I've been offline for a bit and I'm not trying to drag this thread out further, but felt like I should respond: > Jake > You obviously care about distributed media. > > You want to help people do that. So your beliefs have something to do > with being on this list.
I want to help people get from whatever their vision is to something approximating that vision, whether that's something as simple as recording video from their webcam or something complex like figuring out the right tools for some grand video project. It is my belief that everyone who wants to make video (whether it be for their family and friends, or for everyone on the planet) should be able to harness all the tools available to do so. So I suppose in that sense, my beliefs come into play. I do not, however, have any kind of us versus them agenda, because it is also my belief that the corporate machine being raged against here is equally entitled to making video and distributing it however they want to. I don't have to like the end result, but I "vote" for what I like by watching it or tuning out. > I, want help with media. That's why I'm on this list. I get the sense that many people are on the list for this same reason, in spite of the original thread all this discussion evolved out of. > I think you are missing an important point. the Corporate Media would > like to coopt this space to make it stream profit to them. Then my interests and the Corporate Media (as described by you) have something in common. I enjoy making videos. Sometimes making videos means streaming profit to me. When I get paid for doing something I enjoy, it means I have more freedom to continue doing that thing I enjoy. If by co-opting this space, you mean Corporate Media want to distribute videos via RSS, rise to the most popular spots in iTunes, > We are basically stealing their profit by giving people another > outlet for their media consumption. This is where you get off track a bit... Every person on the planet has a finite amount of time to do anything. We all make tradeoffs and choices about how we spend that time - especially the time allotted as "free time" throughout the day. Networking programming competes with sporting events which compete with the arts which in turn compete with taking the kids to soccer practice, which competes with millions of other options like podcasts, videoblogs, etc. > How much has Youtube taken from > their bottom line? YouTube and the rest of the video sharing sites are taking from Corporate Media's bottom line by leveraging the expensive content created by Corporate Media. If you look at what is consistently among the most viewed shows on YouTube, etc., it's stuff uploaded from places like Comedy Central, ABC, NBC, etc., not from indie content creators. I personally think it's a lousy deal for the content creators for Joe Smith YouTube user to upload Corporate Media content and the content creator get nothing for it. YouTube makes ad money (even if it's less than a penny per view). The creator gets nothing. If you set aside WHO the content creator is, it's not a real stretch to empathize with the content creator who makes money from making content when someone else is making money from their efforts while they get nothing. > TV is going down the toilet. TV was never great, it was merely the most available option. But this is a subjective argument because I can list at least 10 people I know who ask me if I saw television show X last night when I run into them at the coffee shop. It's naive to assume that because many of us on this list have little interest in what's on television that the rest of the world is just like us. The studios will live on. The affiliate networks who have maintained a gravy train of checks from both the studios and the advertisers are the ones who are in real trouble because the studios don't need them anymore. The Internet is the affiliate network and the local affiliates are going to have to start paying to be a distributor so that they have something to run ads against, similar to the way AP wire stories are licensed by Internet portals. > People are networking > socially, watching independent video online, and that's a problem for > the corporate media. Some people are watching independent video. Many people are still watching Corporate Media that was uploaded by individuals. Most of the "hey check out this video" emails I get are either links to Jon Stewart uploads or some video of a pet doing something cute. The former is not a problem for corporate media as soon as they figure out a way to allow people to share their stuff and still have a bottom line (there is an easy way to do it but they just aren't listening), the latter isn't a threat to anyone because it's a distraction. As a side note: If you look at the peak viewing periods for YouTube, it is not network television that's getting beat up by YouTube viewing, it's corporate productivity. The peak viewing times are when most people in the U.S. are in their cubicles, a time when no one normally watches television. > Of course they're going to come to someone like you. You know the > space. You will give them information to be more competent in this > space. Just because they approach you doesn't mean they support you. Paying for my knowledge is not the same thing as supporting me, true enough. I don't see anything as simple as an us vs. them or good vs. evil battle. There is room for everyone to play in the video pool. But "they" also link to me and occasionally re-distribute me, which does directly or indirectly support me. And it's typically a different "they" asking for advice than the one's linking. Getting a video on MTV (with permission from me) is good for my brand. Getting on the tech page of the BBC or any major newspaper site is good for my brand. Those places have audience I may never reach otherwise, which has value to me because new people are seeing what I do. This is no different than being a indie creator in the sea of content and getting link love from Engadget (both pre and post AOL buyout), or Lifehacker, or Make, or Boing Boing, or FARK. Those places all have readers/viewers who might never see what you do if you didn't get that link, and while they may all be "independent" of Corporate Media, they are all businesses that exist in part to make a profit. > As far as the NYT goes, I don't see the logical connection there. Old > Media is dying. We are killing them. They'll do what they have to do. I am not a killer of anything, so please don't include me in your 'We'. :) Old media isn't dying. There will be business casualties who don't figure out how to take what they are doing and make it fit with what people want - simple laws of supply and demand in effect. Those old media companies who adapt will continue to thrive, those that don't will be replaced by a company that "gets it", possibly an indie upstart or a different old media company. > They already dropped their 'special' pay to play Op Ed stuff, didn't > they? Why? Because it wasn't profitable. It didn't fit the space. And I dropped forums from my site several years ago because they were more hassle than I wanted. A business decision, not a sign of death. > Streaming video allows them to sell ads. If nobody watches it, nobody > gets paid. Give it up for free and you get more viewers. If nobody buys the oranges in the fruit stand, the fruit seller doesn't get paid either, however, if he gave it away for free he'd simply go broke. Your statement makes the leap of faith that no indie video maker (not Corporate Media) wants to get paid for what they do. I happen to need an income of some kind in order to meet my basic needs of food, shelter, new video equipment, luxury suite at the Bellagio, etc. (maybe you are independently wealthy?) as I assume is true of most people on the list. If I can get paid to make video or blog or anything else that I happen to enjoy, I'll actively seek ways to get paid to do something I enjoy, rather than doing something I hate and making the thing I enjoy a sideline. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
