Boulder already has our tech-friendly representative. Jared Polis is our US Representative. He was a very early Internet multi-millioniare (or perhaps billionaire if he actually got what it was reported he got when he sold the company, bluemountain.com). Jared made enough money that he could essentially fund his own campaign. And once he won the Democratic primary, he was pretty much guaranteed to win the election because the district he represents is pretty liberal.
As I pointed out in the comments, you were not listening to everyone. When your #1 reason is "I want stuff for free," you've already closed your ears.
I was outlining arguments from least persuasive to most persuasive. There are people who want content for free.
You really should take a gander at Google.org.
I'm very familiar with what Google has done in terms of clean tech. I also know they have cut back recently.
I have actually been a big fan of Google. I no longer need to keep massive amounts of print materials on hand for research because I can find so much online now. Google has enabled me to massively downsize my life.
And I think YouTube is the best thing that has happened to the music industry in recent years. The easier Google can make uploading music, the better. The licensing issues have been complicated and I think Google is pushing in the edge in that regard, which I think is good.
But the privacy issues and the lobbying have taken the company down a notch in my mind. I actually don't blame them at all for the lobbying. I've just become more aware of the self-interest element of their activities as the lobbying cranked up. I'm just as wary of what big tech can become as what I have seen other companies become in the past.
The excitement over "big" in the stock market shows me that the players have changed, but the mentality hasn't.
I wish Facebook would get with the message. The company seems to want to control the Internet and run everything through Facebook. True, no one has to use Facebook, but what does it say about our perceptions of the Internet when we value such a company so highly?
This article totally explains how my thinking about tech self-interests started to take shape as I watched the PIPA/SOPA discussions. I've had a strong distrust of Facebook for nearly as long as I have used it. Now I am starting to watch my back with other Internet companies, too. That doesn't mean I have sympathy for big media. It's just that increasingly I have less trust in the "new" big companies, too.
How SOPA and PIPA did and didn’t change how Washington lobbying works - Sunlight Foundation: And in this respect there is something sui generis about the anti-SOPA lobbying activity. It’s hard to imagine a similar coordinated effort to advocate, say, for a more progressive tax code that no longer taxed passive investment income at a significantly lower rate than salaried income. This kind of spontaneous uprising is almost certainly limited to issues that hit the Internet content providers where they live. Take a step back, and it looks a lot like the kind of self-interested advocacy that has always dominated politics, with private interests on both sides miming the familiar symbolic tropes of the people and the public good.
Oh, speaking of IP issues, I am also not happy about GMOs. It's become a big issue in Boulder. People want to stop GMOs from being grown on public land here. And for that matter, we're happy whenever a country bans GMOs or sues companies for selling them.
So I am very much not a supporter of allowing companies to patent genes/plants/etc. I hope the anti-IP crusade takes on this issue in a big, big way.
Amongst my Boulder friends, anti-fracking and anti-GMOs are both big issues. I'd love to see Google take on Monsanto, for example. I doubt that it will happen because it's not a cause that affects Google's bottom line.
Mike has other companies/activities than just Techdirt, right? I remember the news conference at Google, but saying there have never been any cases or sponsorship by Google doesn't really tell me anything. There are so many more ways to connect.
As for the IP laws, I did feel a strong case hadn't been made about why they have been bad (I'm not necessarily in favor of them, but some of the arguments against them haven't been well presented). I think the "it's about freedom of the Internet" was a great spin and it did work. Personally it has never been my cause, so I have stayed out of the debate. (I'm far more interested in stopping fracking across the street from my local elementary school and finding sustainable ways to keep the world going for the next 100 years. IP laws pro or con are very far down on my lists of concerns.) I thought PIPA/SOPA were bad ideas, but during the barrage of coverage, after awhile I also began to see why Google in particular might be against them. They are a bother. If I were Google, I would be trying hard to stop them.
There's another thought I have had recently as I follow along the news and the politics of it all. People are beginning to see Google, Facebook, and their mobile networks as utilities. Telling citizens they don't want censorship works well to get them riled up, but it also gets them thinking about how they don't want these pipelines to be used to gather info on them. Sure you can point out that if they don't want to be monitored, don't use Google or Facebook, but these two companies have become so ubiquitous that people are thinking these are just public tools and shouldn't be used to spy on them. People are getting radicalized about the Internet and the displeasure over pro-PIPA/SOPA will extend to any big tech companies expecting too much control. Stories are coming out daily now picking apart any big tech company that isn't clearly disclosing everything it does.
