What Do Amazon's Computers Have Against Fictional Gays And Lesbians?

My Keynote At Mesh: Growing Communities And Adding True Scarcities

from the have-fun-with-it dept

Fri, Apr 10th 2009 7:30pm — Mike Masnick

A bunch of folks have been asking for video from my keynote talk at the excellent Mesh Conference, and here it is (and if you really want to download it, there's an iTunes link as well). It's also embedded below if you click through. The whole thing is an hour, but split into four separate videos. The first two are my presentation and the second two are the Q&A that followed:

It was, as always, lots of fun to do. Also, I met tons of great, wonderful, interesting and fascinating people at the event. Interacting with people is always the best part of these things. Thanks to everyone who came out -- and a special thanks to the Mesh Crew: Mathew, Rob, Michael, Stuart and Mark who have created something really special with the Mesh event and who are each amazing individuals as well.

Also, since people were quizzing me about it later: I actually do "memorize" the presentations and what's coming next. I don't see what the next slide is before I bring it up and no (as two separate people asked me...) I did not have a little device in my ear telling me what was coming next....

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: business models, economics, keynote, mesh, scarcities
Companies: floor64

86 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

LM, 10 Apr 2009 @ 8:53pm

That's One Ugly Blogger
Damn, in my mind's eye I always thought Mike looked like Angelina Jolie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 10 Apr 2009 @ 9:19pm

Use Open Formats?
All I see are thumbnails with captions inviting me to “download Apple’s QuickTime” to view the videos. Yeah, like they have QuickTime for Linux...

With all the long litany of problems with companies trying to do bad proprietary things reported on this site, how about you practise a little openness yourself, and offer these videos in a more open format, like Ogg Theora?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg Philpott, 11 Apr 2009 @ 6:27am
  
  Re: Use Open Formats?
  Hi, I'm from mDialog the video platform that makes the embedded player Mike's talk is being delivered by.
  
  Your point is valid, quicktime and for that matter flash are both not open video frameworks, though they do play open video formats such as the one we are using at mDialog: mepg-4 h.264
  
  Our current player is built around javascript/ajax/Quicktime, which to some degree is more open than most video players. But our plan to help solve this is to use HTML5 in the next version of our player.This should let the browser select how it wants to playback video as HTML5 has a "tag" for video, simplifying things a lot.
  
  Always looking for feedback, do you think our approach will help on Linux?
  
  BTW the mesh iPhone app also has all the videos too, it's in the app store and it's free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - R. Miles, 11 Apr 2009 @ 6:34am
    
    Re: Re: Use Open Formats?
    Our current player is built around javascript/ajax/Quicktime, which to some degree is more open than most video players.
    
    Do you get on the net much? I haven't seen a Quiktime video in a very long time, this site being the first in over a year.
    
    I can't speak as a Linux user, but I can speak for PC users.
    
    Embedded video = Flash player. There's a reason this is done as Flash is installed moreso than Quiktime is.
    
    Reformat the video, please.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tim, 11 Apr 2009 @ 7:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Use Open Formats?
      Actually, I can't view Flash videos, or Flash anything for that matter. Flash player isn't allowed on computers on our networks. Too many security holes and two much bandwidth eaten up by ads, not to mention the distraction and noise. That decision was made before youtube became popular.
      
      The only video we can watch by default is windows media.
      
      For Lawrence, Ogg? Does anybody use that? I've seen it mentioned forever, but I've never encountered one, ever.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - R. Miles, 11 Apr 2009 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Open Formats?
        Wouldn't you be more afraid of getting caught watching videos at work?
        ;)
        
        The transcript's already been done.
        
        Just review the articles from Techdirt within the past month.
        :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2009 @ 11:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Use Open Formats?
      It works just fine in both Vista Extreme Ultimate Bloatware Edition and also XP Professional (Both are virtualized machines, hosted on OSX 10.5.2)
      
      For the lost PC user, I suggest installing KLite Codec Pack. It should make your problems quit whining. Another suggestion is to play it either on your friend's iPhone or iPod Touch.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - alternatives(), 12 Apr 2009 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Use Open Formats?
    Always looking for feedback,
    Welcome to the internet. You'll get it.
    do you think our approach will help on Linux?
    Linux? What about FreeBSD users? There is more to the world than GNU/Linux forks.
    VLC runs on windows/mac/various GNU-Linux forks/FreeBSD.
    But don't worry - if the cable companies get their way on bandwidth caps the use of video to convey info will drop WAY off.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- qez, 11 Apr 2009 @ 6:41am
  
  Re: Use Open Formats?
  Same here, but these ones worked for me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - R. Miles, 11 Apr 2009 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Re: Use Open Formats?
    Thanks for the link.
    
    At least this website gets it.
    :)
    
    Off to view.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
yogi, 10 Apr 2009 @ 10:34pm

Video isn't playing
and the link to I-tunes points me to download itunes 8.

Mike, is this your sneaky way of making us buy your presentation?

Ok, how much do you want?:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 11 Apr 2009 @ 5:53am

is it me or are there skipping errors about halfway through on the first one? The vid is fully buffered but I'm still getting staccato-like performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lucretious, 11 Apr 2009 @ 6:54am
  
  Re:
  NM, problem solved by playing it in IE rather than Firefox
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
R. Miles, 11 Apr 2009 @ 6:30am

Making a video using Quiktime isn't a scarce good.
It angers people.

