I'm going to take a moment to rant a bit here. Several people have commented to me lately, in varying degrees of frothy fervor, how online communities of the text variety (MU*s) have changed. I wanted to take a moment to throw in some thoughts on the subject for those of you who care. And some of you do. Clearly.
First of all, as with any community of people, real or virtual, things are going to change over time. They just are. Someone who's goals it is to change the natural progression (or regression, as the case may be) of time are not just attempting something futile, they're just not being realistic.
Now, clearly, one might argue that the good ol' days were better, longer, faster, more (or less) intelligent, more (or less) sexy, or better informed than before. But isn't that always true? Isn't the grass always going to be greener? Pining away for times when The Internet was all Fresh and New isn't going to bring it back, is it?
Now, I wouldn't even begin this topic if I didn't have some sort of theory as to why this is the case, or even why it pertains to this thread at all, so I'll get to that point now. The online communities of old have slowly but surely turned into social clubs. We don't go there anymore (and I definitely do still go there. I personally administrate no fewer than 2 at the moment), but instead to simply stay in touch with the folks we've come to know and love through their use over the years. In fact, some of the more reclusive places tend to (d)evolve into just a single social group! Those places lucky (or not) enough to have larger groups of folks hanging out on them might have as many as 15-20 such social groups, each with different interests and concerns, sometimes mingling, sometimes not. But clearly, the groups are not, in general, going to all get along with everyone in every other group, no??
My theory as to why this is the case is exactly the point though. When a 13-24 year old seeks out 'action and adventure' or 'something immersive' to make them forget reality for awhile, they dont' go looking for a MU* anymore. In fact, I'd be pretty confident in saying that most of them don't even know what they are. Instead, they're in Q3A, Tribes, UO, EverQuest, Asheron's Call, some other multiplayer immersive environment that provides that fix OH SO MUCH better than a MUD ever could. This is the part where the over-25 crowd of die-hard MU*ers go screaming and running around yelling heretical things about me. You know what? Get a grip. Tell me how immersive MU*ing is for you anymore. I'd bet my pennies that all you use it for nowadays is a way to stay in touch with some social group you've accumulated along the way.
Ah yes, one more final point. Some have also mentioned to me that they use them for romantic purposes still. There's so many prospective mates, there blah blah blah. Ok. Well, though I've no personal experience with them, have you tried things like Yahoo Personals? Holy hell in a handbag. Even providing only anonymous stats about yourself yields DOZENS of people, all within your geographical area, with similar interests, who want to meet you, within 20 minutes. I do have friends that are experimenting with this recently, and it makes using MU*s for romantic purposes look like chasing around a gnat with chopsticks.
Alright, well... I've gone on long enough. I won't rationalize the quality or nature of this post. There are some folks out there who know where I'm coming from and what I'm getting at. If you don't agree, fine... but don't come bitching to me when you realize how fruitless your efforts to 'get back to the good ol' days' really are, and how many of the people you're trying to get to stay are going to leave through the draconian efforts you're making.
Regularly on forums like this there are comments such as "information wants to be free" mostly from teenagers who have absolutely no conception about what goes on in order to produce the media, how much work it takes, how many people contribute, and how much it costs
Agreed. When I say 'in this industry, I'm pretty much referring to people who are gainfully employed in the sector. I don't mean the teenagers you're referring to. I isn't my intent to get into the 'information wants to be free' discussion.
Katz? Heh. No comment.
I'll trust content producers choose for themselves how they distribute their work, and if they choose digital, or paper, or acetate, it's fine with me.
Again, agreed. My only commentary is that 'content producers' we're taking about (largely musicians) do not, in principle, have a choice about how to distribute their music. They either choose the megalithic corporations which rape their profits to support their (as earlier posted) $2 million dollar legal budgets, or they aren't successful.
I can probably name about a dozen bands, in total that have made it successfully on their own without broadband (to misuse a term) support.
This ruling seems to reinforce an impression I've been getting for the past two weeks. This initially came into mind during the Metallica interview that was posted.
Bottom line: There is still a significant lack of understanding in the industry... hell, in all industries outside of the technology sector... as to just what kind of effect the digital medium is going to have on us.
Even if you just look at the overall attitudes that executives in companies outside of the technology sector have... the only know that they need to have E-commerce and B-to-B solutions. They don't really know why. The influx of companies that are created right now that provide consulting for implementing E-commerce is stunning. They are preying on that ignorance as well. I'm not condoning it, per se... just making note to point out the parallel to the MP3 situation. Technology seems to go through a curve where it first is misunderstood. If it gains 'geek' acceptance (for lack of a better word), then it will invariably be frowned upon for some time until the higher percentage of the non-geek world is educated as to its uses, and sometime thereafter it will become more generally accepted.
