Donut Freakout!

flickr_give_us_donuts, originally uploaded by Automatt.

When I first heard the terms of use with Flickr videos, I called a friend and Flickr user to discuss.

"It's lame," I said.

"I agree," replied my friend. "Why would I pay $25.00 a year (which I already do) to post a 90 second video when I can post a 10 minute one on YouTube for free."

Then this morning Chris Albrecht from NewTeeVee blogged about the Flickr revolution.

Yup. It's lame. Pass me the donuts.

The Value of Content

Free place to sleep, originally uploaded by PsychoRatDog.

It's nice to be referenced in Jonathan Handel's post entitled "Is Content Worthless?" on the HuffPo as a "commentator" in his final paragraph.

I've been quoting Steven Brand for awhile now in which he said at the first Hackers' Conference in 1984: "On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.

I maybe just a mere commentator, but I'm not the only one. Handel himself said recently at the Tech Policy Summit: "The value of content on the Internet is being driven to zero."

IMHO, Handel lays out a very good analysis as to the current state of value of content in his post. However, other commentators argue that content is not king. FWIW, Jupiter Research released a study a few weeks ago and asked "How is value captured for content in the Internet television value chain?". It costs $1,500 to download a PDF file on this study, conducted by analysts Bobby Tulsiani David Card, Ina Mitskaviets. At that price, I need to rethink the notion that information wants to be free. Obviously somebody is making money at it.

Now can I get a (free) hug?

Q&A with Kenny Ziffren

No more television ..., originally uploaded by Toomi.

This morning Nikki Finke posted on Deadline Hollywood Daily a Q&A with consultant and attorney Kenny Ziffren in which he discusses the contract negotiations he did on behalf of the DGA with the AMPTP.

His final quote is probably the most interesting to me:

"On the TV side, it’s less clear but I believe that as representative of talent, I don’t want a lot of disintermediation. I want there to be strong networks that are willing to spend money on high-quality drama, sitcoms, and other genres. And if we’re moving to the three- and five-minute program, it concerns me that in one sense, viewers are being deprived of good stories that take time to tell, and on the other side, that the talent pool would be shrinking because there won’t be enough support for the long-form (if you can call 22 minutes long).

Of course he doesn't want disintermediation because it will cost him his relationship with his clients. But don't give me this crap that the viewers are being deprived of good stories. The average sitcom runs 22 minutes so breaking it up into acts (and inserting commercials) is nothing new. Put, say, three seven minute episodes together and voila! You have a story arc. As an entertainment attorney, I'd expect him to know this. But then again, math is hard.

The viewers are not the ones that have anything to lose -- in fact viewers have more choices in what they consume. It's the networks that are dinosaurs that need to evolve or die. I have no doubt that attorneys, much like cockroaches, will adapt and survive in the age of information.