoly on
it that can be extended for a ridiculous amount of time is well,
ridiculous. And in the case of non-commercial reuse, e.g. free
advertising, can be harmful to try to enforce. You end up treating
fans or customers like criminals. That's an easy way to appear like an
asshole. Anyone here ever have to call Microsoft after reinstalling
Windows? What a bunch of bullshit that is.

Anyway, I could go on and on - this topic makes me so angry. Or rather
what makes me angry is that we've let corporations set the
conversation (and laws) about what property is and we've got artists
totally buying into it even though for 99.99999% of them it's not in
their self-interest (it's like poor people voting for Republicans).

What I'm always amazed by is that artists "steal" "intellectual
property" like they breath air and then get pissed when someone else
returns the honor.

- Verdi

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Pete Prodoehl <raster@...> wrote:
>
> So just to be clear... you guys are all cool with someone (oh, I dunno,
> let's say a "musician") taking your video, and using it in any way they
> like, for whatever purpose they choose, even if you don't agree with it,
> and even if you have not released it under a sharing license?
>
> So if a multinational corporation uses your video and makes money from
> it, you're OK with that? If a huge record label uses it as they please,
> it's all good?
>
> I'm a huge supporter of Creative Commons, but I'm also respectful of
> people's work and allowing them to choose how they share it/how it is
> used, and not just being a jerk and taking it. I'd expect all creatives
> to think in a similar way, but sadly, I'm always amazed by people who
> work hard in one craft (let's say video) are so willing to take what
> someone else has created (let's say a musician) and do what they please
> with it without permission, or attribution, or anything else.
>
> (Sorry for the rant, it's been a while! :)
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
> John Coffey wrote:
>> What  is copyright music? I've been BUYING lp's, 45's, 78's, cassettes mp3's
cd's for over 40 years now. Is any ot this copyright music?
>> John Coffey
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



--
Michael Verdi
http://michaelverdi.com
http://talkbot.tv

I am still cracking away doing the daily video's. Todays is here

http://www.ernmander.com/2009/11/24/navlopomo-day-24/

Hope you are all well

Ernie

http://www.ernmander.com

Have we talked about this yet? *(Watch the video)*
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/11/connecting-citizens-and-journalists.h\
tml

That's why we created YouTube Direct <http://youtube.com/direct>, a new tool
that allows media organizations to request, review and rebroadcast YouTube
clips directly from YouTube users. Built from our APIs, this open source
application lets media organizations enable customized versions of YouTube's
upload platform on their own websites. Users can upload videos directly into
this application, which also enables the hosting organization to easily
review video submissions and select the best ones to broadcast on-air and on
their websites. As always, these videos also live on YouTube, so users can
reach their own audience while also getting broader exposure and editorial
validation for the videos they create.

I havent seen any example of this in the wild yet, but seems to cool to
encourage people to upload videos to a certain project. (though why not just
get people to send a link?)

Jay

--
http://ryanishungry.com
http://jaydedman.com
http://twitter.com/jaydedman
917 371 6790


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

A sound reasoned, thought out response....sweet...but I would expect no less
from Michael...me, well here is my take.

What I think is disgenious is the following, record labels, corporations,
marketing people, all for years, heck decades have done is try to get us as
consumers to think of their products in our everyday lifes...rememeber the old
Kodak slogan, Share moments, share life, Coke, it's the real thing, and so on or
the way music is used now in commercials, to envoke a certain feeling or moment
from your life...I mean in itself music takes us to a certain place in time in
our lives, music video's help convey this process by putting pictures to words
and so on

They have spent a lot of money to get us to identify certain brands, certain
music with events in our lives.  It's how they have made a lot of money...it's
just that now...anyone can take these things and share them...I mean what did
they think was going to happen, a whole generation and a half has been rasised
to think of their lives around brands, around music, around TV shows...and now
they bitch and complain when we use tools to share OUR lives with the very
things that we identify our lives with?  It's nuts...I mean they still want us
to think in the terms that they want us to think in, we just can't share it,
show it or let anyone know we like or dislike it...

I don't freakin think so....

Heath
http://heathparks.com/blog

I do agree you should alwasy give attribution though, something I need to be
better at and I wouldn't ever use copyrighted music for a client....or for
profit.....