I think I see this is the same path that MP3 and other digital formats will eventually take. Right now, we're still in the mid->late stages of 'Phase II'. More people (including recording industry executives, based on some of the interviews we saw here last week) are still being educated in the ways this can benefit them. The artists on the whole are still pretty clueless on it. Metallica seems to have been 'educated' by some lawyer looking to make a quick name for himself on this one. There are plenty of artists out there who are seeking to embrace the format (knowing that they don't make any money off CD sales anyways). But by and large, the MP3 community is still very much a 'geek' community.
At some point, the executives who are able to embrace the format and see the benefits that this highly intelligent (and very quickly growing) market has for them, they will have no choice but to embrace it, and suddenly, it won't be an issue anymore. Growing pains, folks... nothing more. We shouldn't stop fighting for it, but as far as I'm concerned, the war's end result is already pre-determined... it is just the individual battles that get there that remain to be fought.
MP3.com? Well, they're probably in trouble now. Napster? Hmm, good question... I'd lay no better than 40 percent odds or so that they'll be around in 6 months. But the Internet being used as a medium for song/video/media content distribution? Too late, its already happening. If the RIAA and other agencies like it want to remain players in their respective industries, they have no choice but to eventually embrace it.
Ah well... sorry for the rant. I've been quiet so far, and got bored at work....
I've seen and read several articles on this at this point. In each case where some case the RIAA has pursued actually entered a courtroom, it was not the act of copying that they had a problem with, it is distribution.
I think they realize quite clearly at this point that the currently existing laws, acts and framework for legal positions are outdated; however, they are still trying to get at the piece that really hurts them (or at least, they would like us to believe it does).
Obviously, their recently released numbers about last year's sales don't seem to support that argument, but I digress.
From a personal perspective though, do I want to use CDs as my primary media anymore? No. Every CD I purchase now I immediately rip down to mp3. Why? Hell, that's easy. I love the idea of setting up 76 hours of shuffle play music for my home audio. The sooner I can rip the some 600 CDs I own to disk (damn, I need to go buy more drives *grin*)... the better, imho. Is this a problem technically with the current laws? Yes. Is it something they'd ever prosecute me for? No. Is it a problem when I connect to napster and suddenly am offering up over 1200 songs to the general public? Oh yeah, you bet.
In summary, I think that we will definitely see changes in the way media is even defined in the near future. More and more artists are going to be moving their media to digital formats first, circumventing the traditional distribution methods for more modern methods (where they don't get screwed and still own their own music). The laws are going to need to change to support whatever the artists push for. They finally have leverage!! I'll support the artists in this one. They've been screwed for too long.</rant>
Just a quick comment... I'd like to apply what we're discussing to the future as opposed to present applications and programs...
Agreed. The simple truth is that IE is overall a better piece of software than Netscape - it's faster to load, faster to render pages, and feels less bloated overall. If MS starts facing real competition in all sectors, they'll also start making real improvements in all sectors.
You know something, you're right. But I would argue... how did it get that way? As I recall, IE when it first came out was atrocious. The general behavior of the application wasn't stable, wasn't well integrated, etc, ad nauseum. Part of the reason it got to be better is because of the very nature of the monopolistic behavior this action is seeking to squash.
Would IE have been able to compete if they
hadn't had virtually infinite funding to develop with?
Hadn't had access to the OS API's that they wouldn't give to Netscape?
Hadn't been able to push Netscape out of the browser market and force them to turn open source?
Perhaps this is all a moot point to bring up, but my main point is... forget the browser market, forget the office suite, let's consider the applications that are going to establish new markets in the coming years. Suddenly, no more leverage, equal footing and funding, and no more monopolistic muscle to squash competition before it becomes a threat. Interesting concept, that.
Good to see some intelligent life out there. To further respond...
Yes, I have seen the NT source tree. Know what? Its one big flogging mess of files with very little cohesive structure. Has M$ had good ideas about how to architect their OS? Sure. Have they been entirely forthcoming in the development community about these ideas? Hell no. You want an example? Sure. OLE. How long was it that the shelf version of Office was sporting OLE before the API was released? Hmm, as I recall... about 6 months. Is that a competitive advantage? You betcha.
To further this topic a bit more... I'd say that ultimately, M$ isn't really going to be too crushed to be broken up. One stock becomes three, each with their own performance metrics and growth patterns which (imho) will ultimately make sure their execs are even more wealthy.
I think we'll see the biggest change in the development community. Everyone will suddenly be on level ground for developing to the Win32 platform, whatever form it eventually settles into.
