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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