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi <michaelverdi@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Pete,
> I'm cool with that. It would be great to get attribution (or even $)
> but really I just want people to see what I make. I don't pretend that
> I've made anything wholly original (I don't think anyone has) and I'm
> happy for people to use it as inspiration. Artists build off of the
> work of others without permission all of the time and to pretend
> otherwise is dishonest. In this world I think (and it's the case for
> myself personally) artists are more often negatively impacted by
> obscurity than by someone using their work without permission.
>
> Here's a recent video I made using some music from The Flaming Lips:
> http://michaelverdi.com/2009/11/03/embryonic/
> The band did not loose anything in this transaction. Hopefully they've
> gained a new fan or two. In fact the whole reason I even bought that
> album was because I'd fallen in love with other albums of theirs that
> I'd downloaded illegally. Again that transaction (the illegal
> download) didn't cost the band a dime because I wasn't going to
> purchase those albums anyway and it resulted in me purchasing their
> latest. In fact I'd love to give them some more of my money to see
> them in concert (and probably buy a t-shirt) during their current
> tour.
>
> This craziness that publishing something entitles you to a monopoly on
> it that can be extended for a ridiculous amount of time is well,
> ridiculous. And in the case of non-commercial reuse, e.g. free
> advertising, can be harmful to try to enforce. You end up treating
> fans or customers like criminals. That's an easy way to appear like an
> asshole. Anyone here ever have to call Microsoft after reinstalling
> Windows? What a bunch of bullshit that is.
>
> Anyway, I could go on and on - this topic makes me so angry. Or rather
> what makes me angry is that we've let corporations set the
> conversation (and laws) about what property is and we've got artists
> totally buying into it even though for 99.99999% of them it's not in
> their self-interest (it's like poor people voting for Republicans).
>
> What I'm always amazed by is that artists "steal" "intellectual
> property" like they breath air and then get pissed when someone else
> returns the honor.
>
> - Verdi
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Pete Prodoehl <raster@...> wrote:
> >
> > So just to be clear... you guys are all cool with someone (oh, I dunno,
> > let's say a "musician") taking your video, and using it in any way they
> > like, for whatever purpose they choose, even if you don't agree with it,
> > and even if you have not released it under a sharing license?
> >
> > So if a multinational corporation uses your video and makes money from
> > it, you're OK with that? If a huge record label uses it as they please,
> > it's all good?
> >
> > I'm a huge supporter of Creative Commons, but I'm also respectful of
> > people's work and allowing them to choose how they share it/how it is
> > used, and not just being a jerk and taking it. I'd expect all creatives
> > to think in a similar way, but sadly, I'm always amazed by people who
> > work hard in one craft (let's say video) are so willing to take what
> > someone else has created (let's say a musician) and do what they please
> > with it without permission, or attribution, or anything else.
> >
> > (Sorry for the rant, it's been a while! :)
> >
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > John Coffey wrote:
> >> What  is copyright music? I've been BUYING lp's, 45's, 78's, cassettes
mp3's cd's for over 40 years now. Is any ot this copyright music?
> >> John Coffey
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Verdi
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://talkbot.tv
>

Heath you're totally right. I made a short film a few years ago based
on my brother and I playing Star Trek when we were kids. I actually
wrote to Paramount to ask for permission to use a few sound clips
(transporter, bridge beeps, etc). Not only did they say no, they
reminded me that the words, "Enterprise," "Spock" and "Phaser" were
trademarks and also couldn't be used. The thing is, when we were kids
we played Star Trek. Not Star Journey or Space Trek or some other
bullshit. It's insane that Copyright and Trademark laws can reach into
your childhood memories and make the expression of them illegal
subject to the whim of a corporation.

