What YouTube has done has made it popular, but it hasn't made it profitable. There's no direct money to be made in embedded videos. Maybe it can be monetized well but even YouTube isn't doing that well yet, so I don't think the comparison is fair.
Now, YouTube is beginning to compete with Hulu and YouTube may prove more profitable for all the reasons you mention - being more open, not serving too many conflicting interests, but it's still too early to say.
Criticizing Hulu's stupid policies is fair, but kudos to Hulu for at least trying something different instead of just copying YouTube, because I don't think that's the path to success either.
Comparing infringement to illegal drug trafficking is different, but comparing infringement to marijuana use is kinda relevant. Both are demonized way more than they should be, and both will continue regardless of how far underground they're pushed.
I freaking HATE url shortening services. This is another reason why they shouldn't exist. You should be able to see the destination of a link before clicking on it. Twitter could easily be structured in such a way to do so without screwing up its whole 140 character thing.
The traffic is really freaking slow. I can't imagine that working in my town full of 25, 35, and 45 mph roads. It also doesn't explain much of how it works. To me, it looks like it's just "go really slow and deliberately plow your way through", or a codified form of "asshole driving".
Also clicked on the wired article. tl;dr, with too much narrative. I would like a simple quick explanation, not a novella.
So, this is the 5th or 6th article I've read on these subjects, but I still have no idea how specifically any of these alternatives work. I also don't see, quantifiably, how they would be better than the system of triggered red lights in my area.
Now, I do agree then I've seen many, many, many streetlights go up in places where a stop sign would do fine, and many 4-way stops where a two way worked fine, etc. I also agree the red-light cameras and cell phone laws are incredibly counterproductive and are usually just revenue grabs. So, yes, fewer laws, less control, better roads. But I don't see how the revolutionary changes would help my hometown.
Thought it's not linked here, I think I have seen a video of the Dutch roundabout (no not that video, the other one) and it looks like it just turned the intersection into a bunch of right turns. Which is fine, but it would involve digging up a crapload of real estate for a given intersection.
I feel pretty much the same way. I'd even have paid $100 or so for it.
If my decisions come down to finding the best "free" phone, then I still may go for the Pre if it's free. But yeah, I'd rather wait for a better Android phone for all those same reasons.
Yep. I used to communicate with one particular jail, and I knew what person to ask for when I had a question. It was long before I figured out that the person I was talking to was an inmate on work "release" (not really release if he stays in the building I guess)
I can't imagine that working in a *prison* setting, though.
And yeah, clueless IT people. I could tell you stories at both ends of the spectrum - one jail whose booking database had an XML api, and others where toothless Jimmy was responsible for all the computer thingies.
It takes a very special person to like someone SOOOO much that whatever they say, you can still twist it around into saying something positive. On your own.
Why don't we have digital yellow lights with a 5 second countdown? It doesn't have to be a digital number, but some sort of light sequence. If we have the technology to use motion, magnetic, and weight sensors to optimize lights, then don't we have the technology to use a few more LED lights than just the 3 light sequence we have? Now, THAT would win an award for innovation.
"How about the uproar over Janet Jackson's breast at the Superbowl? One freaking breast. And yet "Saw" was recently shown on the Syfy channel. How fucked up is that?"
I'm with you on pretty much all of that.
The Janet Jackson thing was that the show is advertised as a family show (rating numbers, promotion etc) and then that whole performance happened. If the show is advertised as such, I don't think there'd be much problem with it.
And Saw... yeah... I saw bits of it while it was on. But it was Saw II, which I didn't like a too much. How much did they cut out? They had to have cut out a great deal. But you're right, the whole suggestive nature of the movie is more important than what's shown in explicit scenes.
Even Saw I was more implicit than explicit, except for a few scenes. (That's part of what makes it originally a great movie.)
"The problem is that when there is a significant drop in income, what is the next stop in economics?... you can bet there will be less product next year. It's the nature of the game.
So in music (or movies) when you take away the income, ... less art is made, and we are all poorer for it."
Yes! You found my point! Except what if the production of milk DOESN'T go down? Do you still cry for the milk farmers or just be happy that we all have milk?
