A few weeks ago, I was without internet or cable for nearly 36 hours. It was a mildly frustrating experience to say the least. I found plenty of things to do, but I kept thinking "Oh, I can do this-- Wait, I need the internet for that." I couldn't check my bank account, check on prescription refills, or watch Netflix or Hulu. It was a little disturbing to realize exactly how much I relied on the internet for actual important things.
On the other hand, I was productive. And since then, I've started trying to stay off the internet on Sundays. I go through and make sure I've responded to or otherwise dealt with all emails, Facebook messages, and so on. My latest thing is to also mark everything read in my Google Reader because a lot of the things I follow are somewhat time sensitive, so hanging on to them for a month in hopes of getting through the 1000+ unread items is pointless, since it's old news by then and I've probably heard it somewhere else by that point anyway.
I've also added a no internet after midnight rule. (Except tonight, apparently, since it's 1AM and I'm typing away.) Overall, I'm pretty happy with it. I'm not addicted to the internet. To borrow the old saying, I'm not an addict, I can quit whenever I want to. The problem is that I don't want to quit. (I also had this problem with Sims, for the record.) I can't count the number of times where I've looked at the time, realized I should really get off the internet, and then looked for one more thing to do on the internet. One more pointless thing that I didn't even really want to do. So I'm on the internet for another hour or two with absolutely nothing to show for it.
My new system is pretty simple. From the time I get up in the morning until midnight, I can use the computer for whatever I want. After midnight, that's it. Computer goes off and I find something else to do, like read a book, watch a show, clean, or anything that doesn't involve the computer. This also goes for iPads, Blackberries, iPod Touches, Kindle Fires, and related devices, though I do watch Netflix after midnight. I guess that could hypothetically lead to me spending eighteen hours looking at Youtube videos, but that never seems to happen. Usually, I'm doing something all day and don't get on the computer until evening. I check my mail, catch up on Twitter and Google Reader, and then it's internet free time. Interestingly enough, I think it's cut down on my time wasters. I find myself avoiding things that are going to suck me in for three hours because oh, look, it's already 11:15 and I need to start thinking about shutting down the computer.
This probably won't always be practical. For instance, if there's something time sensitive that has to be done by 8 AM Monday morning, I'm not going to shut the computer down at midnight on Saturday and just relax for the rest of the weekend....though hopefully ,the "get off the internet" mindset will reduce wasted time. Overall, though, I think a regular forced internet time outs are a good thing. It reminds me that I can take a day off the internet and I'll survive, the internet will survive, and (most likely) nothing disastrous will have occurred.
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Saturday, June 4, 2011
A few days ago, I came across a short story called Nanolaw with My Daughter. The premise was interesting: In a world where people were literally being nickeled and dimed with lawsuits, a father sat down and taught his daughter how to answer her own lawsuits. In a day, the daughter received over fifty suits, only a few over a dollar, and several dealing with copyright. It should have been ridiculous (you hum a song walking down the street, the copyright hold catches it on video and demands a few cents because of your infringement), but a couple of stories this week made it seem less so. First, there was a proposed bill that would make it a crime to embed a copyrighted Youtube video without permission. Second, Tennessee passed a bill that makes it a crime to share your entertainment subscription login information. Tennessee's governor supported this by "citing the large record industry presence in Nashville." The article mentioned that the bill was aimed at hackers and thieves who resell passwords, but made sure to mention a couples cases where college students share Netflix login info with everyone they know. Techdirt posted an interesting commentary (RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends).
This bothers me for a couple of reasons. First, based on my understanding of how Netflix and other providers license content, the recording or movie industry isn't losing money if subscriptions are shared. Netflix pays a yearly fee for licenses (for instance, $30 million for Starz content). Period. Starz doesn't get paid more if Netflix has more accounts or less if they have fewer. In other words, Starz gets $30 million a year, even if everyone with a Netflix account shares their password with everyone they know. I assume that other companies license content in a similar way. So I'm a little unclear as to how the RIAA is claiming that sharing subscription info is resulting in lost revenue. At most, Netflix and Rhapsody are losing subscription revenue.