- Verdi

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:50 AM, hpbatman7 <heathparks@...> wrote:
> A sound reasoned, thought out response....sweet...but I would expect no less
from Michael...me, well here is my take.
>
> What I think is disgenious is the following, record labels, corporations,
marketing people, all for years, heck decades have done is try to get us as
consumers to think of their products in our everyday lifes...rememeber the old
Kodak slogan, Share moments, share life, Coke, it's the real thing, and so on or
the way music is used now in commercials, to envoke a certain feeling or moment
from your life...I mean in itself music takes us to a certain place in time in
our lives, music video's help convey this process by putting pictures to words
and so on
>
> They have spent a lot of money to get us to identify certain brands, certain
music with events in our lives.  It's how they have made a lot of money...it's
just that now...anyone can take these things and share them...I mean what did
they think was going to happen, a whole generation and a half has been rasised
to think of their lives around brands, around music, around TV shows...and now
they bitch and complain when we use tools to share OUR lives with the very
things that we identify our lives with?  It's nuts...I mean they still want us
to think in the terms that they want us to think in, we just can't share it,
show it or let anyone know we like or dislike it...
>
> I don't freakin think so....
>
> Heath
> http://heathparks.com/blog
>
> I do agree you should alwasy give attribution though, something I need to be
better at and I wouldn't ever use copyrighted music for a client....or for
profit.....
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi <michaelverdi@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Pete,
>> I'm cool with that. It would be great to get attribution (or even $)
>> but really I just want people to see what I make. I don't pretend that
>> I've made anything wholly original (I don't think anyone has) and I'm
>> happy for people to use it as inspiration. Artists build off of the
>> work of others without permission all of the time and to pretend
>> otherwise is dishonest. In this world I think (and it's the case for
>> myself personally) artists are more often negatively impacted by
>> obscurity than by someone using their work without permission.
>>
>> Here's a recent video I made using some music from The Flaming Lips:
>> http://michaelverdi.com/2009/11/03/embryonic/
>> The band did not loose anything in this transaction. Hopefully they've
>> gained a new fan or two. In fact the whole reason I even bought that
>> album was because I'd fallen in love with other albums of theirs that
>> I'd downloaded illegally. Again that transaction (the illegal
>> download) didn't cost the band a dime because I wasn't going to
>> purchase those albums anyway and it resulted in me purchasing their
>> latest. In fact I'd love to give them some more of my money to see
>> them in concert (and probably buy a t-shirt) during their current
>> tour.
>>
>> This craziness that publishing something entitles you to a monopoly on
>> it that can be extended for a ridiculous amount of time is well,
>> ridiculous. And in the case of non-commercial reuse, e.g. free
>> advertising, can be harmful to try to enforce. You end up treating
>> fans or customers like criminals. That's an easy way to appear like an
>> asshole. Anyone here ever have to call Microsoft after reinstalling
>> Windows? What a bunch of bullshit that is.
>>
>> Anyway, I could go on and on - this topic makes me so angry. Or rather
>> what makes me angry is that we've let corporations set the
>> conversation (and laws) about what property is and we've got artists
>> totally buying into it even though for 99.99999% of them it's not in
>> their self-interest (it's like poor people voting for Republicans).
>>
>> What I'm always amazed by is that artists "steal" "intellectual
>> property" like they breath air and then get pissed when someone else
>> returns the honor.
>>
>> - Verdi
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Pete Prodoehl <raster@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > So just to be clear... you guys are all cool with someone (oh, I dunno,
>> > let's say a "musician") taking your video, and using it in any way they
>> > like, for whatever purpose they choose, even if you don't agree with it,
>> > and even if you have not released it under a sharing license?
>> >
>> > So if a multinational corporation uses your video and makes money from
>> > it, you're OK with that? If a huge record label uses it as they please,
>> > it's all good?
>> >
>> > I'm a huge supporter of Creative Commons, but I'm also respectful of
>> > people's work and allowing them to choose how they share it/how it is
>> > used, and not just being a jerk and taking it. I'd expect all creatives
>> > to think in a similar way, but sadly, I'm always amazed by people who
>> > work hard in one craft (let's say video) are so willing to take what
>> > someone else has created (let's say a musician) and do what they please
>> > with it without permission, or attribution, or anything else.
>> >
>> > (Sorry for the rant, it's been a while! :)
>> >
>> >
>> > Pete
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > John Coffey wrote:
>> >> What  is copyright music? I've been BUYING lp's, 45's, 78's, cassettes
mp3's cd's for over 40 years now. Is any ot this copyright music?
>> >> John Coffey
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Verdi
>> http://michaelverdi.com
>> http://talkbot.tv
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



--
Michael Verdi
http://michaelverdi.com
http://talkbot.tv

I have not had time to put it in a blog post, yet. That will have to
come later. For now, here's a direct link:

http://makevideo.org.uk/video/2009-11-24-change.wmv

I was intrigued by all the chopping and changing in recent videos from
Mike Moon and David Lee King, but I wanted to pick that up and show
that change is a vital part of survival.

And I wanted to celebrate Darwin, today at least.

Phew!

Good luck Trine.

Frank.

Thanks for this info. Not sure what to make of it, but it looks interesting.
Roger.