Because that's exactly what's happening with art. More art continues to be made even though the cost of production (both the original creation and the individual copies) is dropping dramatically. You astutely pointed to movies where the cost of original creation is huge (as opposed to movies and books where one can create that for damned near free at home). However, even the cost of movies is decreasing. Movies that rival big-budget movies are released every year with very small budgets. The costs are decreasing. Even then, the benefactors (we call them producers) have plenty of ways to make back their investments outside of $20 DVD sales. I don't think any of us (including Mike) have all the answers to exactly how that will happen, but it is out there happening, even with filmmakers, as long as there's a reason to buy. The only point I'm adding to that is that even if the pot of gold shrinks, the production can still continue or increase. Plenty of economic shifts have happened historically where there's less money to be made on a particular product yet more product is out there.
Ok... so you agree that historically, artists worked on salary or commission, and even the ones that didn't continue to make money continued to make art. These things have nothing to do with copyright or copyright infringement, so what was the point of your first post again? I mean, you agree that artists were historically paid to create art and not paid for individual copies (unless they did the copying by hand) and not paid for each individual view/consumption of the art. Did you actually have a point?
Ok... so their distribution was limited. I don't know what that has to do with anything. The (false) point was that art won't get made if they can't sell it as the best art has always been sold. My counterpoint was that the best, most historic art did in fact get made without a pay-per-copy business model, and art continues to get made today without a pay-per-copy model. Don't know what's "quaint" about something that's worked since the dawn of art.
It depends on the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that art won't happen or it will be harder to get rich off of it?
As someone who cares about production and the economy, what do I care about more: the price of milk or the production of milk? If, due to economic forces, 1B gallons of milk are produced in 2008 for $1B, and then 1B gallons of milk are produced in 2009 for $500M, sure, the GDP has dropped by $500M but the amount of actual production is the same. As long as there's still a healthy milk industry, milk is still being made, why do I care if those producing it make less money? That's just economics.
Um, no. Pointing out the futility of "scarcifying" infinite goods is not collectivism. If you could copy food or cars infinitely at no marginal cost, then it's not "collectivism" to say that we should get to copying. Why is art different? You may well be able to argue that art is different, but at least that's where your premise should start if you're going to make such a case.
"The finest, most lauded artists throughout history SOLD their art"
No, the finest, most lauded artists throughout history performed their work on commission, or worked full time as directors. This is something you learn in a basic art or music history class. They did *not* make their money by selling copies of easily-copyable bits. In fact, the statement holds true that many artists work not for the money at all. Many of the "most lauded artists throughout history" died poor and were barely acknowledged in their lifetime, but yet they still kept creating art. You may see that as a shame, but you can't just rewrite history by making statements that "most lauded artists throughout history SOLD their art"... it's just not true.
No, Tivo didn't create a market that didn't exist before. Tivo wasn't the first DVR product. All those ideas already existed. The only thing Tivo did uniquely was identifying similar (you may also like...) shows to record.
It just so happens that Tivo had the prettiest package and better marketing than those that came before it.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is. Innovation always comes in increments and never from ethereal genesis.
It might be defamation if Novus is accusing Shaw of predatory pricing and saying outright that the prices won't last. They would have to have a basis for a claim that Shaw's prices are temporary. That may be exactly what's happening, but how would you prove it enough to make that claim in an ad?
Huh... well, what's really cool about this site is that come Monday, Mike will be really cool about this, put things back together, explain a little about what happened, and move on without throwing a tantrum like a lot of folks would do. The vulnerability may even be something most people can learn and not some random common SQL injection thing.
You do know what lobbyists are, right? Lobbyists could be there to represent anyone... teachers, farmers, conservatives, environmentalists. Any people can can form a group might send a lobbyist. Are you saying it should be illegal for private citizens to talk to lawmakers?
RSS
Twitter
Comparison to YouTube (as Jon B.)
What YouTube has done has made it popular, but it hasn't made it profitable. There's no direct money to be made in embedded videos. Maybe it can be monetized well but even YouTube isn't doing that well yet, so I don't think the comparison is fair.
Now, YouTube is beginning to compete with Hulu and YouTube may prove more profitable for all the reasons you mention - being more open, not serving too many conflicting interests, but it's still too early to say.
Criticizing Hulu's stupid policies is fair, but kudos to Hulu for at least trying something different instead of just copying YouTube, because I don't think that's the path to success either.
Re: Re: (as Jon B.)