How about the standard Flash version.

I'd even settle for a transcript.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScaredofTheMan, 11 Apr 2009 @ 7:31am

Awesome Presentation
Nice keynote Mike!

I enjoyed it greatly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COD (profile), 11 Apr 2009 @ 7:50am

Works fine on Linux
I just watched the videos - Firefox on Ubuntu 8.04. It works fine.

Nice job Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Harold, 11 Apr 2009 @ 8:17am

Okay, so I watched the keynote speech. Umm, yeah. I am starting to think the blog here is just a way to refine what ends up in the speech, finding out what resonates and what doesn't, so that the speech can get very resonant, even if it is a little light on detail and very heavy on message.

I sort of caught myself saying "Gee, people are falling for this?". A nice zippy presentation that keeps the audience focused on what the next slide is going to be rather than all the words is probably not a bad idea.

Overall, just like reading the blogs here, and as we have seen in the last couple of weeks, some of the touted examples of outrageous acts are in fact just not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R. Miles, 11 Apr 2009 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  sort of caught myself saying "Gee, people are falling for this?".
  To this day, I still have no clue why you're so adamant about the $0.00 model, other than maybe protecting those who still distribute it.
  
  I don't believe people are falling for it. They're beginning to understand the relationship between digital distribution and so-called piracy or legal $0.00 offerings.
  
  More importantly, it's these same people you categorize who still feel confident they can compete with $0.00 when no other models exist to give customers a choice.
  
  Your ignorant notion people won't pay is where you, and those you seem to represent, fail to put trust into the consumer. Of course, all the while treating them like thieves and forcing them to pay for a distribution platform they're no longer interested in.
  
  Harold, giving away content for $0.00 does work. It's always worked. It will always work. Businesses give things away at $0.00 all the time, knowing full well costs are made up elsewhere.
  
  An example: business cards. Sure, laugh, but this is the foundation of the $0.00 model. What covers the cost of a business card? The skills offered by the business.
  
  You also have skills. You can apply these however you see fit, whether your work yourself or through a business. However, if you're a self business, and you fail to take advantage of using all the free tools now available, that's a stupid mistake on your part.
  
  But this goes to prove a stronger point: Those who distribute find themselves actually having to work for the first time in their lives instead of reaping the rewards of having fingered a distribution method.
  
  Those with the skills aren't the ones hurting here. While you may not agree with the information on Techdirt, proof is showing more artists are now rethinking their future and trying new ways to capitalize without current distribution systems.
  
  The current distribution platforms are dying. Accept it. Because there is a great flip side to this, but you, and those you seem to represent, just don't get it.
  
  Let's review this flip side: For every 1 person who doesn't buy a $16 CD, means that 1 person now has $16 to spread amongst other purchases.
  
  This person now has $16 dollars to spread to 16 different artists for $1 a song, or $5 to three new business ideas, or $10 to merchandising, or...
  
  You should get the point here.
  
  I can understand your, and those you seem to represent, frustration having this all dumped into your lap, especially when those other markets to get people to buy are yet to be set up.
  
  But isn't this your own damn fault to begin with, having built your entire industry on one specific area?
  
  Or did the entire concept of "buggy whip makers" fail to sink in?
  
  Or how about all those companies whining about the Big 3 automakers and their lost jobs because they solely relied on them to survive?
  
  Or how about the Big 3 themselves, who are now playing catchup to an import industry which now surpasses them by being innovative with their cars while the Big 3 did nothing?
  
  I wish you'd educate yourself and quit being ignorant. Your continual rhetoric only defends stagnation, not innovation.
  
  Every innovative idea is a risk, but it's worth trying. Should the business fail, so be it. That's just a part of life. But those who fail now, while clinging onto a dying system, deserve to fail.
  
  As a consumer, I'm getting pretty damn tired of this system raping me of my hard earned money, controlling costs which get harder to pay every year.
  
  There will be a time, using current systems, people won't be able to afford the content as more and more fingers continue dipping into the content pot.
  
  Defend this system if you must, but you're wasting your time.
  
  People like me are forcing businesses to change.
  
  It's one thing to sell a customer content to play within a specific device, but quite another when that content can now be free of the device while trying to get people to pay for it multiple times.
  
  No customer is going to pay multiple times for the same content.
  
  To believe this really, really shows just how ignorant you, and those who you seem to represent, really are.
  
  Arg, matey. Avast ye the $0.00 model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Apr 2009 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  "Overall, just like reading the blogs here, and as we have seen in the last couple of weeks, some of the touted examples of outrageous acts are in fact just not true."
  
  Such as? Do you have any relevant links to back this up (not RIAA-sponsored, real information)? Or is this just another case of "Harold doesn't think this way so it much be false"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 11 Apr 2009 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Paul, you don't have to go any further than the Mr Engle and his logos. Mike was fast to jump all over it, hard and heavy - and then when it turned out to be less than truthful, well, the retraction was very light weight.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Esahc (profile), 11 Apr 2009 @ 10:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "and then when it turned out to be less than truthful"
      
      please cite
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Weird Harold, 11 Apr 2009 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://techdirt.com/articles/20090409/2257424461.shtml
        
        (it's on the first page)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 11 Apr 2009 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As ever, you need to remember where you are. You're not reading the product of a newsroom where journalists check each source and try to be fair, neutral and balanced. You're reading a blog, which by its very definition is opinionated and reliant on 3rd party information - which may be inaccurate when first reported.
      