I like Google more than Facebook or Apple, but between the PIPA/SOPA and the privacy issues, I see it more as a self-interested company than I did a few months ago. In other words, I understood the fight, but it has also raised my watchfulness over what big tech companies want to control. I see them as business interests rather than companies looking out for me. As one person I follow on Twitter noted, "just because I am against PIPA/SOPA, that doesn't mean I'm for these big tech companies." I think it was very smart for Silicon Valley to get mobilized and look out for its self-interests in DC. But now I am watching to see what other issues will be pitched to DC and how I feel about it. I'd like a much more realistic stance on immigration, and I know many tech companies want that, so my interests and their interests will be aligned on that issue. I also want DC to be supportive of clean tech. I hope Silicon Valley use its influence there, but I'm not sure it will.
I would prefer than we eliminated paid influence of politicians and elections, but we can't, I hope paid influence supports the causes I care about.
What I think is a stretch is to suggest anti-PIPA/SOPA forces will now become Republicans. But I have seen it being suggested. That assumes people care more about this than many other issues. If the Republican Party were a true libertarian party, sure I can see some people making the switch. But it isn't and it will never be as long as money calls the shots. It will just be a battle of which laws favor which paid interests.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google and Techdirt
Personally, there's nothing to "let go".
What I am saying is that if you don't know the answer, there's no need to respond. I'm learning how sensitive a subject this is for those you who responded. It would have been more of a non-issue for me if there had been no "in defense of Mike" comments.
This thread was about Google lobbying, and I have wondered what Mike's relationship, past or present, might be with Google. If it is touchy for me to even raise the question, it generates more questions in my mind than if there had been no responses at all.
I was just asking a question. You all have been going "there's no proof" as if it would be damning if Google had been a client of Mike or one of his companies.
For anything I have ever written, I would be happy to respond to questions such as (1) whether I knew the people I was writing about, (2) whether they have compensated me in some fashion (e.g., anyone who has ever gotten into an event free as media is accepting a form of compensation by not paying the fee), or (3) any other question.
I have travel writer friends and people always ask if they got a free trip to the place they were covering. (Some do accept freebies, others pay their own way or have their expenses paid by the publication.)
I've done PR for some musicians and in nearly all cases I intentionally have done it pro bono so I can honestly say that I am touting these musicians because I believe in them, not because they have paid me.
And so on. Talk to any writer/blogger and unless they acting dodgy, they will tell you what their relationship is to the people/companies/stories they cover. That's why many of them bend over backwards to let you know if there is any sort of connection, even if it wouldn't influence the story in the least (e.g. "We were childhood friends." "We attend the same church." "I used to work at the company." "He's my brother-in-law." "I own stock in the company."). In fact, it's such a common discussion amongst writers that I'm surprised there is any sort of defensiveness here. If you guys don't know the answer, which it appears you don't, just let it go.
I wasn't talking about AdWords. I was thinking more along the line of business/client or fee-for-service relationship. As far as I am aware, AdWords does not involve any human contact. I was asking if Google had ever hired or paid Mike or any of his companies for any kinds of services. Just curious. It's an extremely common question asked of bloggers and journalists. For that matter, it's often asked of lots of people. "Have you ever been paid by the company you are talking about?" If anything, the Internet is encouraging total transparency if that is possible. People are starting to expect it and demand it if they don't see it. You all have been reading the issues concerning Google, Facebook, Pinterest, Path, and so on. Companies being held to a standard of total accountability.
Today's big tech companies are being held accountable now, just like other big companies have been in the past. Current issues: Apple and China. Apple and control. Google and patents. Google and privacy. Facebook and privacy.
There is a growing awareness that small companies grow into big companies and begin acting like big companies. People then catch on to these new power brokers and protest.
This becomes more evident when companies go public and make decisions based on the stock market rather than on "good citizen values."
