November 30, 2006
Retired
sLop (the blog you are reading) is retiring..
The archives should stay up indefinitely though so feel free to continue linking in if you like..
In the coming weeks, I should have something new up. Please stay tuned.
Posted by vanevery at 11:49 AM | TrackBack
March 26, 2006
Techdirt: Why Aren't The Telcos Paying Google For Making Their Network Valuable?
Techdirt: Why Aren't The Telcos Paying Google For Making Their Network Valuable?
It is true, cable franchises pay the networks for the privilege of carrying them. This is on a per-subscriber basis and allows the television networks to double dip in a sense, get per-subscriber fees as well as ad revenue.
The argument that Google makes the broadband networks valuable is true although there are a plethora of such services, no lack of content which is why the cable co.'s started to pay the networks in the first place.
There is NO WAY the telcos would fall for this (Verizon/CBS stupidity aside) on broadband lines unless they truly still envision the internet as 1,000,000 channels of TV.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that Google should pay either. We (the consumers here) are already paying. Unless Google wants to be on the providers home page or portal there is no reason for them to pay.
I hope they do light up all of that fiber they have been buying and route around the telecos and allow me a WiFi Mesh or WiMax connection.
Posted by vanevery at 10:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 12, 2006
rocket boom ebay auction closes at $40k!
Posted by vanevery at 09:54 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
December 18, 2005
Music publishers going after lyrics sites
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Song sites face legal crackdown
Grumble grumble.. increased sales, free information.. grumble. dumb move.. obviously people want this, where do you find it legitimately. grumble.
Posted by vanevery at 11:32 AM | TrackBack
December 09, 2005
Future of Television Conference
Beyond TV: TVSpy.com Next Generation TV
So, I went to the Future of Television conference a couple of weeks ago and was somewhat suprised. Last year, I poked my head in to see what was being discussed and it was a big snooze. After checking out the website, I figured it was worth my time this year so I went.
Wow.. I was surprised. You wouldn't know it but there are people in TV who really "get it"... Larry Kramer from CBS most notably get's it.
Here is what I had to say on the day of:
I am writing from Future of Television Conference at NYU's Stern School of Business today. I am here for several reasons, first of all I would like to know what the networks and traditional media concerns think of the scrappy interactive folks. Second, I am here doing recon. Specifically, I would like to know how long video bloggers and other decentralized media creators have before traditional media begins to offer enough of what they are doing to satiate "consumers". (Perhaps that is not exactly my fear but close enough for now.)
First of all, I have to say that Larry Kramer gets it. He really does. He is open to experimentation. At CBS he has launched many interactive initiatives from a broadband news channel to podcasts of daytime soaps to fantasy sports sites to deep entertainment content add-ons to viewer/user photo posting to writer and producer blogs to actual audience participation through SMS. Phew..
CBS isn't the only media company doing this type of experimentation. The other networks, cable and broadcast are doing the same or similar. Notable is ABC News Now, ESPN, Playboy and the like.
The question is, whether or not this is enough. Will this engage and empower viewers enough to keep them despite the ever growing number of alternative content channels. The networks certainly know how to deliver programming to a passive audience. They are just beginning to support a more engaged and digitally connected viewer.
A later speaker in the day, IBM's Saul Berman described the audience by categorizing them in 3 camps. "Massive passives", the folks that CBS has always served, lean back, over 35, want to be entertained but don't feel compelled to buy the latest gadget or create their own media.
The next camp, arguably the focus of most of these efforts he described as "Gadgetiers". He describes this group as heavily involved in content, they are fans, will seek out other individuals who are interested in the same content they are. They will purchase the latest devices, use time shifting (TiVo) and will space shift (TiVo To Go). They are also the heavy buyers, the early adopters, in short, the people that the advertizers (and therefore the networks) covet.
It remains to be seen whether what the networks are starting to do will appeal to this group in the long run. In the short term, it is clear, if you put it out there they will come. How long they stay is another matter.
The last camp, the "Kool kids", the ones really getting all of the attention, are the hardest to understand. He suggests that this is the group that rejects DRM and "walled gardens", in short, the group that wants media on their own terms. This is the group that uses P2P software and is heavily social. They have dream devices that aren't out in the market as of yet.
I know that the kks (short for "Kool kids") are what have network executives up at night. They are the hackers and inventors who are really driving the internet. TV and media in general will fit into their game or be disregarded.
Ok.. So the big question at the end of the day? Will the cable and TV networks run scared and do everything possible to protect their business models or will they embrace the new like they must. My feeling after this conference is that they have learned something from the music industry and will try to embrace but there will still be a major shakeup and Yahoo! and Google just might become the "new" networks. Good or bad.
Posted by vanevery at 09:31 PM | TrackBack
August 09, 2005
Darknet: J.D.'s New Book is out
Darknet
From the site:
Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation is a new book that offers first-person accounts of how the personal media revolution will impact movies, music, computing, television and games
Posted by vanevery at 04:33 PM | TrackBack
December 06, 2004
Hillary support's The INDUCE Act
I was dismayed to learn that Senator Hillary Clinton has come out and in fact co-sponsored Senator Hatch's Induce Act. What follows is a draft of a letter that I am writing to Sen. Clinton to express my concern. I hope that others will do the same.
Here is some background material:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2560:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64315,00.html
http://techlawadvisor.com/induce/
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/004563.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040618-3906.html
http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/INDUCEanalysis.cfm
http://action.eff.org/site/pp.asp?c=esJNJ5OWF&b=164928
Like your iPod, read this:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Apple_Complaint.php
Please comment on the letter as you see fit.