      Mike made a post which - if Engle had been telling the truth - would have been absolutely correct and justified. Once further information came to light, he made another post clarifying the truth and admitting that the first post did not tell the whole story (though how much of it is untrue seems to remain in question). The central point is not invalidated, only the case in question. True, the original post was inflammatory, but it's a blog.
      
      So, apart from that one example, do you have anything else you find objectionable? As usual, you've made some vague allusions to problems with the presentation but haven't bothered giving specific examples of what you're referring to.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Weird Harold, 11 Apr 2009 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Paul, as I mentioned in another thread opinion + opinion... what would happen is that in the future, Mike would link to his own posts as reference for a new post, all the while with the unsubstantiated stuff being used to build a bigger pile to put the latest gift from on high on. Yet, at the end of it all, most of it traces back to supposition, other blogs(!), and quotes taken out of context (even godly Trent Reznor was "chop quoted" to change the meaning of his words in one post).
        
        So it's a little like untangling a ball of yarn. Just look at each post, and go and read the 4 or 5 items linked, and read their 4 or 5 items linked, and so on, until you get to the bottom and realize that it's all supposition, with very few reliable external sources to support it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2009 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's your point?
        
        This is a comment and conversation site. If you have a problem with that, your obviously at the wrong place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2009 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right.
        And if you look back to the contributing factors to creation of the study of Biology, Chemistry, medical practice, economics, business, physiology, and other areas of study in academia, you'll find most area of study started with a bunch of people just blabbing about different perspectives as they try to make sense of the world.
        
        This site adheres to Socratic method. You don't, as such, you've been labeled a troll.
        
        Continuation of some internal desire to take quick jabs at Mike is your prerogative, and perhaps is also why you've also earned your Doctorate, right Harold?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 11 Apr 2009 @ 8:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't have a problem with that. A bunch of people talking about stuff is how plenty of things get done.
        
        I guess I am objecting mostly because the presentation is given as pretty much a fait accomplis, a done deal, or worse, an inevitable as the melting of the snow in the spring. We aren't anywhere near that yet, and once you pull away the few poster children the Mike always goes back to (NIN, Radiohead, Corey Smith, and I guess we can add in Jill Sobule), there really isn't that much "movement".
        
        As a side note, not really related, yet it is: Why is Chris Anderson's book "Free!" not going to be free? In fact, it's cover price is $26.99. Doesn't that seem a little odd? Shouldn't it be free, and then Chris could go on tour and give lectures, charging $100 a head to get in? Isn't that how this is all suppose to work? Wait, it's only suppose to work like that for OTHER people... I get it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2009 @ 9:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, what's the problem?
        
        Granted, maybe you originally came here on your own free will because you saw something of interest. You think you have the ability to prove everybody wrong, yet it seems you always think it's Mike's fault.
        
        But we all contribute. Either do the same yourself or you don't. It's really that simple.
        
        In the short time you've been here, I've seen your StuffChannel website change at least once. You used to be Canadian, and now your somewhere in Florida, hosted on a netblock now owned by the name listed on StuffChannel's original DNS owner.
        
        So, what is your ultimate end goal Harold Hill? To sit back smoking a fatty every day while getting ideas from TechDirt? Better hope you have something else, because that won't last long.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 11 Apr 2009 @ 9:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But we all contribute
        
        All I see you contributing is personal attack. That isn't much of a contribution. Perhaps you would prefer to address issues brought up rather than trying to run me down. I think you probably don't want to debate issues, because you know you would love.
        
        Umm, nothing about stuffchannel's registration has changed, and the site has been served from the same location for quite a while. Nothing else has changed. If this is your level of "investigation", no wonder you are easily snowed by some of Mike's ideas.
        
        Oh yeah, I don't "sit back smoking a fatty", sorry. I'll leave that to you. BTW, who the heck is "harold hill"? it sure ain't me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2009 @ 10:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All I see you contributing is personal attack.
        
        No, Anonymous contributes often to many conversations. The Federalist Papers were Anonymous.
        
        That isn't much of a contribution.
        
        Sure, that's what *YOU* think.
        
        I think you probably don't want to debate issues, because you know you would love.
        
        What issue is that? I believe, as many do, that those that take a chance, deserve more recognition than those just sit back and let things happen. I remain quite curious of your position on Terry McBride, by the way. Perhaps I see things through a different lens.
        
        Umm, nothing about stuffchannel's registration has changed, and the site has been served from the same location for quite a while. Nothing else has changed.
        
        Um, no. I could pull up the old host info if you really want, It's on the other computer and it's late. Have a big meeting tomorrow so I'll let it go for now.
        
        If this is your level of "investigation", no wonder you are easily snowed by some of Mike's ideas.
        
        Think what you wish.
        