What I'm curious about is how they're going to treat branding. Are they going to still have the M$ name on things, but with a 'division' to go along with it? M$ Hardware... M$ OS Group, M$ Software, M$ Internet, etc....
Anyway, I've gone on long enough. And yes, Enry... this is the Geo you know.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to take a moment to rant a bit here. Several people have commented to me lately, in varying degrees of frothy fervor, how online communities of the text variety (MU*s) have changed. I wanted to take a moment to throw in some thoughts on the subject for those of you who care. And some of you do. Clearly.
First of all, as with any community of people, real or virtual, things are going to change over time. They just are. Someone who's goals it is to change the natural progression (or regression, as the case may be) of time are not just attempting something futile, they're just not being realistic.
Now, clearly, one might argue that the good ol' days were better, longer, faster, more (or less) intelligent, more (or less) sexy, or better informed than before. But isn't that always true? Isn't the grass always going to be greener? Pining away for times when The Internet was all Fresh and New isn't going to bring it back, is it?
Now, I wouldn't even begin this topic if I didn't have some sort of theory as to why this is the case, or even why it pertains to this thread at all, so I'll get to that point now. The online communities of old have slowly but surely turned into social clubs. We don't go there anymore (and I definitely do still go there. I personally administrate no fewer than 2 at the moment), but instead to simply stay in touch with the folks we've come to know and love through their use over the years. In fact, some of the more reclusive places tend to (d)evolve into just a single social group! Those places lucky (or not) enough to have larger groups of folks hanging out on them might have as many as 15-20 such social groups, each with different interests and concerns, sometimes mingling, sometimes not. But clearly, the groups are not, in general, going to all get along with everyone in every other group, no??
My theory as to why this is the case is exactly the point though. When a 13-24 year old seeks out 'action and adventure' or 'something immersive' to make them forget reality for awhile, they dont' go looking for a MU* anymore. In fact, I'd be pretty confident in saying that most of them don't even know what they are. Instead, they're in Q3A, Tribes, UO, EverQuest, Asheron's Call, some other multiplayer immersive environment that provides that fix OH SO MUCH better than a MUD ever could. This is the part where the over-25 crowd of die-hard MU*ers go screaming and running around yelling heretical things about me. You know what? Get a grip. Tell me how immersive MU*ing is for you anymore. I'd bet my pennies that all you use it for nowadays is a way to stay in touch with some social group you've accumulated along the way.
Ah yes, one more final point. Some have also mentioned to me that they use them for romantic purposes still. There's so many prospective mates, there blah blah blah. Ok. Well, though I've no personal experience with them, have you tried things like Yahoo Personals? Holy hell in a handbag. Even providing only anonymous stats about yourself yields DOZENS of people, all within your geographical area, with similar interests, who want to meet you, within 20 minutes. I do have friends that are experimenting with this recently, and it makes using MU*s for romantic purposes look like chasing around a gnat with chopsticks.
Alright, well... I've gone on long enough. I won't rationalize the quality or nature of this post. There are some folks out there who know where I'm coming from and what I'm getting at. If you don't agree, fine... but don't come bitching to me when you realize how fruitless your efforts to 'get back to the good ol' days' really are, and how many of the people you're trying to get to stay are going to leave through the draconian efforts you're making.
end rant.
Heya,
Regularly on forums like this there are comments such as "information wants to be free" mostly from teenagers who have absolutely no conception about what goes on in order to produce the media, how much work it takes, how many people contribute, and how much it costs
Agreed. When I say 'in this industry, I'm pretty much referring to people who are gainfully employed in the sector. I don't mean the teenagers you're referring to. I isn't my intent to get into the 'information wants to be free' discussion.
Katz? Heh. No comment.
I'll trust content producers choose for themselves how they distribute their work, and if they choose digital, or paper, or acetate, it's fine with me.
Again, agreed. My only commentary is that 'content producers' we're taking about (largely musicians) do not, in principle, have a choice about how to distribute their music. They either choose the megalithic corporations which rape their profits to support their (as earlier posted) $2 million dollar legal budgets, or they aren't successful.
I can probably name about a dozen bands, in total that have made it successfully on their own without broadband (to misuse a term) support.
- Geo
Greets folks,
... hell, in all industries outside of the technology sector ... as to just what kind of effect the digital medium is going to have on us.
... the only know that they need to have E-commerce and B-to-B solutions. They don't really know why. The influx of companies that are created right now that provide consulting for implementing E-commerce is stunning. They are preying on that ignorance as well. I'm not condoning it, per se ... just making note to point out the parallel to the MP3 situation. Technology seems to go through a curve where it first is misunderstood. If it gains 'geek' acceptance (for lack of a better word), then it will invariably be frowned upon for some time until the higher percentage of the non-geek world is educated as to its uses, and sometime thereafter it will become more generally accepted.