I'm seeing more negative stories about Google, Apple, and Facebook. And that isn't surprising. They are big companies acting in their self-interests, which is not always what users want from them.
Re: Re: I'm looking forward to everyone creating their own art/content
I suppose talent is very subjective, but I have seen/heard/read creations from novices which are as good as what comes from "professionals." Much of what goes viral on YouTube doesn't display "talent" but becomes hugely popular for whatever reason. In other words, put the right tools in anyone's hands and you might or might not get something worthy. Based on what becomes popular, I don't believe there is a talented elite that is more deserving than the masses. Instead, let's turn the masses into creators. Yes, there are some creative geniuses, but I don't think popular culture is driven by them.
And if political discussions are any indication, a lot of Americans don't want a world driven by the talented. They distrust them. Instead, they want to see a world that looks like them.
I'm very excited by the democratization of creativity.
I'm looking forward to everyone creating their own art/content
I don't think the direct-to-fan discussions are nearly as exciting as the explosion of technology that lets everyone create for themselves. As the tools get better, easier to use, and cheap or free, the average person can do what used to be only accessible to those with money. And smart technology is even eliminating the need to have talent or years of training. There are a lot of applications that require only point-and-click skills and yet turn out great stuff.
I have wondered about a connection between Mike and Google. If there is, I have no problem with it (business is business), but if money has been changing hands, it would be interesting to know.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The music itself is largely irrelevant
The lines are blurring between what it takes to be a successful musician and what takes to make it in any creative field. I call it "the rise of the creative thing." Kickstarter has popularized the concept of free-standing projects which aren't easily defined by media. You've got musicians who serve dinners to fans to raise money. You've got musicians selling limited edition books to raise money. One artist on Kickstarter was selling lip prints. It's a creative free-for-all, which I like.
These days everyone is a musician because most of us possess music-making tools that we use to one degree or another (even curation of our music collection has become a form of music creation). And what musicians sell (e.g., clothing, experiences, artwork, performance art) all run together into "creative things," so there's less and less standalone music. It's whatever anyone wants to package it with and the packaging can be more creative than the music. If a musician sells his own line of chocolate, is it the music or the chocolate drives that the sale?
In time people may think of themselves as "creatives" rather than confining themselves to one particular creative field.
who cares? they are making their art and money at the same time. that's all that really matters.
It's an on-going topic among musicians and industry writers/advisers. Typically musicians are told to keep practicing music until they can write and perform great stuff. But as OK Go demonstrates, you don't necessarily have to be a great musician to have a career. You probably need to be good at something, but the music itself and your ability to create it could be secondary. In other words, we could say, "Want to be a successful musician? Then learn how to make clever videos."
In my mind OK Go is really a video development company. The videos are attention-grabbing, so they get hired for that. To me the music itself isn't really much to speak of, although I have talked to people who have enjoyed their live shows.
So I guess it boils down to this: Are their fees for the videos their primary source of income these days? Or are the videos mainly a break-even proposition to drive ticket-purchasing fan to shows?
It's relevant to the overall discussion of music because some people insist you can't make it in music without being exceptionally musically talented, while others believe a strong marketing sense can trump musical skills (i.e. branding over music).
On the post: SOPA Strikedown Aftermath: Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People
Re: Re: Wouldn't it be great
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
I was outlining arguments from least persuasive to most persuasive. There are people who want content for free.
You really should take a gander at Google.org.
I'm very familiar with what Google has done in terms of clean tech. I also know they have cut back recently.
I have actually been a big fan of Google. I no longer need to keep massive amounts of print materials on hand for research because I can find so much online now. Google has enabled me to massively downsize my life.
And I think YouTube is the best thing that has happened to the music industry in recent years. The easier Google can make uploading music, the better. The licensing issues have been complicated and I think Google is pushing in the edge in that regard, which I think is good.
But the privacy issues and the lobbying have taken the company down a notch in my mind. I actually don't blame them at all for the lobbying. I've just become more aware of the self-interest element of their activities as the lobbying cranked up. I'm just as wary of what big tech can become as what I have seen other companies become in the past.
The excitement over "big" in the stock market shows me that the players have changed, but the mentality hasn't.