Second, why is this being criminalized? Looking over Rhapsody's terms of use, only the user can access the service. Netflix limits usage to members of the immediate household. Obviously, sharing login information violates the terms of use and could result in an account being terminated, in addition to possible civil liability. Furthermore, entertainment services already have protections in place to prevent massive password sharing. Rhapsody will only stream to one device at a time and Rhapsody to Go limits the user to three devices. Netflix only allows the user to have six authorized devices as well as the number of devices that can stream simultaneously (between one and four devices, depending on the plan). That alone would probably dissuade most users from sharing login information. It's all well and good to let ten of your best buddies watch their favorite shows and listen to their favorite songs for free with your subscriptions when it doesn't affect you, but when it means that you might not be able to use the service you're paying for, it's a lot less tempting.
Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing about how the recording industry's profits are down and how movie piracy hurts corn farmers. Like most people, I consume a lot of media and I'm a huge fan of streaming media. I subscribe to Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Rhapsody To Go and I come out ahead for doing it. In fact, since I subscribed to Rhapsody to Go at the beginning of this year, I haven't bought any music. I'm still buying DVDs, but I'm definitely spending less as Netflix increases their catalog. I still buy games and books, although I'm using the library more for books and I would happily pay a reasonable monthly subscription if I found a good streaming game service or if I could download all the ebook I wanted.
In short, I understand and accept that the entertainment industry has to make money to continue producing works. I also understand that consumers have to pay for content. However, just because the entertainment industry likes the model where the only way hear a song is to either listen to the radio for hours or pay $15 or more to buy the entire CD for one song doesn't mean that they can turn back time and recreate that model. Like it or not, today's consumers are accustomed to being able to either buy songs a la carte or pay a flat fee for all you can eat. If the RIAA's profits are decreasing because of this (and I'm skeptical as to whether they are), then maybe they should be grateful that they managed to get away with overcharging consumers for so many years and try to figure out how to make a fair amount with the current model. Personally, if I had to go back to the days of buying an entire album to get one song (assuming, of course, I could even find the album in a store), I would probably just stop buying music completely.
This bothers me for a couple of reasons. First, based on my understanding of how Netflix and other providers license content, the recording or movie industry isn't losing money if subscriptions are shared. Netflix pays a yearly fee for licenses (for instance, $30 million for Starz content). Period. Starz doesn't get paid more if Netflix has more accounts or less if they have fewer. In other words, Starz gets $30 million a year, even if everyone with a Netflix account shares their password with everyone they know. I assume that other companies license content in a similar way. So I'm a little unclear as to how the RIAA is claiming that sharing subscription info is resulting in lost revenue. At most, Netflix and Rhapsody are losing subscription revenue.
Second, why is this being criminalized? Looking over Rhapsody's terms of use, only the user can access the service. Netflix limits usage to members of the immediate household. Obviously, sharing login information violates the terms of use and could result in an account being terminated, in addition to possible civil liability. Furthermore, entertainment services already have protections in place to prevent massive password sharing. Rhapsody will only stream to one device at a time and Rhapsody to Go limits the user to three devices. Netflix only allows the user to have six authorized devices as well as the number of devices that can stream simultaneously (between one and four devices, depending on the plan). That alone would probably dissuade most users from sharing login information. It's all well and good to let ten of your best buddies watch their favorite shows and listen to their favorite songs for free with your subscriptions when it doesn't affect you, but when it means that you might not be able to use the service you're paying for, it's a lot less tempting.
Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing about how the recording industry's profits are down and how movie piracy hurts corn farmers. Like most people, I consume a lot of media and I'm a huge fan of streaming media. I subscribe to Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Rhapsody To Go and I come out ahead for doing it. In fact, since I subscribed to Rhapsody to Go at the beginning of this year, I haven't bought any music. I'm still buying DVDs, but I'm definitely spending less as Netflix increases their catalog. I still buy games and books, although I'm using the library more for books and I would happily pay a reasonable monthly subscription if I found a good streaming game service or if I could download all the ebook I wanted.
In short, I understand and accept that the entertainment industry has to make money to continue producing works. I also understand that consumers have to pay for content. However, just because the entertainment industry likes the model where the only way hear a song is to either listen to the radio for hours or pay $15 or more to buy the entire CD for one song doesn't mean that they can turn back time and recreate that model. Like it or not, today's consumers are accustomed to being able to either buy songs a la carte or pay a flat fee for all you can eat. If the RIAA's profits are decreasing because of this (and I'm skeptical as to whether they are), then maybe they should be grateful that they managed to get away with overcharging consumers for so many years and try to figure out how to make a fair amount with the current model. Personally, if I had to go back to the days of buying an entire album to get one song (assuming, of course, I could even find the album in a store), I would probably just stop buying music completely.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Make It Easy for Me to Give You My Money
I don't know if I'm in the minority for this, but for me, the initial charm of Napster circa wasn't the fact that I could suddenly get music for free. What I loved about it was the fact that, despite living in an area with limited radio variety, I had access to a wide variety of music. Before that, no matter how much someone raved over and album and told me how much I'd love that artist, it was hard to justify spending $15 for a CD I'd never heard. More than that, though, even if I was willing to take the risk or if I was familiar with the artist, my only option for getting the CD was to either special order it at a store or order it through the mail or online. And, of course, bear in mind that ordering online wasn't nearly as easy in 1999 as it is now.
Suddenly, though, I was able to download MP3s and check out the albums that people recommended to me. Granted, it was only three songs at a time and each of those songs had about a thirty minute download time, but who cares? I was able to listen to artists that I loved but most people hadn't heard of. And I'm also proud to say that, for the most part, if I liked the music, I bought the album eventually...usually when I could finally find it. (There was also the matter of rare songs that, to this day, I haven't found since.)
This is not an ode to piracy, however. Nowadays, I get my music through the proper channels. Initially through iTunes, then Amazon, and currently Rhapsody. In most cases, it's cheaper, which was the big reason I was willing to make the jump from CDs to MP3s. Saving a few dollars per album is always a good thing, plus there's the option of downloading individual songs. What I love is the convenience and variety. If I like a song, it's probably going to be available on Amazon or Rhapsody, so I can download it right away without having to find a store that carries it. (I'm starting to approach that attitude with ebooks, too, but I'm not fully converted yet.)
Unfortunately, this isn't how it works with games, movies, or television shows. It's getting better, but between availability and pricing, it still trails behind music.
Here's my major frustration: With digital music, I can go to the site of my choice, find the music I want, and easily put it on my iPod. I like the iPod for reasons other than digital music, so I didn't have to significantly change the way I listen to music. The other industries just don't seem to have that yet. Assuming they're available online at a reasonable price, I still frequently have to modify how I would watch the movie.
Netflix is moving in the right direction. I pay a flat monthly fee and, in exchange, I can watch television on my television (provided I have a device that plays Netflix). Unfortunately, Netflix's options are still somewhat limited. Watching Hulu is nice enough, but, as of now, I have to watch the shows on my computer. Hopefully, Hulu Plus will come to the 360 and PS3 soon and help fix this. As for Amazon or iTunes video rental? It's great if you have the equipment and they would be nice to fill in gaps where the content wasn't available on Netflix or Hulu, but if you don't have the equipment, then you can't watch it on television. And, call my crazy, I like my television on a television.
The problem I see is that a lack of convenience and availability might be a big factor in piracy. I'll use my experience with Breakfast at Tiffany's as an example.
