I've been reading Lawrence Lessig's book, Free Culture. Great, great book about the argument for copyright reform.

This passage examines how current copyright law is inefficient in the context of how content acts on the web.

When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is not how best to involved the FBI. The first question should be whether this particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons? Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure the artists get paid without transforming America into a nation of felons?

Related posts

• No related posts.

I was reading this in the NY Times this morning and it struck me how powerful incentives have been historically. It supplants in my mind how important incentives can be to get the ball rolling. Check out this excerpt:

During a bubble, investment is spurred by technological progress and new economic assumptions — in this case about the price of oil, climate change and the desire to curb carbon emissions. Government does its part by using subsidies and the tax code to encourage the new industry. Just as in the 19th century the federal government offered land grants to inspire a railroad boom, Congress today is pushing an alternative energy boom by mandating ethanol use and giving generous tax credits for solar and wind-based energy. The investment has already led to more efficient solar panels, wind turbines and storage batteries.

Related posts

• No related posts.

I saw this video that my brother posted and although this sort of remixing is nothing new, it made an impression on me.

What I put together in my head is this: We all know that Apple makes products that help us produce content but more importantly it is making simple products that are helping us remix, reuse, and re-experience content.

The simplicity of iMovie, iTunes, and Garage Band make it easy to take content we're experiencing and mix it up and Apple markets it's computers accordingly.

iTunes already lets us mix it up and make custom ringtones. iMovie's emphesis is on the editing. It couldn't be easier to change the look of a video clip. The point here is that anyone can figure it out. Ultra simple editing. The same thing goes for Garage Band. Bands are even starting to let users download music stems directly into a Garage Bands session to remix.

When it comes to audio and video Apple makes two tiers production and editing software. Final Cut is the high-end video software, iMovie is for everyone. Logic is the high-end audio software, Garage Band is for everyone.

They've got all the bases covered with it comes to content production and editing. One set for the first generation creators, and one for the remixers.

I would venture to say that everyone knows what iMovie is and less know what Final Cut is. Yes, iMovie can come with your computer but that is just another indication of what people really *want*. People want to remix, reuse, rebroadcast, and re-experience content.

As someone who is currently involved with the creation of music, I think about how people experience and use music. When it comes to music, we're moving towards the listener having increased creative input into how the music is experienced and Apple is making that transition easy.

Thats all.

Related posts

• No related posts.

With the interchangeable body panels of the smart car and the flexible design of the GINA, I see the twinkling of a trend.



props: signal vs. noise

Related posts

• No related posts.

I went to see the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a few weeks back but had trouble really connecting with the story. It made me think about what I really connected with in this story when I was a kid. The Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, 007, and Star Wars movies were stories that I could live inside of. I believed them, I could make myself believe that they were actually happening somewhere in the world. And I wanted to go *there*.

These stories spoke to me. So, why didn't I feel the same about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Was it the CGI, the actors...?

It might of been some of that stuff, but overall it was translating the story to film in a way that made me believe it. Had I read the script for the Crystal Skull movie, I probably would have liked it more that the movie.

It's all in how that script translates to the screen in a way that is believable. In the prior Indy trilogy it felt like "they" worked hard at getting the story across. The design of the sets, the acting, the chemistry, it felt like the team worked hard at getting that story across on the screen and I could feel it. Kingdom didn't feel like it had that tangible feel to it.

Same thing goes for Back to the Future. That story is so over the top and of course it was hard to get that across to the screen. And Star Wars, we all know how hard the Lucas team worked at getting story to the screen. Building those sets, and models, and costumes was all a creative experience.

Where are today's stories that are on par with the Indy, BTTF, and Star Wars trilogies? I guess you could say that the Harry Potter series is on par but those movies are adaptations of books. What long running stories today are written for film?

I want a good story I can live inside of.

Related posts

• No related posts.