Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Free Content

Podcasting, fan films, video blogging, flickr, creative commons licensed books, google video, del.icio.us, garageband.com, telltale weekly, openclipart. Like free software, could gratis entertainment be provided by talented individuals? In a world of high-speed internet connections, cheap hosting, and near-zero production costs (beyond blood, sweat, and tears), could passion displace the need for capital? Commercial interest may soon fear the new competition, freely available customized content. Check out the production quality of Star Wars Revalations - kooky. A new version of the iPodderX podcatching client is out, touting fancy-schmancy new features like video blogging subscriptions (like a TiVo season pass), text-to-speech and into your iPod (who wants to read washingtonpost.com anyway), and advanced space management (again, a la TiVo). For some public radio stations podcasts are available. BBC, TV Guide, NBC, CBS - they're all starting to do this. The next version of iTunes, which some of you may have heard of, will have podcasting capabilities. The world of viable free content is upon us.

8 comments:

  1. I am in favor of podcasting... in theory. I have never ever listened to one. But when you look at the homogenization of radio these days - it has just gotten completely out of control. There is no regional or local distinction at all. At 3:15 in every city in America, Kristina Aguelera plays her hit new song, followed by a coke commerical.

    I imagine pod casting to be like a social revolution... a protest to the media conglomerates that are taking over. Finally, someone else's opinion. And even better, the person does not have to have several billion in assets to be able to distribute that opinion. Call me a skeptic - but I just don't believe that someone with several billion dollars in assets available to buy one of these media conglomerates is going to have the same perspective as me... nor do I really care what their perspective is. I can wager to assume that their number one interest lies in making more money. Screw 'em. I hope that they all go broke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are personifying a corporation. Its not like Infinity is an individual. It's not like there is a dude named Clear Channel that is pushing his agenda. These companies are made up of stock holders - people saving for their children's education, couples saving for retirement, and yes Warren Buffet who is stockpiling wealth. Although I agree with you that radio has become homogonized and has lost touch with innovation - I would argue that if you consume mass media you do care what their perspective is (and there is nothing wrong with that). There is nothing wrong with focusing on making money; but when stockholders have a short-sighted view and only consider profitability on a quarter-by-quarter basis they will fail in the long run. In the same way that software companies lock me into proprietary formats and incompatibilities, mass media has only been giving me the option of consuming what the masses consume. Here, eat your Soilent Green and be happy. Diversity and evolution in media is what its all about. Look at Google and the value they put on innovation. They are not focusing on the less immediate yet more important things that will lead to long term success - both financially and in terms of karma.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can only infer that you have come to the conclusion that a company "made up of stock holders - people saving for their children’s education, couples saving for retirement, and yes Warren Buffet who is stockpiling wealth" cannot have an agenda, or express an opinion... Can a corporation have a sense of conscience or moral compass?
    You are right in concluding that I am personifying a Corporation. Shouldn't everyone? Shouldn't the basic principles that are used to judge the morality and character of humans also be used to characterize whatever constructs they create to mask their behaviors? The corporation is a human endeavor, after all. Humans and humans alone create, control, and manipulate them, and humans alone benefit from their existence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To answer your question "Shouldn’t the basic principles that are used to judge the morality and character of humans also be used to characterize whatever constructs they create to mask their behaviors"?

    Analysis of a collective with the constructs we use to judge individuals should not be used - this is not to discount analysis of morality however. Character is a trait of an individual, but certainly different companies have different identities that tie back to their historical behavior - and yes we can and should look at them with respect to this behavior. Morality is completely applicable to a company because it ties back to a set of society-based principles. In the United States we tend to agree that you own your own life as an individual. Actions taken to preserve our own lives are moral - survival is moral. The inverse of this is that using physical force to take away this "right" is immoral. "Right" not in the sense that it is purely and absolutely protected - but "right" in that there is a clear line between preserving ones own life and being moral. This obviously is just the tip of the morality iceberg, but yes, companies should be judged by their morality.

    I am in no way saying that a company absolves itself from judgement. It's like a firing squad - oh, there were 12 people on the firing squad and everyone shot at the prisoner so nobody knows who killed him and therefore they are all free of the guilt and immoral act of murder - which to me is obviously bullshit. If you engaged in an activity that was based on immoral principles, even if you were not the individual that executed the actual immorality you are still guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So the Mom and Pop that invest in Lockheed stock are guilty of murder for any bombs that kill innocent people b/c they malfunction and miss their targets?... I don't think that is what you mean by the firing squad, but not sure how it pertains to corporations.
    Are the 12 gumen in the squad the investors in general and on the whole, or do they represent the leadership of the Corporation? Or do the 12 gunmen on the squad collectively represent the singularity of the Corporation?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this thread has had the most replies out of all of them :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was confirming that members of a collective that knowingly participate in immoral acts are indeed immoral. I have direct control over whether I participate in a firing squad and fire a gun at someone. If I soundly make a decision to murder I am immoral (of course unless I am following the primary right to protect my own life - self defense). Your example shows indirect control over accidental manslaughter. Mom & Pop could have voted for different board members, but their piddly 45 shares probably wouldn't have given them much clout. However, if Lockheed continues to build wealth through immoral means (cheating, swindling, killing) and Mom & Pop continue to invest money knowing how this money is obtained they are in fact immoral. The leadership of a corporation is voted upon by the owners of the company - the stockholders. Gunmen are those that volitionally shoot at people with intent to murder without any clear and present self-preserving reason to do so. My point is simply that immoral acts performed in a group do not make them moral.

    Clear Channel may succeed this round, but unless they become more in touch with what you or I want for content - unless they innovate they will be crushed in the long run. There are substitutes for terrestrial radio entertainment and the free market will see to Clear Channel's demise. In the case of life - the only substitute is death, laissez-faire cannot fix that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Right. So there is certainly a freedom that comes from being an individual who reports to nobody. I can blog about just about anything, I could podcast about nearly anything. I would say that going out on a limb and taking risks, combined with journalistic integrity, is how a successful media organization is created. Just since its topical right now, think of the boom to the reputation of the Washington Post after the Watergate expose. That was a very risky move to publish, but they took the road less travelled and did what was right. We all feel some sort of unspoken pressure like what you are talking about. If I put naked pictures of Stacey online I'll probably get dumped. If I share information on my blog or just in conversation that was told to me with implied confidentiality there are potential reprocussions. I would argue that although collapsing to the corporate interest may preserve short-term advertising dollars, in the long run the reputation and integrity of the channel is critical to its survival.

    ReplyDelete