On the post: SOPA Strikedown Aftermath: Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People
Re: To summarize...
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re:
How SOPA and PIPA did and didn’t change how Washington lobbying works - Sunlight Foundation: And in this respect there is something sui generis about the anti-SOPA lobbying activity. It’s hard to imagine a similar coordinated effort to advocate, say, for a more progressive tax code that no longer taxed passive investment income at a significantly lower rate than salaried income. This kind of spontaneous uprising is almost certainly limited to issues that hit the Internet content providers where they live. Take a step back, and it looks a lot like the kind of self-interested advocacy that has always dominated politics, with private interests on both sides miming the familiar symbolic tropes of the people and the public good.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re:
So I am very much not a supporter of allowing companies to patent genes/plants/etc. I hope the anti-IP crusade takes on this issue in a big, big way.
Amongst my Boulder friends, anti-fracking and anti-GMOs are both big issues. I'd love to see Google take on Monsanto, for example. I doubt that it will happen because it's not a cause that affects Google's bottom line.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re:
As for the IP laws, I did feel a strong case hadn't been made about why they have been bad (I'm not necessarily in favor of them, but some of the arguments against them haven't been well presented). I think the "it's about freedom of the Internet" was a great spin and it did work. Personally it has never been my cause, so I have stayed out of the debate. (I'm far more interested in stopping fracking across the street from my local elementary school and finding sustainable ways to keep the world going for the next 100 years. IP laws pro or con are very far down on my lists of concerns.) I thought PIPA/SOPA were bad ideas, but during the barrage of coverage, after awhile I also began to see why Google in particular might be against them. They are a bother. If I were Google, I would be trying hard to stop them.
There's another thought I have had recently as I follow along the news and the politics of it all. People are beginning to see Google, Facebook, and their mobile networks as utilities. Telling citizens they don't want censorship works well to get them riled up, but it also gets them thinking about how they don't want these pipelines to be used to gather info on them. Sure you can point out that if they don't want to be monitored, don't use Google or Facebook, but these two companies have become so ubiquitous that people are thinking these are just public tools and shouldn't be used to spy on them. People are getting radicalized about the Internet and the displeasure over pro-PIPA/SOPA will extend to any big tech companies expecting too much control. Stories are coming out daily now picking apart any big tech company that isn't clearly disclosing everything it does.
I like Google more than Facebook or Apple, but between the PIPA/SOPA and the privacy issues, I see it more as a self-interested company than I did a few months ago. In other words, I understood the fight, but it has also raised my watchfulness over what big tech companies want to control. I see them as business interests rather than companies looking out for me. As one person I follow on Twitter noted, "just because I am against PIPA/SOPA, that doesn't mean I'm for these big tech companies." I think it was very smart for Silicon Valley to get mobilized and look out for its self-interests in DC. But now I am watching to see what other issues will be pitched to DC and how I feel about it. I'd like a much more realistic stance on immigration, and I know many tech companies want that, so my interests and their interests will be aligned on that issue. I also want DC to be supportive of clean tech. I hope Silicon Valley use its influence there, but I'm not sure it will.
I would prefer than we eliminated paid influence of politicians and elections, but we can't, I hope paid influence supports the causes I care about.
What I think is a stretch is to suggest anti-PIPA/SOPA forces will now become Republicans. But I have seen it being suggested. That assumes people care more about this than many other issues. If the Republican Party were a true libertarian party, sure I can see some people making the switch. But it isn't and it will never be as long as money calls the shots. It will just be a battle of which laws favor which paid interests.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google and Techdirt
What I am saying is that if you don't know the answer, there's no need to respond. I'm learning how sensitive a subject this is for those you who responded. It would have been more of a non-issue for me if there had been no "in defense of Mike" comments.
This thread was about Google lobbying, and I have wondered what Mike's relationship, past or present, might be with Google. If it is touchy for me to even raise the question, it generates more questions in my mind than if there had been no responses at all.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google and Techdirt
For anything I have ever written, I would be happy to respond to questions such as (1) whether I knew the people I was writing about, (2) whether they have compensated me in some fashion (e.g., anyone who has ever gotten into an event free as media is accepting a form of compensation by not paying the fee), or (3) any other question.