This ruling seems to reinforce an impression I've been getting for the past two weeks. This initially came into mind during the Metallica interview that was posted.
Bottom line: There is still a significant lack of understanding in the industry
Even if you just look at the overall attitudes that executives in companies outside of the technology sector have
I think I see this is the same path that MP3 and other digital formats will eventually take. Right now, we're still in the mid->late stages of 'Phase II'. More people (including recording industry executives, based on some of the interviews we saw here last week) are still being educated in the ways this can benefit them. The artists on the whole are still pretty clueless on it. Metallica seems to have been 'educated' by some lawyer looking to make a quick name for himself on this one. There are plenty of artists out there who are seeking to embrace the format (knowing that they don't make any money off CD sales anyways). But by and large, the MP3 community is still very much a 'geek' community.
At some point, the executives who are able to embrace the format and see the benefits that this highly intelligent (and very quickly growing) market has for them, they will have no choice but to embrace it, and suddenly, it won't be an issue anymore. Growing pains, folks... nothing more. We shouldn't stop fighting for it, but as far as I'm concerned, the war's end result is already pre-determined... it is just the individual battles that get there that remain to be fought.
MP3.com? Well, they're probably in trouble now. Napster? Hmm, good question... I'd lay no better than 40 percent odds or so that they'll be around in 6 months. But the Internet being used as a medium for song/video/media content distribution? Too late, its already happening. If the RIAA and other agencies like it want to remain players in their respective industries, they have no choice but to eventually embrace it.
Ah well... sorry for the rant. I've been quiet so far, and got bored at work....
- Geo
I've seen and read several articles on this at this point. In each case where some case the RIAA has pursued actually entered a courtroom, it was not the act of copying that they had a problem with, it is distribution.
... the better, imho. Is this a problem technically with the current laws? Yes. Is it something they'd ever prosecute me for? No. Is it a problem when I connect to napster and suddenly am offering up over 1200 songs to the general public? Oh yeah, you bet.
I think they realize quite clearly at this point that the currently existing laws, acts and framework for legal positions are outdated; however, they are still trying to get at the piece that really hurts them (or at least, they would like us to believe it does).
Obviously, their recently released numbers about last year's sales don't seem to support that argument, but I digress.
From a personal perspective though, do I want to use CDs as my primary media anymore? No. Every CD I purchase now I immediately rip down to mp3. Why? Hell, that's easy. I love the idea of setting up 76 hours of shuffle play music for my home audio. The sooner I can rip the some 600 CDs I own to disk (damn, I need to go buy more drives *grin*)
In summary, I think that we will definitely see changes in the way media is even defined in the near future. More and more artists are going to be moving their media to digital formats first, circumventing the traditional distribution methods for more modern methods (where they don't get screwed and still own their own music). The laws are going to need to change to support whatever the artists push for. They finally have leverage!! I'll support the artists in this one. They've been screwed for too long.</rant>
- Geo.
Agreed. The simple truth is that IE is overall a better piece of software than Netscape - it's faster to load, faster to render pages, and feels less bloated overall. If MS starts facing real competition in all sectors, they'll also start making real improvements in all sectors.
You know something, you're right. But I would argue
Would IE have been able to compete if they
Perhaps this is all a moot point to bring up, but my main point is... forget the browser market, forget the office suite, let's consider the applications that are going to establish new markets in the coming years. Suddenly, no more leverage, equal footing and funding, and no more monopolistic muscle to squash competition before it becomes a threat. Interesting concept, that.
- Geo
Hey Mark,
... M$ OS Group, M$ Software, M$ Internet, etc....
... this is the Geo you know.
Good to see some intelligent life out there. To further respond...
Yes, I have seen the NT source tree. Know what? Its one big flogging mess of files with very little cohesive structure. Has M$ had good ideas about how to architect their OS? Sure. Have they been entirely forthcoming in the development community about these ideas? Hell no. You want an example? Sure. OLE. How long was it that the shelf version of Office was sporting OLE before the API was released? Hmm, as I recall... about 6 months. Is that a competitive advantage? You betcha.
To further this topic a bit more... I'd say that ultimately, M$ isn't really going to be too crushed to be broken up. One stock becomes three, each with their own performance metrics and growth patterns which (imho) will ultimately make sure their execs are even more wealthy.
I think we'll see the biggest change in the development community. Everyone will suddenly be on level ground for developing to the Win32 platform, whatever form it eventually settles into.
What I'm curious about is how they're going to treat branding. Are they going to still have the M$ name on things, but with a 'division' to go along with it? M$ Hardware
Anyway, I've gone on long enough. And yes, Enry
Cheers.