        Oh yeah, I don't "sit back smoking a fatty", sorry. I'll leave that to you.
        
        Oh Thanks! I enjoy talking with upright officers who are sworn in to uphold the law. No fattys needed here. The world is already too interesting.
        
        BTW, who the heck is "harold hill"? it sure ain't me.
        
        An inside joke for those that understand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 12 Apr 2009 @ 8:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I could go on an on about Terry McBride, but he isn't exactly the subject here.
        
        For the registration, the domain is mine since 1999, any change are minor (like mailing address after moving). Otherwive, only two hosts for that domain in 10 years, I think. Maybe 3 at tops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2009 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I find it nothing short of amazing that so many who post in response to techdirt articles have suddenly become experts in the fields of economics and law now that they can use P2P to get content without having to pay.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jan Hopmans (profile), 12 Apr 2009 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's the basic in the field of Physics. Scarce goods aren't able to be duplicated, infinite goods like information are. It just isn't to hard to understand.
        
        It isn't about the law, it's about it we feel it should be. I feel I should be free to duplicate if there is no cost. Others could still make money around it, no matter what.
        
        It's fairly easy although for some so hard to understand. =)
        
        p.s. I am not an 'expert' although a fair amount of people here are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jan Hopmans (profile), 12 Apr 2009 @ 6:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess I am objecting mostly because the presentation is given as pretty much a fait accomplis, a done deal, or worse, an inevitable as the melting of the snow in the spring.
        Saying that is like saying 'I haven't seen the sun yet so the snow isn't going to melt.' It is happening slowly but surely, It IS a done deal, people will always want to share infinite goods and artist are already sharing their content.
        
        Why is Chris Anderson's book "Free!" not going to be free? In fact, it's cover price is $26.99. Doesn't that seem a little odd?His book will be free, the paperback cover won't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jan Hopmans (profile), 12 Apr 2009 @ 6:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        p.s. Chris Anderson mostly just thinks of advertisement, Think of the 'Freemium' term he coined, all that content is just paid by advertisement. There are a lot of better scarce good instead of selling customer attention. We hate that. There are way more and virtually all of them are better.
        
        Besides: Wired.com © 2009 Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved.
        
        The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast Digital.
        How stupid is that...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 12 Apr 2009 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Chris Anderson talks the game but doesn't do the deal - his book should be on the internet, free, perhaps with some ads on the pages to pay for it. Instead, he talks the game, and pushes the book out at $26.99 (and how much do you think greedy middle man publishers and distributors and printers get out of it? Chris probably doesn't get $1 a copy! The shame!).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jan Hopmans (profile), 12 Apr 2009 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As I said I partly agree with you on that. :)
        Although I have also seen his book WILL be on the internet.
        
        Although he still only mostly does the talk. Also adds aren't the way. There are way better scarce goods.
        
        But on the other side, do you also mind commenting on the fact that you yourself are giving away free content. =) You only take out part of peoples post, ignoring the rest. Acting like it doesn't exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 12:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Chris Anderson talks the game but doesn't do the deal - his book should be on the internet, free, perhaps with some ads on the pages to pay for it.
        
        Uh, Chris has announced he's going to do exactly that.
        
        WH... wrong again.
        
        I've finally realized that WH isn't a troll. He's pure satire.
        
        He's against copyright infringement... but he runs a scraper blog.
        
        He's against trademark infringement... but he uses the name of a trademarked character.
        
        He's against blogs that get things wrong... but he tends to get at least one thing 100% wrong in every comment.
        
        He's against Chris Anderson charging for a scarce book, missing that everyone says you can charge for scarcities... and forgets the fact that Chris has said FOR OVER A YEAR, both on his blog and in interviews that there will be a free version of the book.
        
        He accuses me of speaking at an anti-RIAA event, not realizing the RIAA was the major sponsor of the event.
        
        He mocks people who are anonymous, but has yet to reveal his real name.
        
        He insults people regularly, and when people insult him, he whines about how I ought to delete those posts.
        
        Guys... he's pure comedic satire gold.
        
        Enjoy him for what he's worth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        lulz, 13 Apr 2009 @ 5:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually he has already admitted to being techdirt's troll, but i'm not going to dig up the post b/c that takes time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 13 Apr 2009 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike,
        
        I run a scraper blog, using material that (one sites likes yours) people say "take my content") or that provide partial feeds for other websites to use. If you want me to drop your site, just say so.
        
        I don't use a trademark character - honestly, the name weird harold came as explained on my blog, and no from any cartoon in the past. Further, that "trademark" character is only for cartoon image, so no big deal.
        
        I don't tend to get things wrong on every post - you just don't AGREE with everything I post, that is a huge difference.
        
        As for Chris's book, I don't want a "free version", I want the whole book, free, period. Why is he selling it at all? His book isn't any more scarce than a song - digitize it and trade it and there you go. Please don't contradict yourself and declare certain things scarce just because they don't fit your world view plan. Information is information, and it wants to be free and infinite, not bottled up and stuck between shiny plastic covers and sold for an over large price to satisfy the fat middlemen of the book business.
        
        Why aren't you upset at Chris for using this buggy whip business to distribute his ideas? Why not call him out on it?
        