Rick Moranis?
Re: Re: (as Jon B.)
Comparing infringement to illegal drug trafficking is different, but comparing infringement to marijuana use is kinda relevant. Both are demonized way more than they should be, and both will continue regardless of how far underground they're pushed.
(as Jon B.)
I freaking HATE url shortening services. This is another reason why they shouldn't exist. You should be able to see the destination of a link before clicking on it. Twitter could easily be structured in such a way to do so without screwing up its whole 140 character thing.
Bahhh... (as Jon B.)
Ok, so I watched the video...
The traffic is really freaking slow. I can't imagine that working in my town full of 25, 35, and 45 mph roads. It also doesn't explain much of how it works. To me, it looks like it's just "go really slow and deliberately plow your way through", or a codified form of "asshole driving".
Also clicked on the wired article. tl;dr, with too much narrative. I would like a simple quick explanation, not a novella.
So, this is the 5th or 6th article I've read on these subjects, but I still have no idea how specifically any of these alternatives work. I also don't see, quantifiably, how they would be better than the system of triggered red lights in my area.
Now, I do agree then I've seen many, many, many streetlights go up in places where a stop sign would do fine, and many 4-way stops where a two way worked fine, etc. I also agree the red-light cameras and cell phone laws are incredibly counterproductive and are usually just revenue grabs. So, yes, fewer laws, less control, better roads. But I don't see how the revolutionary changes would help my hometown.
Thought it's not linked here, I think I have seen a video of the Dutch roundabout (no not that video, the other one) and it looks like it just turned the intersection into a bunch of right turns. Which is fine, but it would involve digging up a crapload of real estate for a given intersection.
(as Jon B.)
I feel pretty much the same way. I'd even have paid $100 or so for it.
If my decisions come down to finding the best "free" phone, then I still may go for the Pre if it's free. But yeah, I'd rather wait for a better Android phone for all those same reasons.
Also I think I may prefer a horizontal keyboard.
Re: Rehabilitation (as Jon B.)
Yep. I used to communicate with one particular jail, and I knew what person to ask for when I had a question. It was long before I figured out that the person I was talking to was an inmate on work "release" (not really release if he stays in the building I guess)
I can't imagine that working in a *prison* setting, though.
And yeah, clueless IT people. I could tell you stories at both ends of the spectrum - one jail whose booking database had an XML api, and others where toothless Jimmy was responsible for all the computer thingies.
Re: You guys are SOOOO blogosphere! (as Jon B.)
It takes a very special person to like someone SOOOO much that whatever they say, you can still twist it around into saying something positive. On your own.
Re: Re: Re: Article is Wrong! (Continued) (as Jon B.)
You's trollin!
(as Jon B.)
Why don't we have digital yellow lights with a 5 second countdown? It doesn't have to be a digital number, but some sort of light sequence. If we have the technology to use motion, magnetic, and weight sensors to optimize lights, then don't we have the technology to use a few more LED lights than just the 3 light sequence we have? Now, THAT would win an award for innovation.
(as Jon B.)
"How about the uproar over Janet Jackson's breast at the Superbowl? One freaking breast. And yet "Saw" was recently shown on the Syfy channel. How fucked up is that?"
I'm with you on pretty much all of that.
The Janet Jackson thing was that the show is advertised as a family show (rating numbers, promotion etc) and then that whole performance happened. If the show is advertised as such, I don't think there'd be much problem with it.
And Saw... yeah... I saw bits of it while it was on. But it was Saw II, which I didn't like a too much. How much did they cut out? They had to have cut out a great deal. But you're right, the whole suggestive nature of the movie is more important than what's shown in explicit scenes.
Even Saw I was more implicit than explicit, except for a few scenes. (That's part of what makes it originally a great movie.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Jon B.)
"The problem is that when there is a significant drop in income, what is the next stop in economics?... you can bet there will be less product next year. It's the nature of the game.
So in music (or movies) when you take away the income, ... less art is made, and we are all poorer for it."
Yes! You found my point! Except what if the production of milk DOESN'T go down? Do you still cry for the milk farmers or just be happy that we all have milk?
