heh-heh...
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Make Your Own Noise Canceling Headphones
I have a lot of fun with vid sites like Metacafe...
So I get the idea behind this vid, putting nice headphone parts into closed back earmuffs, but is this really better than say picking up a beautiful pair of cx300's?
I'm not a huge fan of active noise reduction. You have to keep a battery around, and it only reduces constant noise (like the droning sounds of an airplane), and not sudden noises. But hey, Passive NR is Passive NR right? You're just blocking noise. I just happen to prefer inner-aural, "in the ear" headphones.
So anywho, this guy's discovery of clipping together headphones and shooting range earmuffs is pretty sound...
Headphone Hack! Make You Own Noise Eliminating Headset! - Awesome video clips here
Heh-heh, "pretty sound" ... I'm teh funnie...
So I get the idea behind this vid, putting nice headphone parts into closed back earmuffs, but is this really better than say picking up a beautiful pair of cx300's?
I'm not a huge fan of active noise reduction. You have to keep a battery around, and it only reduces constant noise (like the droning sounds of an airplane), and not sudden noises. But hey, Passive NR is Passive NR right? You're just blocking noise. I just happen to prefer inner-aural, "in the ear" headphones.
So anywho, this guy's discovery of clipping together headphones and shooting range earmuffs is pretty sound...
Headphone Hack! Make You Own Noise Eliminating Headset! - Awesome video clips here
Heh-heh, "pretty sound" ... I'm teh funnie...
John Cleese to Work for Podcast Network!
News out of Tech Crunch today, John Cleese has signed an exclusive deal with TPN to star in (and maybe write??) a video podcast called "Headcast".
It looks like there will be Free and Premium available, probably similar to what Ricky Gervais did with his podcast (my speculation).
No details available yet on how much Cleese was paid, or what pricing the show will go for, but it's still pretty exciting news for web content.
Certainly something I'll be looking forward to!
Duncan Riley's write up @ TechCrunch
Monday, September 24, 2007
DRM advocates getting nervous about consumer backlash
You all know the slogan "Guns don t kill people people kill people." At the Digital Rights Strategies conference in New York City a similar message could be heard: "DRM doesn t anger consumers content owners abusing DRM anger consumers."
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Victorious RIAA defendant gets attorneys' fees, turns to class-action plans
Calling the RIAA's case unjustified "as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law," a federal magistrate judge late last week awarded former RIAA defendant Tanya Andersen attorneys' fees for her nearly two-and-a-half-year fight against a copyright infringement lawsuit.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Just Messin Around with Lee and Tuck...
Win an iPod from Gizmodo!
Not much to post here on this one.
Just get over to Gizmodo to throw your hat into the ring to win an iPod classic and an energizer Energi to Go Charger.
Here's the link!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
See The New Halo 3 Ad "Museum" !!!
Joystiq has the new Halo 3 Commercial up and running. It's an exceptional spot, very interesting, and very unexpected.
Check it out here!
Also of note, the voice on the commercial is that of Mr. Bill Bolender, a client at the agency. Bill's a great guy, a lot of fun to work with, and is a very avid gamer. I was happy to see him get this spot, as I'm sure that he'll be first in line at a GameStop to pick up Halo 3 when it comes out.
Check it out here!
Also of note, the voice on the commercial is that of Mr. Bill Bolender, a client at the agency. Bill's a great guy, a lot of fun to work with, and is a very avid gamer. I was happy to see him get this spot, as I'm sure that he'll be first in line at a GameStop to pick up Halo 3 when it comes out.
Whole Ton of Music News...
So I was reading through Idolator today, and a couple stories struck me as interesting.
Both Kanye and 50 Cent are seeing decent success with the release of their respective albums. Currently though Kanye is outselling by a sizable distance (400,000 units to Fiddy's 300,000). So even though 50 took it too the streets to advertise, it looks like Kanye will win this one. I'm glad. I don't really care that much for either, but now we'll get to see if 50 Cent will keep his promise to never record again if Kanye beats him.
To follow that up here's Kanye's new video:
I kinda hate it. Late Registration had this great "becoming a man" vibe for me. If this is indicative of Kanye's new work, I'll stay far away. I'm just not that hyped up on another rapper telling me how much money they have, that they "got mine", and even telling me "You're Welcome" for all the joy they've brought into my life. Thanks but no thanks...
And lastly in "rip off Idolator" news, it looks like we'll be seeing a crackdown on Lyrics sites. This makes me mad, as we don't always get inserts with music anymore (especially downloaded), so if I want to check out the lyrics of a song I go online now. I understand the argument that these sites make ad revenue off of content they don't own the rights to, but to me it seems like a silly target to go after. It serves as free advertising for the music, fans get what they want, and the music biz didn't have to pay for any of it. Are they wanting to charge people for this service. If I have to pay for lyrics ... oh bad things ... very bad things ...
Both Kanye and 50 Cent are seeing decent success with the release of their respective albums. Currently though Kanye is outselling by a sizable distance (400,000 units to Fiddy's 300,000). So even though 50 took it too the streets to advertise, it looks like Kanye will win this one. I'm glad. I don't really care that much for either, but now we'll get to see if 50 Cent will keep his promise to never record again if Kanye beats him.
To follow that up here's Kanye's new video:
I kinda hate it. Late Registration had this great "becoming a man" vibe for me. If this is indicative of Kanye's new work, I'll stay far away. I'm just not that hyped up on another rapper telling me how much money they have, that they "got mine", and even telling me "You're Welcome" for all the joy they've brought into my life. Thanks but no thanks...