        Anyone with a half a brain knows my name. The other half post anonymously here.
        
        I don't whine about people insulting me - I complain about people using my nickname and posting information and using that to make false posts. People can insult me all they like, but putting words in my mouth is something that should be tolerated.
        
        The only thing comedic at this point is that you hate to admit I hit a nerve. Now you are down to attacking me rather than my posts.
        
        Keep it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 13 Apr 2009 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You might also want to contact the owners of http://www.weirdharld.com and http://www.weirdharolds.com - I am sure they would be surprised as heck to find out their are violating anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ha! The only nerve you've hit is my funny bone. I mean, seriously. This sorta stuff is comedic gold:
        
        As for Chris's book, I don't want a "free version", I want the whole book, free, period. Why is he selling it at all? His book isn't any more scarce than a song - digitize it and trade it and there you go. Please don't contradict yourself and declare certain things scarce just because they don't fit your world view plan.
        
        I mean no human being who's read this site for more than 3 minutes could be confused into thinking that what you write is what we support. It's such pure, beautiful satire. Keep it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 13 Apr 2009 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No seriously Mike, explain it.
        
        A book is just like a song. Digitize it, and it is infinite, no?
        
        Perhaps Chris could sell some up version of the book, marybe autographed or perhaps you and him could take some people to play miniputt or something. Otherwise, the information wants to be free. So why should there be a difference here?
        
        I mean, this is obvious - he could use the infinite good (his book digitized) to upsell people to attending conferences at $100 a head or something. Perhaps it would help to build up his brand so he could get his own TV show or something.
        
        Like you said, scarce goods are what you sell - but information isn't scarce. As soon as it is printed once, it can be digitized and turned into an infinite good. So why sell it?
        
        I am serious here Mike, can you explain why this book is different?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 11:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A book is just like a song. Digitize it, and it is infinite, no?
        
        Indeed. Which is why he's giving away a digitized version of the book.
        
        He's still selling the physical book, because that's a scarce good, and people still demand those scarce goods, because it's a better reading experience.
        
        And, yes, he's still making money elsewhere, because of the boost to his reputation.
        
        So he's doing exactly all of that, despite your claims that he's not.
        
        Funny stuff, Harold. Pretending you can't understand this rather basic stuff. I mean... damn. I'm laughing pretty hard here. Keep it up. Classic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 13 Apr 2009 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am still trying to figure this out.
        
        People who like newspapers or CDs are "buggy whip" lovers, old and out of date with no chance of redemption.
        
        People who like books are hip and modern, buying a format that people like.
        
        Explain the difference. I mean, books are a nice format to read (I prefer them) but a newspaper is also a very good format (easy to read anywhere, no connection required).
        
        I am trying to understand why you feel a line is drawn "here" and not "there".
        
        @jan:I understand the concept, but I am just having a hard time dealing with the idea that certain information (which is infinite) should be treated in any way non-infinite. Publishing a book and getting it distributed and wasting all those trees and not being able to keep it updates seems like a waste, when the information could just be put onto a P2P network and people could do what they want with that infinite resource.
        
        Worse, the book has been completed for a while, Chris has been on about it for about a year now. Why take the time to print it and deny the world his wisdom, when it could be online and widely available already?
        
        For me, it seems that there is a little bit of "do as I say, not do as I do" at work here. It seems a book can be an upsell from free sample chapters, but a CD cannot be an upsell from free sample songs. How odd! I guess it proves which one the teachers are selling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People who like newspapers or CDs are "buggy whip" lovers, old and out of date with no chance of redemption.
        
        Uh, not at all. I don't see how you could read this site and think that, which is why it's clear that you're simply pure satire.
        
        If people want to buy newspapers and CDs (both physical goods), good for them. If you can sell them, good for you. That's selling scarcities.
        
        The problem is when you don't realize how the market is shifting and don't do anything to adapt. If you can still sell the physical goods -- good for you, so long as there's still demand for them. It's insisting that that's the only business model and refusing to change when the market shifts which is when you get into trouble.
        
        I mean, we've made this point directly to you at least 10 times.
        
        You really crack me up.
        
        For me, it seems that there is a little bit of "do as I say, not do as I do" at work here. It seems a book can be an upsell from free sample chapters, but a CD cannot be an upsell from free sample songs. How odd! I guess it proves which one the teachers are selling.
        
        Not at all. We've always said that if you can sell CDs, that's great. All of the examples we've talked about still sell CDs, and in fact, often give people additional reasons to buy the CD. A CD is a scarce good, and if you can give people a reason to buy it, fantastic.
        
        We've told you this before. Obviously no human being could be so stupid as to continue repeating something that was already explained to him as wrong. Clearly you are joking. Though, you should be careful. The joke gets less funny the more you stretch it out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 13 Apr 2009 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, I understand fully, and understand why you are laughing - mostly because if you stop laughing, you might have to think about it for a minute.
        
        It's okay. I understand. Sorry if I talked too much about the emperor's new clothes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2009 @ 3:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See the last paragraph of Comment 32. That's what this is about, I guess.
        