Because that's exactly what's happening with art. More art continues to be made even though the cost of production (both the original creation and the individual copies) is dropping dramatically. You astutely pointed to movies where the cost of original creation is huge (as opposed to movies and books where one can create that for damned near free at home). However, even the cost of movies is decreasing. Movies that rival big-budget movies are released every year with very small budgets. The costs are decreasing. Even then, the benefactors (we call them producers) have plenty of ways to make back their investments outside of $20 DVD sales. I don't think any of us (including Mike) have all the answers to exactly how that will happen, but it is out there happening, even with filmmakers, as long as there's a reason to buy. The only point I'm adding to that is that even if the pot of gold shrinks, the production can still continue or increase. Plenty of economic shifts have happened historically where there's less money to be made on a particular product yet more product is out there.
Re: (as Jon B.)
Ok... so you agree that historically, artists worked on salary or commission, and even the ones that didn't continue to make money continued to make art. These things have nothing to do with copyright or copyright infringement, so what was the point of your first post again? I mean, you agree that artists were historically paid to create art and not paid for individual copies (unless they did the copying by hand) and not paid for each individual view/consumption of the art. Did you actually have a point?
Re: Re: Re: (as Jon B.)
Ok... so their distribution was limited. I don't know what that has to do with anything. The (false) point was that art won't get made if they can't sell it as the best art has always been sold. My counterpoint was that the best, most historic art did in fact get made without a pay-per-copy business model, and art continues to get made today without a pay-per-copy model. Don't know what's "quaint" about something that's worked since the dawn of art.
It depends on the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that art won't happen or it will be harder to get rich off of it?
As someone who cares about production and the economy, what do I care about more: the price of milk or the production of milk? If, due to economic forces, 1B gallons of milk are produced in 2008 for $1B, and then 1B gallons of milk are produced in 2009 for $500M, sure, the GDP has dropped by $500M but the amount of actual production is the same. As long as there's still a healthy milk industry, milk is still being made, why do I care if those producing it make less money? That's just economics.
Re: (as Jon B.)
"Collectivist tripe"
Um, no. Pointing out the futility of "scarcifying" infinite goods is not collectivism. If you could copy food or cars infinitely at no marginal cost, then it's not "collectivism" to say that we should get to copying. Why is art different? You may well be able to argue that art is different, but at least that's where your premise should start if you're going to make such a case.
"The finest, most lauded artists throughout history SOLD their art"
No, the finest, most lauded artists throughout history performed their work on commission, or worked full time as directors. This is something you learn in a basic art or music history class. They did *not* make their money by selling copies of easily-copyable bits. In fact, the statement holds true that many artists work not for the money at all. Many of the "most lauded artists throughout history" died poor and were barely acknowledged in their lifetime, but yet they still kept creating art. You may see that as a shame, but you can't just rewrite history by making statements that "most lauded artists throughout history SOLD their art"... it's just not true.
Get to your history books, kiddo.
Re: Re: Re: (as Jon B.)
No, Tivo didn't create a market that didn't exist before. Tivo wasn't the first DVR product. All those ideas already existed. The only thing Tivo did uniquely was identifying similar (you may also like...) shows to record.
It just so happens that Tivo had the prettiest package and better marketing than those that came before it.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is. Innovation always comes in increments and never from ethereal genesis.
Re: Goliath tries to crush David....twitter shitstorm ensues (as Jon B.)
Yeah, I figured it might be an intro price, but Mike didn't mention that part (and I didn't bother reading, so bad on me...)
If you're right, it sounds like a problem that may work itself out.
Except that filing baseless defamation suits should have consequenses...
(as Jon B.)
Without reading the details...
It might be defamation if Novus is accusing Shaw of predatory pricing and saying outright that the prices won't last. They would have to have a basis for a claim that Shaw's prices are temporary. That may be exactly what's happening, but how would you prove it enough to make that claim in an ad?
(as Jon B.)
Huh... well, what's really cool about this site is that come Monday, Mike will be really cool about this, put things back together, explain a little about what happened, and move on without throwing a tantrum like a lot of folks would do. The vulnerability may even be something most people can learn and not some random common SQL injection thing.
Re: Why can't we just get rid of lobbyists again? (as Jon B.)
You do know what lobbyists are, right? Lobbyists could be there to represent anyone... teachers, farmers, conservatives, environmentalists. Any people can can form a group might send a lobbyist. Are you saying it should be illegal for private citizens to talk to lawmakers?