MySpace has been a wilder environment until now, yeah, but the company does, to steal a phrase from Matt, behave as gatekeepers -- particularly to third-party embeds. (On ArsTechnica, Jacqui Cheng calls it "OurSpace.") Here's an analogy that may or may not work. MySpace is a wild frat party, but the brothers at the door strictly control who goes in and out. With F8, Facebook has taken a different approach by offering developers an API and the necessary programming tools to make them partners. (Co-hosts?)
Last but quite importantly, MySpace has worked to keep anyone not named MySpace from using the site/subsites to make a profit.
I haven't spent much time on it, but it indeed paints a picture. Here's what it has comparing what was made by Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg with what other people take in -- Seidenberg's compensation in 2006 is equal to that of:
15 Nobel prize winners
56 average university presidents
53 U.S. presidents
86 AFL-CIO presidents
126 Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
721 average workers
1,989 minimum-wage earners
For the sake of full disclosure, I do some consulting work with the AFL-CIO, but mostly around the Employee Free Choice Act.
Yeah, I'll have to leave it to lipris to shed some light on what he meant, but I took it as a bit of kidding. In fact, in a way he was the motivation for this post. Here's what he wrote on Albany Project when he promoted Pete Sikora's post on the NYS telecom reform bill to the front page:
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not terribly literate in telecom issues, but I've been talking lately to folks who certainly are. Topic #1 these days is Assemblyman Brodsky's Telecommunications bill. It has been described to me by more than one person as the "gold standard" in state telecom legislation. Oddly, very few people seem to be paying much attention to it, including the Governor. I asked Pete to post about the bill so we can all learn about it and to start a conversation about what exactly makes it worthy of our support. Thanks to Pete for posting this.
Seems to me that he's interested in understanding the details of telecom reform, a big part of which is net neutrality, which is opposed in New York State and elsewhere by CWA.
I'm not going to apologize for trying to create understanding around an issue that some people might find confusing.
The gist of the post is that CWA's position and approach is inconsistent -- including it been internally inconsistent within the organizationn. You might have your approach and I mine, but I aim to do some small part in equiping us to understand these issues in a way that isn't only useful today, but arms us to create a more fair and balanced media and telecom landscape across the board.
Thanks so much for that fantastic link. Does seem to be quite a bit of controversy. We've got Connick and Marsalis arguing that there's a misperception at play here about how Habitat for Humanity works. Musicians' Village applications still have to go through the typical Habitat approval process, meaning that their credit needs to either meet a certain level at the time they apply or they need to work to rehabilitate their credit and debt situation before they can begin the process of getting into a house. That process might be particularly challenging for musicians, given the way the music business works and the fact that a lot of performance fees seem to paid in cash. Connick and Marsalis stress the point that the Habitat model isn't a house give-away program but rather a chance, through sweat-equity, to buy a house through an interest-free loan.
It seems to me that there's maybe been a breach of trust on the point that actual musicians are currently a minority in the "village." Connick and Marsalis argue that, hey, under federal law, Habitat can't discriminate potential homeowners on the basis of profession or artistic genius, though the journalist responsible for this terrific article in offBeat questions whether that is an accurate reading of the Fair Housing Act. Marsalis says that it's a "musicians' village in a peripheral sense" and Connick offers this gem:
The girl who starred with me in The Pajama Game, Kelli O'Hara, comes from Elk City, Oklahoma, but I don't see any elk there, you know what I'm saying? It's a name; let's be real.
I'm not sure what to do with that. Some of the promotional language used to solicit funds for the program seemed to take a much more literal approach -- you know, that people who play music would be the ones living in the village.
It would be interesting, not to mention useful, for Connick/Marsalis/Habitat to articulate a bit better what exactly their vision for Musicians' Village might be. What really is the point? Is the goal to create a place where young and old musicians jam (do people still say "jam") together in the park? Or is that the local eatery will be called "Jazz Cafe" or something and there will be a mural of Louis Armstrong on the side of the post office?
I may well be reading too much into this, but listening to Connick and Marsalis and criticisms of the Musicians' Village like this from Ashley Morris seems to raise a lot of the tensions and undercurrents running through the unique context that is rebuilding in New Orleans. Amazing to see on a somewhat micro level just how different people really think of their city and the people they live with.
You're onto something with "oooh, scary, it's the intartubes."
That digital songs can be exact and perfect copies of the original recording (once it's gone digital) is intensely frightening to the RIAA, and couple that with the wicked easy and difficult-to-control distribution models introduced by the Internet -- RIAA argued that digital audio broadcasting created a "perfect storm" for their industry. I wasn't around then, but from what I gather the argument was made that performance rights for artists was one way to compensate for this increased risk. Congress bought the argument with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act in 1995 and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Beyond that, you can look at the digital performance rights for artists as just the first step that the RIAA was able to take when it had Congress worked up about threat posed by the Internet. They'd certainly like to expand the same royalty model to terrestrial radio:
The digital performance right in the U.S. was a good beginning, but the next step is to secure a full performance right ... A full performance right also will ensure a level playing field for music services in the U.S., where currently certain digital services like XM and SIRIUS satellite radio and webcasters like Live 365, AOL and MSN must pay royalties, but other broadcasters, like traditional radio and television stations are allowed to earn huge profits from playing recordings without compensating artists and labels.
But I think a couple things help to stir the pot, as you say. One is that, as far as I know, there is a partial match of genes -- meaning that a song that's picked for you will have some subset of characteristics that the key song has. One song with extensive vamping and acoustic rhythm guitars might pull up another from a different part of the musical universe that you might not otherwise explore or know you might like. Another is that it exposes you to younger artists who might build on a certain style but evolve it in new ways -- Pandora can sorta track musical influence, I'd imagine. I do think, though, that it's probably not going to turn a folk fan into a hip hop lover, no.
Those are just some thoughts. I'd love to ask Tim about it, though.
What's it supposed to be? "Breach"? If so, eggcorn, or mispelling?
Seems to me that an eggcorn is more like how an old high school friend of mine from New Jersey would say "let's play it by year." I asked her about it once, and she said, "yeah, that's how the saying goes, like, 'let's just take it year by year.'"