        Your a sad, sad person, Harold.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jan Hopmans (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 5:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Publishing a book and getting it distributed and wasting all those trees and not being able to keep it updates seems like a waste.It certainly is. Only when people want to read something they want to be able to take it to bed, have something in their hands or simply something to collect. It might be a waste, but it also is a scarce good.
        The information is infinite so that will be free to download. No not a sample, the whole bunch. Samples are shit, you always want more but you can't get it. Also people won't be enthusiastic about samples so they won't spread the book for you, you won't get any advertisement.
        
        A CD can be a upsell and book can be too. Only just a sample won't do it. :) Why advertise when you can let your fans do that for you? You still have things to sell, or they could hire some of your other scarce goods. :)
        
        For me, it seems that there is a little bit of "do as I say, not do as I do" at work here.Chris might better give out his whole book non-copyrighted, not just a sample or you are right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jan Hopmans (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        p.s. don't you read Mike comments: Indeed. Which is why he's giving away a digitized version of the book.
        It isn't a sample so it's exactly the way you said he should. =)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch, 14 Apr 2009 @ 9:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        TechDirt needs some help. In nested view, these comments at this level are down to one word per line!
        
        ButWhatIfIDon'tUseAnyLineBreaks,WillItForceAReallyWideLine?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jan Hopmans (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because it isn't different...
        It's funny because that is exactly what he really did...
        
        The book is free, a hard copy is not. I already said that so why not react on that? You are satire, plain simple.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2009 @ 2:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guys... he's pure comedic satire gold.
        Enjoy him for what he's worth.
        
        I don't think his act is satire. He's more a Prop Comic. I put little value on him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2009 @ 2:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guys... he's pure comedic satire gold.
        Enjoy him for what he's worth.
        
        I don't think his act is satire. He's more a Prop Comic. Probably smashes watermelons. I put little value on him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ulle, 11 Apr 2009 @ 8:32am

It is real sad that quicktime is used for the video, after several years of enjoying Techdirt it would have been nice to watch Mike in action, but alas I have always had alot of problems with quicktime and now I refuse to put their software on any of my computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sal, 11 Apr 2009 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  Why do you have to bash Mike for that? I've never had any problems with quicktime. It's not his fault if you do. It really isn't that hard to spend two minutes to install quicktime either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 12:32am
  
  Re:
  It is real sad that quicktime is used for the video, after several years of enjoying Techdirt it would have been nice to watch Mike in action, but alas I have always had alot of problems with quicktime and now I refuse to put their software on any of my computers.
  
  As mentioned earlier in the comments, I didn't choose the format.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 13 Apr 2009 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Isn't information free? Shouldn't you just take copies and put them on youtube? After all, you are the artist here, it should be your choice, shouldn't it?
    
    I am confused here. Do they have a copyright on the material?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2009 @ 9:57am

Mike, I'm sure you did a fantastic job. I refuse to use Quicktime out of principle so I'll never actually know, but keep up the good work anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirk, 11 Apr 2009 @ 2:16pm

Professor Harold
Harold is actually a Professor. We know him as Professor Harold Hill in school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Esahc (profile), 11 Apr 2009 @ 3:26pm

Constructive Criticism
I just wanted to say I enjoyed your presentation as a whole, but you may want to lay off the "Um" & "Uh" as they can distract an audience from the subject matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jan Hopmans (profile), 12 Apr 2009 @ 6:55am

Omg...
Harold is giving us FREE content...
How can that be, you can't Harold you should charge us for that. You can't give us free content!! You just can't you won't make any profit and you, as poor comment-artist, will end up on the street starving to dead!!
You just can't, think of the artist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spaceman spiff, 12 Apr 2009 @ 8:59am

video formats
Limiting your video to QuickTime players is absurd. I run a 64-bit Linux system and Firefox. I can play just about any video format, including QT videos, but there is no QT plugin for Firefox on Linux, so I have to download the clip (if possible) and play in in VLC. Since your clips don't appear to be downloadable, I cannot watch it. Your loss...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cram, 12 Apr 2009 @ 9:33am

I wish Mike had convinced the MESH organizers to put up videos of the conference on Youtube. They could have directly reached hundreds of millions of users without paying a dime for the broadcast!

Jan

"Scarce goods aren't able to be duplicated, infinite goods like information are. It just isn't to hard to understand."

Would credit card information qualify as an infinite good? If it does, then that's one example of an infinite good that, if duplicated, leads to a loss to the "owner." I'd like to know what your take is on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Buzz, 12 Apr 2009 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re:
  @44: cram -- First off, the credit card information itself does not represent a loss by itself. Everyone in the world can know my credit card number without me suffering any real loss, but you're obviously pointing out how someone USING that information illegally would certainly represent a loss to the owner since money is definitely NOT an infinite good.
  
  Just because something is information means it is a "good" for public consumption. A CC# is used in private transactions. Even store cashiers rarely (if ever) see your CC#. The machines take care of everything.
  
  As for the videos, someone please-oh-please post a torrent for them. I want to download them in a usable format. I doubt Mike has control over the presented formats; it is Mesh who is managing the video publishing. YouTube would be a nice start.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Buzz, 12 Apr 2009 @ 2:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Just because something is information does NOT*** mean it is a "good"...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 12:26am
  
  Re:
  I wish Mike had convinced the MESH organizers to put up videos of the conference on Youtube. They could have directly reached hundreds of millions of users without paying a dime for the broadcast!
  