To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
From: jay.dedman@...
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:24:30 -0500
Subject: [videoblogging] Youtube Direct




























       Have we talked about this yet? *(Watch the video)*

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/11/connecting-citizens-and-journalists.h\
tml



That's why we created YouTube Direct <http://youtube.com/direct>, a new tool

that allows media organizations to request, review and rebroadcast YouTube

clips directly from YouTube users. Built from our APIs, this open source

application lets media organizations enable customized versions of YouTube's

upload platform on their own websites. Users can upload videos directly into

this application, which also enables the hosting organization to easily

review video submissions and select the best ones to broadcast on-air and on

their websites. As always, these videos also live on YouTube, so users can

reach their own audience while also getting broader exposure and editorial

validation for the videos they create.



I havent seen any example of this in the wild yet, but seems to cool to

encourage people to upload videos to a certain project. (though why not just

get people to send a link?)



Jay



--

http://ryanishungry.com

http://jaydedman.com

http://twitter.com/jaydedman

917 371 6790



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


















_________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFES\
RP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1

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

I updated my post as the BBC did a better job than my effort]

http://www.ernmander.com/2009/11/24/navlopomo-day-24/

take care all

Ernie

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ernmander" <djshabb@...> wrote:
>
> I am still cracking away doing the daily video's. Todays is here
>
> http://www.ernmander.com/2009/11/24/navlopomo-day-24/
>
> Hope you are all well
>
> Ernie
>
> http://www.ernmander.com
>

2009/11/24 Frank Carver <frank.carver@...>:
> I have not had time to put it in a blog post, yet. That will have to
> come later.

Later is now. Blog post available at:

http://www.makevideo.org.uk/2009/11/24/navlopomo-2009-day-24/

However, I am having trouble with the form to add a video to the 30
days videobloggers miro community. The form insists I put something in
a field named "embed", but I have no idea what to put there. Can
anyone who has done this already give any hints?

Thanks,
Frank.

hi Frank, sorry I can't recall seeing the embed field in previous uploads,
but I tried it now with another blip video using the othe other url in the
blip dashboard list.

eg if I use the permalink for url= http://blip.tv/file/<id> I don't see the
embed field & it fills in all the video details from my blip post.

if I use the episode details url=http://blip.tv/dashboard/episode/<id> then
it does see the embed & I have to fill in all the details - it looks like
this page hasn't recognized it's a video you u might have to paste the blip
embed code??

I haven't tried a .wmv file  so not sure if that's related?

also, if I use the direct link .flv file as the url then it uses that nice
player which keeps a snapshot of the video as the background, but you need
to enter all the description/tags etc manually (just paste from blip). can't
recall having to enter embed code using this method though..

hth
kath


2009/11/25 Frank Carver <frank.carver@...>

> However, I am having trouble with the form to add a video to the 30
> days videobloggers miro community. The form insists I put something in
> a field named "embed", but I have no idea what to put there. Can
> anyone who has done this already give any hints?
>
>


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

Thanks Kath,

Maybe its time I finally looked into how to post videos to a sharing service
such as blip.tv.

Up until now I have never needed anything more than placing the video on my
server and linking to it in a blog post, so I have happily avoided all of
the blips and vimeos and youtubes of the world.

Sigh.

2009/11/24 Kath O'Donnell <aliak77@...>

>
>
> hi Frank, sorry I can't recall seeing the embed field in previous uploads,
> but I tried it now with another blip video using the othe other url in the
> blip dashboard list.
>
> eg if I use the permalink for url= http://blip.tv/file/<id> I don't see
> the
> embed field & it fills in all the video details from my blip post.
>
> if I use the episode details url=http://blip.tv/dashboard/episode/<id>
> then
> it does see the embed & I have to fill in all the details - it looks like
> this page hasn't recognized it's a video you u might have to paste the blip
> embed code??
>
> I haven't tried a .wmv file so not sure if that's related?
>
> also, if I use the direct link .flv file as the url then it uses that nice
> player which keeps a snapshot of the video as the background, but you need
> to enter all the description/tags etc manually (just paste from blip).
> can't
> recall having to enter embed code using this method though..
>
> hth
> kath
>
> 2009/11/25 Frank Carver
<frank.carver@...<frank.carver%40googlemail.com>
> >
>
>
> > However, I am having trouble with the form to add a video to the 30
> > days videobloggers miro community. The form insists I put something in
> > a field named "embed", but I have no idea what to put there. Can
> > anyone who has done this already give any hints?
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

I posted it to the miro site. It just made a text link at the top of
the thumbnail that links to the video file. Also there is a button
that takes you to the original blog post.