I have travel writer friends and people always ask if they got a free trip to the place they were covering. (Some do accept freebies, others pay their own way or have their expenses paid by the publication.)
I've done PR for some musicians and in nearly all cases I intentionally have done it pro bono so I can honestly say that I am touting these musicians because I believe in them, not because they have paid me.
And so on. Talk to any writer/blogger and unless they acting dodgy, they will tell you what their relationship is to the people/companies/stories they cover. That's why many of them bend over backwards to let you know if there is any sort of connection, even if it wouldn't influence the story in the least (e.g. "We were childhood friends." "We attend the same church." "I used to work at the company." "He's my brother-in-law." "I own stock in the company."). In fact, it's such a common discussion amongst writers that I'm surprised there is any sort of defensiveness here. If you guys don't know the answer, which it appears you don't, just let it go.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google and Techdirt
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Google and Techdirt
On the post: Ex-FTC Officials Remind Current FTC Officials That They're Supposed To Protect Consumers, Not Competitors
Re: Re: Re: Google is on a lot of radars
CHART OF THE DAY: What If Apple Transferred $1 Billion In Profits To Foxconn Workers?
On the post: Ex-FTC Officials Remind Current FTC Officials That They're Supposed To Protect Consumers, Not Competitors
Re: Re: Google is on a lot of radars
There is a growing awareness that small companies grow into big companies and begin acting like big companies. People then catch on to these new power brokers and protest.
This becomes more evident when companies go public and make decisions based on the stock market rather than on "good citizen values."
On the post: Ex-FTC Officials Remind Current FTC Officials That They're Supposed To Protect Consumers, Not Competitors
Re: Google is on a lot of radars
Two-Face: Will Google Become The New Patent Villain? | PandoDaily
On the post: Ex-FTC Officials Remind Current FTC Officials That They're Supposed To Protect Consumers, Not Competitors
Google is on a lot of radars
Here's a story today about Google.
Google Wants a 2.25% Cut of Every iPhone Sale
On the post: The Rise Of The 'Professional Amateur' And The Fall Of Gated, Exclusionary 'Clubs'
Re: Re: I'm looking forward to everyone creating their own art/content
And if political discussions are any indication, a lot of Americans don't want a world driven by the talented. They distrust them. Instead, they want to see a world that looks like them.
I'm very excited by the democratization of creativity.
On the post: The Rise Of The 'Professional Amateur' And The Fall Of Gated, Exclusionary 'Clubs'
I'm looking forward to everyone creating their own art/content
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Google and Techdirt
On the post: OK Go Shows, Once Again, How Content Is Advertising... And How There Are Many Revenue Streams For Musicians
Re: Re: Re: Re: The music itself is largely irrelevant
These days everyone is a musician because most of us possess music-making tools that we use to one degree or another (even curation of our music collection has become a form of music creation). And what musicians sell (e.g., clothing, experiences, artwork, performance art) all run together into "creative things," so there's less and less standalone music. It's whatever anyone wants to package it with and the packaging can be more creative than the music. If a musician sells his own line of chocolate, is it the music or the chocolate drives that the sale?
In time people may think of themselves as "creatives" rather than confining themselves to one particular creative field.
On the post: OK Go Shows, Once Again, How Content Is Advertising... And How There Are Many Revenue Streams For Musicians
Re: Re: The music itself is largely irrelevant
It's an on-going topic among musicians and industry writers/advisers. Typically musicians are told to keep practicing music until they can write and perform great stuff. But as OK Go demonstrates, you don't necessarily have to be a great musician to have a career. You probably need to be good at something, but the music itself and your ability to create it could be secondary. In other words, we could say, "Want to be a successful musician? Then learn how to make clever videos."
On the post: OK Go Shows, Once Again, How Content Is Advertising... And How There Are Many Revenue Streams For Musicians
The music itself is largely irrelevant
So I guess it boils down to this: Are their fees for the videos their primary source of income these days? Or are the videos mainly a break-even proposition to drive ticket-purchasing fan to shows?
It's relevant to the overall discussion of music because some people insist you can't make it in music without being exceptionally musically talented, while others believe a strong marketing sense can trump musical skills (i.e. branding over music).
Next >>