  I was told they'll be going up on YouTube as well... but not sure when/how/where...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cram, 12 Apr 2009 @ 8:57pm

Hi Buzz

Thanks for your take.

"...someone USING that information illegally would certainly represent a loss to the owner since money is definitely NOT an infinite good."

The same argument can apply to content creators, right? If someone puts out a movie copy on the Internet "illegally" and that leads to a drop in movie hall attendance and DVD sales, then the creators can claim a loss, since money is certainly not an infinite good.

"Just because something is information means it is (not)a "good" for public consumption."

Who gets to decide that? Whoever "owns" that information or the general public? 'Coz it seems the mobs get to decide that in the case of music and movie makers.

I raised the point because people here keep pointing out that information is infinite, by nature, and should therefore be free. Perhaps we should now start specifying the kinds of information that are not infinite and therefore, not subject to the "basic economics" Mike loves to talk about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jan Hopmans, 13 Apr 2009 @ 5:58am
  
  Re:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jan Hopmans (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 6:11am
  
  Re:
  Who gets to decide that? Whoever "owns" that information or the general public? 'Coz it seems the mobs get to decide that in the case of music and movie makers.
  There is a difference between public and private information.
  The information to my bank account is private, if anybody would ever find them out they will be changed. Privacy is a scarce good. Once it's public, it's forever lost.
  Movies, music on the other hand are already public from the moment you have publiced them. Their sole purpose is the be spread around. It is as simple as that.
  
  The information itself is infinite, the privacy isn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Buzz, 13 Apr 2009 @ 4:00pm
  
  Re:
  @cram (#48) -- But you simply cannot "apply" the credit card analogy to content creators. In my example, the infinite good (the CC#) is used as a TOOL to steal the scarce good (the money). In your example, the content itself is an infinite good, and that is all people are interested in: the infinite good itself. Applying that back to the credit card example, that'd be like copying my credit card number but never withdrawing money from the account. Even if I am unaware that 500 people know my number, I suffer no damage until someone tries to spend my money. Also, your movie hall attendance claim is laughable because there is no evidence whatsoever that these pirates would have gone to the theater in the first place. Most of these pirates do what they do only because it is free.
  
  No one is suggesting that "information in any form" should be publicly available to anyone and everyone. We are referring to publicly marketed goods: books, music, movies, etc.
  
  Also, you make it sound like Mike is justifying piracy; he's not. He is pointing out that there is more market opportunity by setting these things free. The pirates simply represent the changing ideals in society; no one is condoning the breaking of laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jan Hopmans (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 5:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Also, you make it sound like Mike is justifying piracy; he's not.I am though. :)Nobody gets hurt, nothing is lost and all I do is promote the thing I wanted, help to get more people interested in it. If it wasn't for piracy I would never had discovered the 'scene' I am in right now. If it weren't for piracy I weren't ever so obsessed with it and the scene might be almost dead, it would never have gotten my concert tickets.
    There is one thing you can easily find; 'short sighted, get away & pretend it is not there' view of mind and that also happens to be the one thing I hate. If it weren't for piracy I wouldn't have ever spent any money on things I liked. Now: I am 19 and I listen to music from every era, I listen to every genre, and only pop is what I hate. I won more vinyl&CD's than my dad ever had, I just recently bought a CD, I have a bulletin board full of concert tickets.
    And without piracy there wouldn't be any of that. I would have just hated music all around. No I am not like the most, the most do as I hate. They go with the crowd.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cram, 12 Apr 2009 @ 9:08pm

"I doubt Mike has control over the presented formats; it is Mesh who is managing the video publishing."

So Mesh, which is all about connecting, sharing and inspiring, believes not in Youtube, which broadcasts for free, but iTunes, which makes tons of money selling infinite goods! Well, I never...Mike would do well to convince these people about true scarcities and giving away their infinite content for free!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 12:34am
  
  Re:
  So Mesh, which is all about connecting, sharing and inspiring, believes not in Youtube, which broadcasts for free, but iTunes, which makes tons of money selling infinite goods! Well, I never...Mike would do well to convince these people about true scarcities and giving away their infinite content for free!
  
  I was told that they would be putting them up in every format they could... including YouTube.
  
  The issue appears to be with mDialog, who was in charge of getting the content online. I'm hopeful that they'll offer more formats as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Myk, 12 Apr 2009 @ 10:10pm

Excellent presentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joannah, 13 Apr 2009 @ 12:12am

Piano
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Joannah

http://keyboardpiano.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick (profile), 13 Apr 2009 @ 8:16am

Wow, the most seminal Techdirt posts of the last 5 years or so in a great presentation! Congrats, Mike! :) I'll be sending this to many people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil Mike, 13 Apr 2009 @ 9:35am

Vid works fine.
iTunes to download for free link works.
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JMG, 13 Apr 2009 @ 11:28am

Why buy a book?
@WH:

So, why does Chris Anderson sell a book for about $27 retail? Because of the *format*; people like having a hand held, non-electronic, published book to read. That's it. And those books are *not* scarce goods. Easy distinction. If I go to a bookstore and buy The Long Tail, the copy I buy is a good that I have that you do not, unless you take it from me. If I just wanted the text, I could find that online for free in a few minutes, but the format wouldn't be the same.