- Verdi

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Frank Carver
<frank.carver@...> wrote:
> Thanks Kath,
>
> Maybe its time I finally looked into how to post videos to a sharing service
> such as blip.tv.
>
> Up until now I have never needed anything more than placing the video on my
> server and linking to it in a blog post, so I have happily avoided all of
> the blips and vimeos and youtubes of the world.
>
> Sigh.
>
> 2009/11/24 Kath O'Donnell <aliak77@...>
>
>>
>>
>> hi Frank, sorry I can't recall seeing the embed field in previous uploads,
>> but I tried it now with another blip video using the othe other url in the
>> blip dashboard list.
>>
>> eg if I use the permalink for url= http://blip.tv/file/<id> I don't see
>> the
>> embed field & it fills in all the video details from my blip post.
>>
>> if I use the episode details url=http://blip.tv/dashboard/episode/<id>
>> then
>> it does see the embed & I have to fill in all the details - it looks like
>> this page hasn't recognized it's a video you u might have to paste the blip
>> embed code??
>>
>> I haven't tried a .wmv file so not sure if that's related?
>>
>> also, if I use the direct link .flv file as the url then it uses that nice
>> player which keeps a snapshot of the video as the background, but you need
>> to enter all the description/tags etc manually (just paste from blip).
>> can't
>> recall having to enter embed code using this method though..
>>
>> hth
>> kath
>>
>> 2009/11/25 Frank Carver
<frank.carver@...<frank.carver%40googlemail.com>
>> >
>>
>>
>> > However, I am having trouble with the form to add a video to the 30
>> > days videobloggers miro community. The form insists I put something in
>> > a field named "embed", but I have no idea what to put there. Can
>> > anyone who has done this already give any hints?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



--
Michael Verdi
http://michaelverdi.com
http://talkbot.tv

I agree with both of you.

The issue begins with us backed into a corner.
That's why Creative Commons was born.  As a sensible alternative.
But their should not have been a need for Creative Commons to begin with.

You can look at this issue from the perspective of reality or one of assumed
etiquette or both.
For me, I tend to use copyrighted media if I bought the media myself.
I also tend to email some relevant source that I am using a piece of content
and even have gone so far to instruct them to send me proper legal takedown
notice as needed (so I could consider it).
The reality is, no harm, no foul, always.

Just last month I posted a video that was nothing more than a screencast of
a 360 degree animation of a camera that was accidentally published on
Motorola's website.  I found out vie Twitter and before they took the page
offline, I captured it and added a soundtrack and uploaded it to Youtube.
  This took 15 minutes of my time.  The track was a free download from a band
that I like but is not well-known.  I added attribution at the end of the
video.  The video got over 20k views.  All those people heard this track and
if they went to the end or read the description, they also knew who it was
and where to find them on the web.  -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbbO9NnrLE8 -
That was courtesy of me.  A fan.  Maybe some of those people will listen to
more of their music and become a fan as well.

This case is so common that I have just stopped caring about using copyright
content in my own non-commercial personal hobby videos.  I am not doing any
harm, not making any money and only promoting the content for free.
I could receive a takedown notice and weigh my options at that point.  But
to not use the content at this stage.... for me.... is not an option.  I've
moved beyond that idealistic phase.  I think to some degree... so has the
industry.

sull

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Verdi <michaelverdi@...>wrote:

>
>
> Heath you're totally right. I made a short film a few years ago based
> on my brother and I playing Star Trek when we were kids. I actually
> wrote to Paramount to ask for permission to use a few sound clips
> (transporter, bridge beeps, etc). Not only did they say no, they
> reminded me that the words, "Enterprise," "Spock" and "Phaser" were
> trademarks and also couldn't be used. The thing is, when we were kids
> we played Star Trek. Not Star Journey or Space Trek or some other
> bullshit. It's insane that Copyright and Trademark laws can reach into
> your childhood memories and make the expression of them illegal
> subject to the whim of a corporation.
>
> - Verdi
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:50 AM, hpbatman7
<heathparks@...<heathparks%40msn.com>>
> wrote:
> > A sound reasoned, thought out response....sweet...but I would expect no
> less from Michael...me, well here is my take.
> >
> > What I think is disgenious is the following, record labels, corporations,
> marketing people, all for years, heck decades have done is try to get us as
> consumers to think of their products in our everyday lifes...rememeber the
> old Kodak slogan, Share moments, share life, Coke, it's the real thing, and
> so on or the way music is used now in commercials, to envoke a certain
> feeling or moment from your life...I mean in itself music takes us to a
> certain place in time in our lives, music video's help convey this process
> by putting pictures to words and so on
> >
> > They have spent a lot of money to get us to identify certain brands,
> certain music with events in our lives.  It's how they have made a lot of
> money...it's just that now...anyone can take these things and share them...I
> mean what did they think was going to happen, a whole generation and a half
> has been rasised to think of their lives around brands, around music, around
> TV shows...and now they bitch and complain when we use tools to share OUR
> lives with the very things that we identify our lives with?  It's nuts...I
> mean they still want us to think in the terms that they want us to think in,
> we just can't share it, show it or let anyone know we like or dislike it...
> >
> > I don't freakin think so....
> >
> > Heath
> > http://heathparks.com/blog
> >
> > I do agree you should alwasy give attribution though, something I need to
> be better at and I wouldn't ever use copyrighted music for a client....or
> for profit.....
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Michael Verdi <michaelverdi@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey Pete,
> >> I'm cool with that. It would be great to get attribution (or even $)
> >> but really I just want people to see what I make. I don't pretend that
> >> I've made anything wholly original (I don't think anyone has) and I'm
> >> happy for people to use it as inspiration. Artists build off of the
> >> work of others without permission all of the time and to pretend
> >> otherwise is dishonest. In this world I think (and it's the case for
> >> myself personally) artists are more often negatively impacted by
> >> obscurity than by someone using their work without permission.
> >>
> >> Here's a recent video I made using some music from The Flaming Lips:
> >> http://michaelverdi.com/2009/11/03/embryonic/
> >> The band did not loose anything in this transaction. Hopefully they've
> >> gained a new fan or two. In fact the whole reason I even bought that
> >> album was because I'd fallen in love with other albums of theirs that
> >> I'd downloaded illegally. Again that transaction (the illegal
> >> download) didn't cost the band a dime because I wasn't going to
> >> purchase those albums anyway and it resulted in me purchasing their
> >> latest. In fact I'd love to give them some more of my money to see
> >> them in concert (and probably buy a t-shirt) during their current
> >> tour.
> >>
> >> This craziness that publishing something entitles you to a monopoly on
> >> it that can be extended for a ridiculous amount of time is well,
> >> ridiculous. And in the case of non-commercial reuse, e.g. free
> >> advertising, can be harmful to try to enforce. You end up treating
> >> fans or customers like criminals. That's an easy way to appear like an
> >> asshole. Anyone here ever have to call Microsoft after reinstalling
> >> Windows? What a bunch of bullshit that is.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I could go on and on - this topic makes me so angry. Or rather
> >> what makes me angry is that we've let corporations set the
> >> conversation (and laws) about what property is and we've got artists
> >> totally buying into it even though for 99.99999% of them it's not in
> >> their self-interest (it's like poor people voting for Republicans).
> >>
> >> What I'm always amazed by is that artists "steal" "intellectual
> >> property" like they breath air and then get pissed when someone else
> >> returns the honor.
> >>
> >> - Verdi
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Pete Prodoehl <raster@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So just to be clear... you guys are all cool with someone (oh, I
> dunno,
> >> > let's say a "musician") taking your video, and using it in any way
> they
> >> > like, for whatever purpose they choose, even if you don't agree with
> it,
> >> > and even if you have not released it under a sharing license?
> >> >
> >> > So if a multinational corporation uses your video and makes money from
> >> > it, you're OK with that? If a huge record label uses it as they
> please,
> >> > it's all good?
> >> >
> >> > I'm a huge supporter of Creative Commons, but I'm also respectful of
> >> > people's work and allowing them to choose how they share it/how it is
> >> > used, and not just being a jerk and taking it. I'd expect all
> creatives
> >> > to think in a similar way, but sadly, I'm always amazed by people who
> >> > work hard in one craft (let's say video) are so willing to take what
> >> > someone else has created (let's say a musician) and do what they
> please
> >> > with it without permission, or attribution, or anything else.
> >> >
> >> > (Sorry for the rant, it's been a while! :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Pete
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > John Coffey wrote:
> >> >> What  is copyright music? I've been BUYING lp's, 45's, 78's,
> cassettes mp3's cd's for over 40 years now. Is any ot this copyright music?
> >> >> John Coffey
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Verdi
> >> http://michaelverdi.com
> >> http://talkbot.tv
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Michael Verdi
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://talkbot.tv
>
>
>


