<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ipod video, an island</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sethkeen.net/blog/2007/03/02/podcasting-video-to-ipods/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sethkeen.net/blog/2007/03/02/podcasting-video-to-ipods/</link>
	<description>non video new video net video</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:46:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Video Art on the web at seth keen</title>
		<link>http://www.sethkeen.net/blog/2007/03/02/podcasting-video-to-ipods/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Video Art on the web at seth keen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethkeen.net/blog/2007/03/04/podcasting-video-to-ipods/#comment-11</guid>
		<description>[...] Back to the earlier Guardian article which discusses things like size restriction (working in the miniature), quality and of course the ability for the viewer to scroll back and forth. In terms of YouTube having frame size, file type and therefore compression quality control of your video uploads this does not leave much room for individual aesthetic input from the artist. I see this as setting publishing standards, a referral to old media like TV broadcasting. A video sharing site like blip.tv  at least lets you chose some file types, determine frame size and choose a creative commons license. Also there is some key differences in the terms of use in regards to copyright and intellectual property. But this type of flexiability could be taken a lot further. I discuss the notion of standards in more detail here on my blog. The idea that apple also like YouTube aims to gain some form of control over the way content is distributed often in a manner that Nicholas Carr points out as being unsympathetic towards what the Internet offers as a networked environment. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Back to the earlier Guardian article which discusses things like size restriction (working in the miniature), quality and of course the ability for the viewer to scroll back and forth. In terms of YouTube having frame size, file type and therefore compression quality control of your video uploads this does not leave much room for individual aesthetic input from the artist. I see this as setting publishing standards, a referral to old media like TV broadcasting. A video sharing site like blip.tv  at least lets you chose some file types, determine frame size and choose a creative commons license. Also there is some key differences in the terms of use in regards to copyright and intellectual property. But this type of flexiability could be taken a lot further. I discuss the notion of standards in more detail here on my blog. The idea that apple also like YouTube aims to gain some form of control over the way content is distributed often in a manner that Nicholas Carr points out as being unsympathetic towards what the Internet offers as a networked environment. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dead but not buried at</title>
		<link>http://www.sethkeen.net/blog/2007/03/02/podcasting-video-to-ipods/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>dead but not buried at</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethkeen.net/blog/2007/03/04/podcasting-video-to-ipods/#comment-7</guid>
		<description>[...] In the last few weeks I have been planning out an approch towards the videodefunct video database project. Initally, I imagined developing one-off video objects that provided a critique of the video-sharing site YouTube. The idea was to explore in each of these objects, both a formal and cultural critique. This means the works would aim to experiment both with form and content as part of examining video as a form beyond single-channel closed objects, like the hardcopy output approach of television programs, or even a cinematic edit going to a locked-off film print. A video form that as dicussed in the post on ipod video, is more responsive to the properties of the Internet as a network. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In the last few weeks I have been planning out an approch towards the videodefunct video database project. Initally, I imagined developing one-off video objects that provided a critique of the video-sharing site YouTube. The idea was to explore in each of these objects, both a formal and cultural critique. This means the works would aim to experiment both with form and content as part of examining video as a form beyond single-channel closed objects, like the hardcopy output approach of television programs, or even a cinematic edit going to a locked-off film print. A video form that as dicussed in the post on ipod video, is more responsive to the properties of the Internet as a network. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.208 seconds -->

