The question isn't whether or not Net Neutrality is good or bad, it's whether or not TV networks are using net neutrality to crush this community.
That's what I mean when I say we should stick to the topic at hand. On Dec 31, 2007 1:11 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Pat > > You said "last time I checked neither NBC nor videobloggers used > > torrents very often to distribute content" > > I was simply pointing out that there was an error in that statement, > because bittorrent has many deals with content partners to distrubute > content. And on a side note it could be very useful to vloggers who > are working on HD projects to use torrents to distribute their > content, as a matter of fact it's probably the best way right now. > > The fact is that Comcast traffic shaped, they lied about it and then > when they were caught, they danced around it. They did the very > thing they and all other ISP's said that they wouldn't do. They > treated traffic differently for different entities, thus violating > the principles of a Netural Net. And if given the chance they will > do it again and if they can make money by doing it, you can belive > that they will. And let's remove youtube and blip and so on from the > equation, becaue what about a guy who is paying for his own > bandwith? Like a lot of people do, I doubt that they could afford to > pay to get priority traffic. > > And as far as Canadian ISP's were going I was just basing that on the > various articles I have read from Cnet, Wired, etc who have talked > and written about ISP traffic shaping. Glad to hear you arn't > affected. > > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So you're saying that thanks to Comcast...NBC's torrent traffic is > > actually being hindered? Once again, this is still not evidence > that > > TV networks are trying to crush us. Obviously. > > > > btw, I'm Canadian and I use torrents. i also frequently travel to > > different areas of the US for work. I've never noticed that it's > > slower in Canada. > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007 12:31 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, bittorrent does have a distrubution deal with many > partners > > > including NBC. > > > > > > Talk to people from Canada whose ISP's have been traffic shaping > for > > > a while now, let them tell you how bad it is. > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > > > > > > <pdelongchamp@> wrote: > > > > > > > > This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush > us. > > > The > > > > last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used > torrents > > > very > > > > often to distribute content. i.e. this community probably > benefited > > > > from this move. (i'm not saying I think comcast was right or > wrong, > > > > just saying that the transmission speed of vlogs probably got > faster > > > > because of this) > > > > > > > > Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it > would > > > > slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services > that > > > > pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become > > > > faster, not slower. > > > > > > > > No one here is "dead on." Net neutrality is a complicated > issue. > > > All > > > > i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks > are > > > > trying to crush us. > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has > admitting > > > to > > > > > traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download > speeds to > > > > > users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith. > So > > > how > > > > > much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who > is > > > > > uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large > > > files > > > > > because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can > be > > > > > an "abuser". Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but > if it > > > > > walks and quacks like a duck.... > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <k9disc@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is > that > > > the > > > > > > tiered internet concept changes the way content can be > > > received. > > > > > > > > > > > > So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips > and > > > > > > revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing > access for > > > > > NBC, > > > > > > Viacom, TW/AOL, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their > bandwidth, > > > it > > > > > > matters how the traffic cops route their information. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no problem with people making money. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of > money. > > > > > Good > > > > > > for them. I'd like to do that some day too. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene > > > > > amounts > > > > > > of money leveraging their economic might against people > like me > > > > > and > > > > > > smaller entities like Blip that are trying to compete > against > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > The tiered internet scheme to replace net neutrality does > just > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > It allows the ISPs to limit the freedom to receive > information > > > by > > > > > end > > > > > > users. It limits access to information by the user. > Limiting my > > > > > > access to information by choking off traffic that ISPs deem > > > > > inferior > > > > > > is unacceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that it would work like this: > > > > > > Verizon Wireless, my ISP would say that Blip traffic does > not > > > make > > > > > > them as much money as NBC's traffic. So blip traffic will > be > > > > > pushed > > > > > > into a tiny little trickle so that NBC's info can flow > like a > > > > > raging > > > > > > river. > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that blip is a small start up, and doesn't have the > > > > > tremendous > > > > > > assets that an NBC has, NBC could afford a giant > subscription > > > cost > > > > > > that blip could never hope to cover. This happens all the > time > > > in > > > > > > unregulated markets. Big players who can afford it, will > push > > > the > > > > > > costs up, pricing smaller competitors out of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > That can happen at the transition end, and already did. I > > > watched > > > > > > bandwidth triple as the Information Superhighway was turned > > > into > > > > > > eCommerce. Things have settled on that end a bit, but now > the > > > move > > > > > is > > > > > > to actually limit access to information by the enduser if > the > > > > > content > > > > > > provider doesn't pony up big money for preferred traffic > > > > > treatment. > > > > > > This means that all of us on this list, would be relegated > to > > > to a > > > > > > trickle while NBC would get the raging river. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what the big scare is from people who steadfastly > > > support > > > > > Net > > > > > > Neutrality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody's saying that bandwidth should be free, only that it > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > treated the same by those entities who route the traffic. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this makes sense, and I hope that someone will > either > > > > > support > > > > > > me on this or check me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron Watson > > > > > > http://k9disc.blip.tv > > > > > > http://k9disc.com > > > > > > http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog > > > > > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron, let me start by saying that you've given me > something to > > > > > think > > > > > > > about regarding personally types. However, though we may > > > > > communicate > > > > > > > differently, there's still something to be said about > > > reasoned > > > > > > > arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, I fail to see how an internet lacking > in "net > > > > > neutrality" > > > > > > > would crush this community. For example, correct me if > I'm > > > > > wrong, but > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure blip.tv and youtube have paid higher > costs > > > for > > > > > better > > > > > > > bandwidth from the start. Are you saying that their > business > > > > > model > > > > > > > wouldn't allow them to continue to pay for better > bandwidth > > > in a > > > > > > > tiered tiered service model? I don't think so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're ignoring the fact that blip and youtube are also > out > > > to > > > > > make > > > > > > > money. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If blip.tv or youtube hadn't been allowed to pay more for > > > > > bandwidth, > > > > > > > (like they currently do) these exciting new business > models > > > may > > > > > never > > > > > > > have taken off. I think it's great that they were > allowed to > > > pay > > > > > > > extra to get better bandwidth and that their providers > had > > > more > > > > > reason > > > > > > > to invest in better technology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'll have to explain how net neutrality would have > > > prevented > > > > > blip.tv > > > > > > > from being a successful business model before you can > use it > > > as an > > > > > > > example of how old media is using it to "crush us". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not everyone agrees with net neutrality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007 7:36 AM, Ron Watson <k9disc@> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> 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 never ascribed any ulterior motives to your reason > for > > > being > > > > > here > > > > > > >>> other than your desire to help people with distributed > > > media. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> So apparently, you are interested in streaming profits > to > > > the > > > > > > >> corporate media, that's your interest. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The point I'm trying to make is that distributing media > for > > > free > > > > > > >> takes up bandwidth and exists outside of a market. If > we are > > > > > taking > > > > > > >> up their bandwidth, and not playing in their market, we > are > > > > > stealing > > > > > > >> their potential profits. It's tantamount to > expropriation. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Has nothing to do with the question. Nothing at all. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> You tube and the viewing of non-corporate media has > taken > > > eyes > > > > > from > > > > > > >> the corporate media's content. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Piracy of content aside, there are millions of people > > > spending > > > > > > >> millions of hours on You Tube. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The niche interests, Frisbeedogs, Parkour, Dog trainers, > > > > > skaters, to > > > > > > >> name just a few have zero ability to see their stuff in > the > > > > > > >> corporate media, and instead spend their time > intereacting > > > with > > > > > media > > > > > > >> on social networking sites and video sharing sites. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Each niche market with hundreds of 'channels' each with > a > > > few > > > > > > >> thousand views per video represents thousands of hours > where > > > > > people > > > > > > >> are not planted in front of the tube or reading print. > This > > > is a > > > > > > >> growing problem, especially as social networking sites > get > > > more > > > > > > >> accessible, and more and more eyes and hours are going > to be > > > > > removed > > > > > > >> from the corporate media's ad markets. Less eyes mean > less > > > > > profit. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The corporate media has spent trillions of dollars > gobbling > > > up > > > > > their > > > > > > >> competition to get to the point where less than a dozen > > > > > companies own > > > > > > >> a huge percentage of media and control the market of > > > information > > > > > that > > > > > > >> is accessible for humanity. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> This incredible investment to create an oligopoly of > > > information > > > > > is > > > > > > >> about to be rendered moot by millions of regular old > people; > > > > > people > > > > > > >> who used to be the product being sold. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> To think that the corporate media with their ability to > > > sponsor > > > > > > >> public policy through sponsoring politicians, > legislation > > > and the > > > > > > >> vast majority of information that people use to make > > > decisions > > > > > about > > > > > > >> public policy are going to just abandon that investment > and > > > let > > > > > their > > > > > > >> power be taken away from them is simply naive. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> To respond to that idea by shifting to an argument of > > > piracy is > > > > > > >>> disengenious. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> I think I agree with this, and I think it's already > > > happening. > > > > > > >>> Local news is a shining example of this. I think it is > > > extremely > > > > > > >>> damaging to the public too. I could care less about > this > > > in the > > > > > > >>> entertainment world, as it's been happening for > decades, > > > but for > > > > > > >>> news it's downright dangerous. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> A distraction from corporate media content is a loss of > > > profit > > > > > for > > > > > > >> the corporate media. Less eyes means less profit. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> 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. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> That's a great observation. Even more reason for the > > > corporate > > > > > media > > > > > > >> to co-opt this space. It's a new market. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > > > >>> I think this was my point. You made it sound as if they > > > were > > > > > > >>> supporting you with their seeking out of your > services. Of > > > > > course > > > > > > >>> there's going to be a quid pro quo. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > > > >> You don't have to have the intent to kill them to be > part > > > of 'my > > > > > > >> 'We''. The idea that your content is taking away their > > > product > > > > > at all > > > > > > >> is hurting them. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> You don't need to have the intent to take them down to > hurt > > > their > > > > > > >> business. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I just see the idea that people like you and me and the > > > rest of > > > > > us on > > > > > > >> this list who are taking thousands of eyes from their > > > content, > > > > > and > > > > > > >> wresting away some of their control over the market of > > > > > information is > > > > > > >> doing them damage. It is taking away their power to > inform > > > > > without > > > > > > >> question. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I agree that the corporate media will always be there. > The > > > only > > > > > > >> question is whether or not they have the ability to lie > for > > > their > > > > > > >> sponsors without fear of being called on those lies. > > > (speaking > > > > > mainly > > > > > > >> about news…) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Yes, but iirc, you implied that the streaming media > was a > > > sign > > > > > that > > > > > > >>> they were on our side. That they were supporting this > > > > > community. I > > > > > > >>> was the one saying it was a business decision in the > first > > > > > place. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Apples and oranges, Jake, and I believe that it proves > my > > > point. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If they charged for their streaming video and nobody > > > watched it, > > > > > > >> they'd make no money, 'they'd sell no oranges and not > get > > > paid.' > > > > > By > > > > > > >> giving it up for free and selling ads on it, they get to > > > sell > > > > > their > > > > > > >> oranges. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Once again, you are mistaking the product being sold by > the > > > > > corporate > > > > > > >> media. The NYT is selling their viewers to the > advertisers. > > > The > > > > > > >> viewers are the oranges in this metaphor, and the pay to > > > play > > > > > model > > > > > > >> did exactly what you described in this metaphor. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Jake Ludington > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> http://www.jakeludington.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Patrick, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I'm sure there are several reasons you find my words so > > > > > unpalatable. > > > > > > >> I think there is one part that is political and one part > > > that is > > > > > > >> based upon how each of us think. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> There are people who like to deal with the concrete, the > > > step by > > > > > > >> step, the details. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Others like to deal with the big picture, the > connections, > > > the > > > > > > >> abstract. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The meyers briggs (sp) test for personality types breaks > > > this > > > > > down > > > > > > >> into Subjective (the former) and Intuitive (the latter), > > > and I > > > > > think > > > > > > >> that's a huge part of our problem in communicating. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I believe you are a strong S. You think subjectively. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I believe that you find Jake's step by step so > refreshing > > > > > because it > > > > > > >> gives you a solid roadmap to follow. You make the > mistaken > > > > > assumption > > > > > > >> that it's based in fact because you can follow it. It > fits > > > your > > > > > > >> method of thinking, so it's factual. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I find it maddening because it leaves so much out. > There are > > > > > just as > > > > > > >> many assumptions in his statements as mine, but they're > not > > > > > active > > > > > > >> assumptions. They're omissions of fact. It's almost as > if > > > they > > > > > exist > > > > > > >> in a vacuum. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Some of the omissions include: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Net Neutrality and a tiered internet. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The idea that giant corporations are actively trying to > > > price us > > > > > out > > > > > > >> of the game, as we type, so they can give their content > > > > > preferential > > > > > > >> treatment guaranteeing that they maintain the power over > > > > > distribution > > > > > > >> of information. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The recent actions of the FCC. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Allowing further consolidation of distributive power > over > > > > > > >> information. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Corporate sponsorship of politicians, legislation, and > > > > > regulation. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> This leads to corporate sponsored public policy. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Absent these understandings, and I find them to be quite > > > > > factual, I > > > > > > >> think Jake's arguments make quite a bit of sense. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Add these understandings and I find it that it leads to > > > > > truthiness > > > > > > >> and lacks critical thinking. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I don't think I'll be participating any longer in this > > > > > conversation, > > > > > > >> but who's to say. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > > > >> Ron Watson > > > > > > >> http://k9disc.blip.tv > > > > > > >> http://k9disc.com > > > > > > >> http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog > > > > > > >> http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Dec 30, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Some may lean towards an opinion of 'you were both > right' > > > but > > > > > I > > > > > > >>> think > > > > > > >>> this was an example of truthiness vs. critical > thinking. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> I have no doubt that the majority of this community is > > > capable > > > > > of > > > > > > >>> the > > > > > > >>> latter. They're just less often heard. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> It was interesting to see my original argument take > human > > > shape > > > > > in > > > > > > >>> Ron's email. It was even more interesting to hear > Jake's > > > > > response. > > > > > > >>> These are the kinds of responses that are often lacking > > > from our > > > > > > >>> heated threads. Much of what Scoble is referring to > might > > > have > > > > > been > > > > > > >>> avoided had the community stood up for itself when > > > confronted > > > > > with > > > > > > >>> these kinds of conspiratorial opinions. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> What do we want more? A long list of 'People who hate > > > and/or > > > > > pity > > > > > > >>> this group' or rational, evidence based discussions? > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Dec 30, 2007 5:18 PM, Ron Watson <k9disc@> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Great post, Jake. > > > > > > >>>> I wish we could talk. I'm sure it'd be far more > > > productive. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> This is not a very efficient way to communicate, and > > > there's a > > > > > lot > > > > > > >>>> left out that takes too damn long to write, and then > > > there's > > > > > even > > > > > > >>>> more spaces open for misunderstanding. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> I'm going to bow out now. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > > > >>>> Ron > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> On Dec 30, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Jake Ludington wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> 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 > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