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

I have recently shot two copyright related talks:

William Patry : Moral Panics and the Copyright wars
http://punkcast.com/1666/index.html

David Post : Jefferson's Moose in Cyberspace
http://punkcast.com/1671/index.html

While in some countries it is accepted that an author has a moral right to
ownership of her work, in the United States, thanks mainly to Jefferson, all
works belong automatically to the public. However, in the name of progress
of science and the useful arts - as an incentive to create - the public
gives, for a limited term, the author exclusive right to exploit the work.
This is the basis of all copyright and patent legislation.

The system has worked quite well up until now, as recreation of any work
usually involved a fair degree of capital expenditure, and thus procedures
of remuneration were well established.

The net obviously changes all that. There are moves for law reform but they
will be slow and ungainly. There are two ways (as far as I can see)  that
the original purpose of copyright, to foment creative activity, can be
maintained under the new paradigm.

1) have a cut-off for small time activity, or 2) have a generally accepted
method of credit and payments

  The former is the de facto situation at present. The latter is not beyond
conception. Recursive metatagging and public key crypto and micropayments
could actually work if implemented.

An example might be if your audio/video whatever was tagged with your id,
and a key. If someone were to make a derivative work, or even just a copy,
their id+key were added, and so on. Commercial layers could be set to
aggregate the info and pay off via a central clearing system. Thus authors
would not only be incentivised to create but to share also, and copiers and
sharers could also receive some portion for their propagation efforts.

As is normally the case with peering systems, one's consumption would be
offset by one's input to the system

Pie in the sky I know, but not beyond hope.


joly


--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------


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

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@...> wrote:
> I have recently shot two copyright related talks:
>
> William Patry : Moral Panics and the Copyright wars
> http://punkcast.com/1666/index.html
>
> David Post : Jefferson's Moose in Cyberspace
> http://punkcast.com/1671/index.html
>

I just watched the William Patry talk. Very interesting. I'll have to
watch the other one tomorrow. Thanks for posting those.

- Verdi


--
Michael Verdi
http://michaelverdi.com
http://talkbot.tv

Thanks Michael!

2009/11/25 Michael Verdi <michaelverdi@...>

>
>
> I posted it to the miro site. It just made a text link at the top of
> the thumbnail that links to the video file. Also there is a button
> that takes you to the original blog post.
>
> - Verdi
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Frank Carver
> <frank.carver@... <frank.carver%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
> > Thanks Kath,
> >
> > Maybe its time I finally looked into how to post videos to a sharing
> service
> > such as blip.tv.
> >
> > Up until now I have never needed anything more than placing the video on
> my
> > server and linking to it in a blog post, so I have happily avoided all of
> > the blips and vimeos and youtubes of the world.
> >
> > Sigh.
> >
> > 2009/11/24 Kath O'Donnell <aliak77@... <aliak77%40gmail.com>>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> hi Frank, sorry I can't recall seeing the embed field in previous
> uploads,
> >> but I tried it now with another blip video using the othe other url in
> the
> >> blip dashboard list.
> >>
> >> eg if I use the permalink for url= http://blip.tv/file/<id> I don't see
> >> the
> >> embed field & it fills in all the video details from my blip post.
> >>
> >> if I use the episode details url=http://blip.tv/dashboard/episode/<id>
> >> then
> >> it does see the embed & I have to fill in all the details - it looks
> like
> >> this page hasn't recognized it's a video you u might have to paste the
> blip
> >> embed code??
> >>
> >> I haven't tried a .wmv file so not sure if that's related?
> >>
> >> also, if I use the direct link .flv file as the url then it uses that
> nice
> >> player which keeps a snapshot of the video as the background, but you
> need
> >> to enter all the description/tags etc manually (just paste from blip).
> >> can't
> >> recall having to enter embed code using this method though..
> >>
> >> hth
> >> kath
> >>
> >> 2009/11/25 Frank Carver
<frank.carver@...<frank.carver%40googlemail.com>
> <frank.carver%40googlemail.com>
>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > However, I am having trouble with the form to add a video to the 30
> >> > days videobloggers miro community. The form insists I put something in
> >> > a field named "embed", but I have no idea what to put there. Can
> >> > anyone who has done this already give any hints?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Michael Verdi
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://talkbot.tv
>
>