Smart musicians have figured this out too. The difference between a CD and just the music tracks is that I may want the CD *format*, a hard copy of a disk that I can store and share with with friends. It may also have cover art, or fun extras (eg the Arcade Fire's "Neon Bible" came with vintage flip book animations). If I wanted the music, I could just download it. Why do I buy Arcade Fire albums? Because I'm a fan; I want the extras that come with the CD hard copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cram, 13 Apr 2009 @ 9:24pm

"But you simply cannot "apply" the credit card analogy to content creators. In my example, the infinite good (the CC#) is used as a TOOL to steal the scarce good (the money)."

Of course, and content creators could use (and I would say are using) the same defense wherein money is not directly stolen, but denied them through a fall in DVD sales.

"In your example, the content itself is an infinite good, and that is all people are interested in: the infinite good itself."

Sure they are interested, but are they interested in paying? Well, I guess they would if iTunes is doing the selling.

"Also, your movie hall attendance claim is laughable because there is no evidence whatsoever that these pirates would have gone to the theater in the first place."

Laughable? And what evidence do you have that pirates wouldn't have gone to the theater? Look, neither of us has any evidence, so let's not argue on that point.

"No one is suggesting that "information in any form" should be publicly available to anyone and everyone."

That's what people here do all the time. That's the reason I brought up the credit card point, even though it is quite different from music and movies.

"We are referring to publicly marketed goods: books, music, movies, etc."

Exactly what I want to be stated in black and white. All information is infinite, but not all infinite information should or can be free. Another example of infinite information that cannot be given away free is time-sensitive information - the kind used by traders of stocks, forex, oil, etc.

"Also, you make it sound like Mike is justifying piracy; he's not."

Oh no...I had that debate with Mike a long time back. Of course he doesn't condone or justify piracy, nor did I ever think he did. He was pitching for adoption of the freeconomic theory because of the benefits, while I argued creators would be better off with that model as piracy is something they have to reckon with, can't be eradicated, and won't bring back the money.

Also, if piracy didn't exist, there wouldn't be a need for this whole infinite/scrace debate. Corporates could go on minting money each time we heard a song or watched a movie online.

"The pirates simply represent the changing ideals in society; no one is condoning the breaking of laws."

Pirated have always existed - how does their existence reflect "changing ideals"? What exactly are those ideals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Buzz, 13 Apr 2009 @ 9:58pm
  
  Re:
  @cram -- Actually, I do have evidence. My own prior experience combined with fellow pirate comrades is an enlightening window into pirate psychology. We only ever went after stuff because it was free. If, for whatever reason, we could not obtain a particular product, we would simply move onto something else. We were never driven to the store as a result of our failure.
  
  I have long since given up such practices, but looking back, and I can name several instances where the exact OPPOSITE happened: pirating software led to purchases! I remember as a young teenager downloading the original Rollercoaster Tycoon game. Today, I own Rollercoaster Tycoon, all its expansion packs, Rollercoaster Tycoon 2, and all its expansion packs (all legitimately purchased).
  
  I have NEVER met someone who said, "Man, I really tried to download Program X, but I couldn't find it, so I went out and just bought it." Usually, the story ends another way, "I couldn't download Program X, so I just went and downloaded Program Y."
  
  Pirates represent the modern ideal of SHARING. Content creators vastly underestimate the power of viral distribution channels. Letting friends share content and provide essentially free advertising for the creator is so powerful, but companies are bent on selling individual copies the old fashioned way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cram, 14 Apr 2009 @ 12:27am

Hi Buzz

That was a great take on pirate pyschology. Thanks, mate.

"I have NEVER met someone who said, "Man, I really tried to download Program X, but I couldn't find it, so I went out and just bought it."

Could that be because the prices are way too high, or at least what the consumer perceives as too high? I can give you an Asian perspective: Microsoft is a major victim of piracy in Asia mainly because they price their Home editions steeply (quite possibly American price x Dolalr's value in local curency). Their sales are most likely to increase if only they slashes their prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Buzz, 14 Apr 2009 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  @cram -- Actually, yes! Price is a major factor. I can't speak for every pirate out there (many would never pay in a million years no matter how cheap it was), but if software were more realistically priced, it would sell better. I cite Valve's recent price-drop experiment as partial proof. Valve made MORE money from MORE customers by dropping prices 75% than when the games were sold at full price.
  
  Software companies (game companies in particular) used to justify box prices (around $50) on the premise that users represent a much smaller market than those of movie watchers (movies cost around $20 brand new). Today, that justification is not holding up so well anymore. Sure, gamers are likely still a smaller market but not worth a $20 to $60 leap!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jan Hopmans (profile), 14 Apr 2009 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re:
  I think that it could play a part in it, but mostly I just think the reason people keep using piracy to get their product is the simple 'Ease of Use' argument.
  
  It so damn easy. No payment, no walking out the door, just *Click & Download.*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruth, 14 Apr 2009 @ 8:28pm

Fendi
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Ruth

http://fendisite.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lrobbo (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 12:15pm

Looks like I was too late for this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]