DISQUS

Sorry, Robert, but I'm already growing weary of Facebook. The more Mark forces his will, the less excited I get. Perhaps it's my inner dinosaur, eh? I'm SUCH an old fart.

Sorry I couldn't get to this sooner, but around all of the real work I had to do yesterday, this whole business with Boxee and Hulu made for fascinating reading.

This controversy is (more) evidence of the new emerging economy. Zucker's "analog dollars" is the issue, not the "digital pennies," for a free economy cannot sustain greed indefinitely. The idea that "content providers" can continue merrily on their way while everybody else suffers is insane, and rather than bellyache about digital pennies, the entertainment industry needs to carefully examine the cost and profit requirements it demands from consumers while taking in those analog dollars.

The entertainment economy is built on an opaque black box, while the new world demands transparency. And here's the thing I'm discovering with media clients: transparency produces a very different view of everything, especially costs. And if costs are transparent, then so are profits. This is the real fear stated in Zucker's comment. He's actually saying, "I don't want to trade opaque dollars for transparent pennies." Good luck with that, because at the heart of the personal media revolution is a satisfaction with those pennies. Emerging businesses are always that way.

One commenter argues that Boxee isn't a browser and that it is "repurposing content without permission." In his remarkable discussion with students at Berkeley in 2004, then FCC Chairman Michael Powell made this statement: "Application separation is the most important paradigm shift in the history of communications, and it will change things forever." Indeed, separating content from the forms in which it was originally presented isn't "repurposing" the content as much as it is redefining the form. This, again, is a part of the opaque/transparency meme, for the former "forms" are incredibly costly, and as long as any business (can you say Detroit) can function opaquely, it can charge what it wants. We can argue about competition and all that, but when the people paying for it complain, nobody listens, and that's a problem in a connected, empowered world.

Hulu is playing a dangerous game here on behalf of "its" content providers, for the horse has already left the barn on the controlled distribution of the forms in which content is presented. The Web is not cable pipes, despite the wishes of the Jeff Zuckers of the world to make it so.

I concur, Stowe, but here's another weakness to the argument. Issacson (and many others) use the Wall St. Journal to make the case that paid "works." However, a significant number of WSJ subscriptions are paid for by corporate America, not individual executives who benefit.

Excellent post.

I've found that there is no shortage of assholes online, but that's true offline as well. If you treat others like crap offline, the consequences can vary. Online, however, it leads to flaming and a boldness that you won't generally find offline. When you're outside somebody's swing, you'll say things that you wouldn't otherwise. Fists (or a gun) have a, shall we say, quieting influence.

Blogging assholes have a few things in common. One, they don't think they're assholes. Two, they want impunity for their own rude behavior, for which they generally have excuses galore. Three, they believe the First Amendment was written for them and not necessarily others. Four, each as a doctorate in whining.

There are no failures of talent, only character. If you want a one-way stage, then adopt a one-way strategy.

The law you forgot to mention, Fred, is the Golden Rule. If you want fewer assholes commenting on your blog, stop being such an asshole yourself.

You ask a great question, Duncan. "If their viewers are just as happy watching online, why continue broadcasting over the air?"

The short answer is Mobile Digital Television. You'll start seeing this here in the U.S. in 2010, although devices will be available later this year. The license that broadcasters have allows them to program multiple digital channels, and I think you're going to see some very creative things coming down the pike, including deals for mobile digital viewing of cable shows, sports and cable channels like CNN. The big deal about MDTV is that it's free, and when hardware makers start putting the chips in their devices, people won't have to pay for TV delivered via the Web, and this is a pretty big deal. If anybody wants to make their programming available for mobile digital TV, they'll have to go through a local broadcaster.

So while traditional, network-affiliated local broadcasting is a dead horse, the pony of mobile digital is just learning to walk.

I've found the same thing, Fred. For me, it's two things. One, my Blackberry is such a personal and private device that I get wrapped up in its intimacy, and that brings out all my thoughts. Two, it's like making notes to myself, instead of writing for an audience, and that, I think, makes a difference.

I do it so much that I'm actually having brain spasms with my laptop, because the punctuation isn't where it "should" be.

Kind of like asking all the TV stations in a market to work together to assure they have a future.

Great post, Duncan, but this line isn't true: "...the professional class rules and standards that have evolved around journalism over hundreds of years ..."

The professional press as we know it today -- with its artificial value "objectivity" -- is roughly 100 years old, having been birthed by Walter Lippmann and his elitist social engineering dreams. The notion created a sterile environment in which to sell advertising and has led to a massive decline in the political process in the U.S. The First Amendment wasn't written to protect objective "facts."

The blogosphere is journalism's greatest hope but a serious threat to the institutional "professionals," who cling to the hegemony that gives them status. The rules and values are being rewritten; it's an exciting time, indeed.

Duncan, this is why God made user-generated-content.

I saw this ad on cable tonight. I really wanted to like it, but it just was, well, nothing. I don't get it, not one bit. It's sad, too, because I'm rooting for it while I'm watching meaningless drivel float past my eyes. At the end, all I could do was shake my head (again) and quietly whisper "WTF?"

Parents keeping track of their kids. The government keeping track of you. Advertisers nailing you with (more) unwanted messages.

No thanks. The risk is too great.

Sorry, Fred, but I need to challenge one of your statements. I've been a fan for awhile, and I've yet to come to your site through the home page. Hence, I always land on a page with the comments, and I read them. This is not to disrespect Disqus, for I'm sure it's a wonderful application, but the truth for media companies is that these landing pages -- or side doors -- are vastly more important than the home page.

Thank you, Shelley and Jerry, for helping set the record straight here. It's why I always try and read the comments, something the traditional press doesn't generally offer.

I do want to add that your use of this matter to blast "citizens media" is not in keeping with your general interest in facts, for the Washington Post played a rather big role in this, too.

At least here, I have the opportunity to read your input, and that is something we all appreciate — perhaps more than you realize.