April 18th, 2012 Brian Herzog
Here's a topic that I've heard come up multiple times recently in different contexts, and I'm curious if there is any kind of wider consensus on it. The question is, what does the word "video" mean to people?
We're redesigning our catalog, and in the process of coming up with format description, we had a discussion (and disagreement) on whether "video" means just VHS tapes, or if it refers to to DVDs and other formats as well (like "music" is a generic term for anything on CD, tape, etc). We're also redesigning our website, and in that context, we weren't sure if the word "video" means physical tapes/discs, or if people would presume it means online clips/episodes/tutorials/etc - or both.
So I thought I'd take a quick poll - please make a selection, but also leave a comment below on why, or if I've missed an option entirely.
And a question for another time: in light of this, does the "video" in "video game" make sense?
Tags: blu-ray, dvd, format, formats, jargon, libraries, Library, movie, poll, public, television, terminology, tv, vhs, video, vocabulary
September 24th, 2009 Brian Herzog
BoingBoing pointed to an article on the difference between paying for content and paying for format. Publishers want us to pay for content, so they can charge the same price for online information. But historically, we pay for format: hardbacks cost more than paperbacks.
The same is true in town halls and libraries with public records. People have a right to free access to the records - but, if they want their own copy, there is likely a reproduction cost. In which case, they aren't paying for the records (content), they're paying for the paper the records are printed on (format).
Interesting. (And it also brings up the slippery slope of double-taxation: if the paper is purchased with taxpayer money from the library budget, then why does a taxpayer have to pay for it a second time?)
Related to this is what author Max Barry is up to with his latest book, Machine Man. He's publishing it in real-time, one page per day, and readers can subscribe to rss or email to get the first 43 pages for free. Beyond that, it'll cost $6.95.
I like that an author is experimenting - that's where good ideas come from, rather than just forcing forward the status quo. I also like that, when it is published in traditional book form, it will (likely) be different from the day-to-day feed. Which makes sense, since he'll have had time to think about it and rework* the real-time "draft."
And what Barry is doing is evidence again that what we pay for is format. If I pay the $6.95 for the content of the rss feed, then it stands to reason that when the printed book comes out, I should get it for free, since I've already paid for the content (unless, of course, it is significantly different from the feed).
I can see why the supply side of the publishing industry wants to charge the highest price they can for content, regardless of format. But technology, context, and past practice just doesn't support that model. But then, business = ++profit != logic.
*I'm fascinated by the evolution of the story, and how an author changes and rearranges the plot and characters in between drafts. In fact, here's what I think would be a good idea (although, it would take the right kind of author to make it work): publish a book with every draft of a short story, with annotations on the changes. Having a author not only put out there early versions of a story, and also explain what changes were made and why, would be fascinating insight into the creative writing process.
From what I know of Max Barry, he could pull it off, and it'd be worth reading. Neil Gaiman is another author that comes to mind. But maybe this is a market limited to only me.