Dear Senator Clinton,
I was dismayed to learn that you have come out in support of Senator Hatch's Induce Act. I hope that on further consideration of the issues that this bill covers that you change your stance to better reflect the opinions of your constituents and for the betterment of our society.
The Induce act as it currently is written does much to stifle free-speech, artistic and fair uses of media. Imposing legal responsibility on the makers of devices and software for illegal use such device or software will create a burden so great on manufacturers and creators of such programs that they will not develop or offer products that have potential for misuse.
I fear that by trying to curb the theft of copyrighted material you will instead be curbing the ability for individuals and groups with legitimate uses for the technology that enables such to use it. Being thoroughly immersed in an academic and artistic atmosphere, I am witness every day to fair uses of technology that would not exist today were such a law in existence. In fact I feel that the software that I am using to write this letter would not have been developed simply because it includes the ability to cut and paste text from any source into the document.
I believe that should this Bill become law that it will undo much of the progress of free-speech and alternative media creation that has been enabled by the internet, personal electronic devices, computers, tape recorders and so on. Furthermore it will be a giant step backwards and lead to increased power by the media and further relegate citizens to the role of consumer without a voice.
I hope that you will reconsider your position on this matter.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Shawn Van Every
Posted by vanevery at 11:35 AM | TrackBack
April 25, 2004
A snippet of what is to come for Forbes readers..
Yahoo! News - Is TV Next?
They say that the internet is a "problem" for TV.. Hmmn, I would welcome a bit of a shake up, perhaps only those companies willing to embrace the technology and social power of the internet will survive. Wouldn't that be nice..
From the article:
The problem is, the Internet is one big dumb pipe. It doesn't know or care whether it is carrying a Web page, a phone call or a sitcom. It's a pipe, in other words, perfectly designed for whacking established industries over the head.
Posted by vanevery at 06:16 PM | TrackBack
April 03, 2004
The labels are the real pirates
salon :: :: tech :: feature :: Courtney Love does the math, By Courtney Love :: Page 1
This is a bit old but as Dave Winer says, it is as relevant now as it was the day she said it.
From the article:
The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."
Posted by vanevery at 12:08 PM | TrackBack
March 26, 2004
Lessig's new book, Free Culture
== Free Culture ==
From the site:
All creative works - books, movies, records, software, and so on - are a compromise between what can be imagined and what is possible - technologically and legally. For more than two hundred years, laws in America have sought a balance between rewarding creativity and allowing the borrowing from which new creativity springs. The original term of copyright set by the Constitution in 1787 was seventeen years. Now it is closer to two hundred. Thomas Jefferson considered protecting the public against overly long monopolies on creative works an essential government role. What did he know that we've forgotten?
I have uploaded a PDF copy of Lessig's book, Free Culture, download it.
Posted by vanevery at 02:08 AM | TrackBack
Getting out of your employees way
InfoWorld: Fired up IT: March 19, 2004: By Chad Dickerson : APPLICATION_DEVELOPMENT : APPLICATIONS
About the book: Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams by Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister
From the book review/article (culled from the book):
Protecting the productivity of your top performers is essential to managing successful projects. According to studies cited in the book, the best people will outperform the worst by about 10-to-1. The best performer will outperform a median performer by 2.5 times. Finally, on average, the one-half of performers who are better-than-median will typically outdo the other half by 2-to-1.
Posted by vanevery at 12:26 AM | TrackBack
March 24, 2004
Unless I am completely nuts, Rob Glaser doesn't have a clue
Real's Glaser exhorts Apple to open iPod | CNET News.com
From the article:
Because Apple's iPod music player does not support other proprietary music formats and does not license its own format to rivals, Real's Rhapsody and other song sites are blocked from easily reaching iPod users.
"Apple's (market) share will go down if they continue to do this. The only way to presently put songs on an iPod is to (buy) them from iTunes," Glaser said, referring to downloads purchased from online music stores. In addition to iTunes songs, the iPod can play files encoded in the MP3 format, including tracks ripped from CDs.
Hey Rob, the iPod supports MP3, duh!!! If you would open up, then you would be fine, but no, Real/Rhapsody does do MP3, does it..!? Wait, Rhapsody does support Mac users either, hows that for open.. He he he, Glaser is full of it..
Posted by vanevery at 09:30 PM | TrackBack
February 28, 2004
Musicans attempting to use P2P for distribution (with payment)..
About Weed File Sharing
From the site:
Weed is a service of Shared Media Licensing, Inc., a group of musicians and software developers from Seattle, Washington. They envisioned Weed as a better solution to the problems of Internet file-sharing. File-trading is here to stay, so finding a way to legalize it and supporting musicians at the same time is the most equitable solution for all parties concerned. Independent musicians and small labels have a hard enough time making a living these days, so something revolutionary is needed to give them some leverage.
Weed encourages file-sharing while making payments to musicians at the same time. File-traders who respect artists' rights are rewarded and a new community of file sharing is born! Anyone who buys a few songs can become a distributor and put up a page with their songs or put these songs on a P2P network.
Posted by vanevery at 05:09 PM | TrackBack
February 13, 2004
Nobody knows how to make money, really..
Social Networks In Search of Business Models
Article tag line:
Social Networks In Search of Business Models
Social networking tool companies are sizzling as start-up venture investments, but can
they make money?