And lastly in "rip off Idolator" news, it looks like we'll be seeing a crackdown on Lyrics sites. This makes me mad, as we don't always get inserts with music anymore (especially downloaded), so if I want to check out the lyrics of a song I go online now. I understand the argument that these sites make ad revenue off of content they don't own the rights to, but to me it seems like a silly target to go after. It serves as free advertising for the music, fans get what they want, and the music biz didn't have to pay for any of it. Are they wanting to charge people for this service. If I have to pay for lyrics ... oh bad things ... very bad things ...
The move against lyric sites comes as the publishing business is in the midst of rolling out official online-lyric offerings through such places as Yahoo! Music and Real Networks' Rhapsody, via deals with lyric aggregators Gracenote and LyricFind.
In those deals, publishers license lyrics for online reproduction in exchange for a portion of ad revenues from the sites. Illegal lyric sites have been in operation for years, and top ad-supported sites like AZ Lyrics Universe have attracted some of the most traffic among music-related Web sites.
Industry insiders say all take-down requests at this point are "voluntary," and part of an "educational" push on behalf of music publishers to inform lyric Web sites that reproducing the words to songs without authorization is a violation of copyright law.
However, sources warn that sites that do not cooperate will be subject to cease-and-desist notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. DMCA notices often serve as a precursor to music-industry litigation.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Actors, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! Youtube Edition...
SO, you might remember my story just a little while back about my friend Mike Rock being a Bert Fershner.
In that story I linked out to a Youtube clip of one of his commercials (he was the voice of Kleenex on their Monk commercial). I sent him the story, and he thanked me for linking out to their B.F. clips. He mentioned in passing that they had some problems initially with posting the clips because Viacom was removing everything on Youtube even remotely connected to Comedy Central, MTV, or any of their other holdings. They took a slash and burn approach to removing the content, and clips that didn't infringe on the content (say someone commenting on the Daily Show, but not actually showing a Daily Show clip) were also removed. This sucked for B.F. because even their home grown clips which weren't on Comedy Central were threatened with take down.
This got me thinking. I posted a link to his Kleenex commercial. I had originally tried to find his commercial at Kleenex's site but couldn't find it there. If Kleenex wasn't using the commercial, maybe they didn't pay Mike for Web use. If they didn't pay Mike for web use then that commercial doesn't belong ANYWHERE on teh intarwebs.
I spoke to Mike about it. He said he hadn't checked off his contract for Internet use.
(CLICK TO EXPAND)
On a SAG contract there are these tiny little boxes where an actor can say "I don't allow production to use my likeness on the internet". A lot of places will say you can't check that box, but in actuality you have every right to control how your likeness is used. We encourage our actors to strike all of these provisions, if for no other reason, then it forces production to call us and we can negotiate the additional use in good faith.
Even though Mike didn't check those boxes, it doesn't mean that they would be able to put the Kleenex commercial up for free. They'd still need to pay him.
Youtube has been tricky because anyone can post anything at anytime. It makes it really hard to keep track of what content is being used and where. The stick of the situation is that it doesn't matter who puts it up or where it's put up, the internet is the internet. If it airs you get paid for it.
It's also in the best interest of production to review, because by having it online and by not paying for it, it leaves them in an actionable position. Realistically they should approach Youtube about removing the content (they had no problems working with Viacom).
I told Mike to contact the Business Affairs people with the agency he booked the commercial through. I'll keep you posted on what happens!
STORY ON DIGG
In that story I linked out to a Youtube clip of one of his commercials (he was the voice of Kleenex on their Monk commercial). I sent him the story, and he thanked me for linking out to their B.F. clips. He mentioned in passing that they had some problems initially with posting the clips because Viacom was removing everything on Youtube even remotely connected to Comedy Central, MTV, or any of their other holdings. They took a slash and burn approach to removing the content, and clips that didn't infringe on the content (say someone commenting on the Daily Show, but not actually showing a Daily Show clip) were also removed. This sucked for B.F. because even their home grown clips which weren't on Comedy Central were threatened with take down.
This got me thinking. I posted a link to his Kleenex commercial. I had originally tried to find his commercial at Kleenex's site but couldn't find it there. If Kleenex wasn't using the commercial, maybe they didn't pay Mike for Web use. If they didn't pay Mike for web use then that commercial doesn't belong ANYWHERE on teh intarwebs.
I spoke to Mike about it. He said he hadn't checked off his contract for Internet use.
(CLICK TO EXPAND)
On a SAG contract there are these tiny little boxes where an actor can say "I don't allow production to use my likeness on the internet". A lot of places will say you can't check that box, but in actuality you have every right to control how your likeness is used. We encourage our actors to strike all of these provisions, if for no other reason, then it forces production to call us and we can negotiate the additional use in good faith.
Even though Mike didn't check those boxes, it doesn't mean that they would be able to put the Kleenex commercial up for free. They'd still need to pay him.
Youtube has been tricky because anyone can post anything at anytime. It makes it really hard to keep track of what content is being used and where. The stick of the situation is that it doesn't matter who puts it up or where it's put up, the internet is the internet. If it airs you get paid for it.
It's also in the best interest of production to review, because by having it online and by not paying for it, it leaves them in an actionable position. Realistically they should approach Youtube about removing the content (they had no problems working with Viacom).
I told Mike to contact the Business Affairs people with the agency he booked the commercial through. I'll keep you posted on what happens!
STORY ON DIGG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)