Actaully that was just a part of the question. And there's a real problem with trying to pigeon hole the conversation to one question at a time.
A conversation like this is bound to meander quite a bit, and despite your best efforts to keep it to one tiny topic, it's not going to happen, and it should not. The real question is whether or not we, meaning those producing distributed video and particularly this group, are a threat to the corporate media, and what the corporate media plans to do about it. I simply mentioned net neutrality as a path to consolidate and control distributed media. I reiterate, if you think they're going to just give their power and control away to pissants like us, you're crazy. Look at how fast this group mobilized against heavy.com. A bunch of regular people with zero corporate lawyers and no budget swarmed them, and forced them to change their method of operation. How much VC money was invested in Heavy.com? Distributed media, and to a lesser extent, this group, is dangerous. With a viable distributed medai, fights will not be waged in courts, or in corporate board rooms, they're going to be waged in public, and when those making distributed media align, there is a very powerful megaphone we (not you Patrick) wield that can challenge all the money and power of the corporate media, and that is unacceptable. Add to that the idea that we (not you Patrick) are stealing a piece of their pie and it's even more unpalatable. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com On Dec 31, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: > 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 newsÂ…) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > > > [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/