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

http://vimeo.com/7816609

Jen, all yours! :)

Trine

> I really like this, and I think a lot of video work blogging is more a
> video of the pose. Manufacturing significance instead of just looking,
> finding, and when finding something you think is worth sharing,
> sharing it. This is the value of blogging, even of some aspects of
> twitter, where gems arise within the everyday. In some ways I think it
> is also a 'slap in the face' to some aspects of direct cinema and the
> like since a lot of this work shot enormous ratios and then made very
> elegant structures through their editing, whereas the sort of work
> that videoblogging participates in is much closer to the everyday life
> world of and for all of us. It gets its texture not from one amazing 2
> hour film cut from hundreds of hours of being in an institution but
> from 30 seconds sliced out of today that will sit amongst lots of
> other slices. So yes, a big reinvention but with this sort of shift.
> Would you agree? Or do you have quite a different take and see it as
> much closer to these traditions? (On the other hand a camera in your
> phone is pretty much Astruc's Camera Stylo isn't it?).

Ill pick up this question.
I certianly think videoblogging follows the same train of thought as
Direct Cinema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_cinema).
But while they had the ability to be nimble, they still had to raise
enormous sums of money and fight for even limited distribution.
Wiseman, Pennebaker, Maysles brothers all ended up recording famous
people so they could get people to buy into it.

Videoblogging takes the technical idea of recording everyday life to
it's logical conclusion. Instead of showing what Bob Dylan does in
regular life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_Look_Back), we can
show ourselves.

I do agree that Direct Cinema documentaries was about shooting
hundreds of hours...then editing down to 60-90 minutes.  This is
different than recording moments in life and posting individually.

For the video about my mom, I shot 52 clips..and used 28 of them. I
edited each clip down to its essential. I like to make little movies
where I walk people through an experience.

But I also like what youve always advocated and lately come closer to
building: a fragmentary system. No editing. A database-driven
experience where I can go through your archives of clips based on
keywords. http://vogmae.net.au/fragments/

So some of what we're doing is traditional storytelling but with
renewed energy. Stuff we've never seen before. Totally mundane life
captured on video by the person herself and archived for history. We
also have the ability to present video in totally new ways through
networked clips.

Ultimately, it's still about communicating which means I need to make
my work interesting enough to attract others.

Jay

--
http://ryanishungry.com
http://jaydedman.com
http://twitter.com/jaydedman
917 371 6790

Glad you picked this up, Jay - have been meaning to find the time to
reply to you properly, Adrian - and will!  Combo of family funeral,
deadlines and chicken pox have meant time is rather squeezed.

On 26-Nov-09, at 4:05 PM, Jay dedman wrote:
>
>
> Ill pick up this question.
> I certianly think videoblogging follows the same train of thought as
> Direct Cinema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_cinema).
> But while they had the ability to be nimble, they still had to raise
> enormous sums of money and fight for even limited distribution.
> Wiseman, Pennebaker, Maysles brothers all ended up recording famous
> people so they could get people to buy into it.
>
> Videoblogging takes the technical idea of recording everyday life to
> it's logical conclusion. Instead of showing what Bob Dylan does in
> regular life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_Look_Back), we can
> show ourselves.
>
> I do agree that Direct Cinema documentaries was about shooting
> hundreds of hours...then editing down to 60-90 minutes. This is
> different than recording moments in life and posting individually.
>
> For the video about my mom, I shot 52 clips..and used 28 of them. I
> edited each clip down to its essential. I like to make little movies
> where I walk people through an experience.
>
> But I also like what youve always advocated and lately come closer to
> building: a fragmentary system. No editing. A database-driven
> experience where I can go through your archives of clips based on
> keywords. http://vogmae.net.au/fragments/
>
> So some of what we're doing is traditional storytelling but with
> renewed energy. Stuff we've never seen before. Totally mundane life
> captured on video by the person herself and archived for history. We
> also have the ability to present video in totally new ways through
> networked clips.
>
> Ultimately, it's still about communicating which means I need to make
> my work interesting enough to attract others.
>
> Jay
>
> --
> http://ryanishungry.com
> http://jaydedman.com
> http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> 917 371 6790
>
>



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