I read the novella about a month ago and I wanted to finally watch the movie. Unsurprisingly, I couldn't buy it at any local stores and it wasn't available for rental at Blockbuster. It wasn't on Netflix, so no instant streaming. Until I thought of Amazon Instant Video, I thought my only option was to order it off Amazon and wait. Unfortunately, even though it was available on Amazon Instant Video and I can watch Amazon content on my Tivo, I hit a snag when I found it it would take five hours to download. And with that, my pizza and movie night with Breakfast at Tiffany's died.
The incredibly frustrating part was the knowledge that, most likely, somewhere out there I could find a copy of the movie that I could download quickly and easily. Since I have a 360, I could play certain file types on that, so I could watch it on an actual television instead of a computer.
Now, piracy is a complicated issue and I'm not implying for one moment that if it was just easier to get things, piracy would stop. It wouldn't. However, the fight against online piracy has been going on since at least 2000 and, frankly, while I wouldn't say that Hollywood, the music industry, and the game industry are losing, I can't say that they're winning. They go after one service or site, another pops up.
That said, when it's easier to get an illegal copy of the item than it is to pay for it, that can't help their cause. They have to understand how people are using their products and accommodate that. I want to play music on my iPod, watch movies and shows on my television, and play games on my consoles. And, frankly, I've been spoiled by things like iTunes, Netflix, Rhapsody, and Hulu. I'm willing to pay for the content, but I'm not willing to go out of my way to get it. I want to be able to come home and be able to choose my movie after I've settled down on the couch. I don't want to have to plan ahead and go out of my way to get it. And I'm willing to bet a lot of other people feel the same way.
In short, if Hollywood wants to fight piracy, they at least have to make it as easy to buy the product legitimately as it is to pirate it. Doing so won't stop piracy, but I'm fairly sure that failing to do so means Hollywood is behind before the race even starts.
Suddenly, though, I was able to download MP3s and check out the albums that people recommended to me. Granted, it was only three songs at a time and each of those songs had about a thirty minute download time, but who cares? I was able to listen to artists that I loved but most people hadn't heard of. And I'm also proud to say that, for the most part, if I liked the music, I bought the album eventually...usually when I could finally find it. (There was also the matter of rare songs that, to this day, I haven't found since.)
This is not an ode to piracy, however. Nowadays, I get my music through the proper channels. Initially through iTunes, then Amazon, and currently Rhapsody. In most cases, it's cheaper, which was the big reason I was willing to make the jump from CDs to MP3s. Saving a few dollars per album is always a good thing, plus there's the option of downloading individual songs. What I love is the convenience and variety. If I like a song, it's probably going to be available on Amazon or Rhapsody, so I can download it right away without having to find a store that carries it. (I'm starting to approach that attitude with ebooks, too, but I'm not fully converted yet.)
Unfortunately, this isn't how it works with games, movies, or television shows. It's getting better, but between availability and pricing, it still trails behind music.
Here's my major frustration: With digital music, I can go to the site of my choice, find the music I want, and easily put it on my iPod. I like the iPod for reasons other than digital music, so I didn't have to significantly change the way I listen to music. The other industries just don't seem to have that yet. Assuming they're available online at a reasonable price, I still frequently have to modify how I would watch the movie.
Netflix is moving in the right direction. I pay a flat monthly fee and, in exchange, I can watch television on my television (provided I have a device that plays Netflix). Unfortunately, Netflix's options are still somewhat limited. Watching Hulu is nice enough, but, as of now, I have to watch the shows on my computer. Hopefully, Hulu Plus will come to the 360 and PS3 soon and help fix this. As for Amazon or iTunes video rental? It's great if you have the equipment and they would be nice to fill in gaps where the content wasn't available on Netflix or Hulu, but if you don't have the equipment, then you can't watch it on television. And, call my crazy, I like my television on a television.
The problem I see is that a lack of convenience and availability might be a big factor in piracy. I'll use my experience with Breakfast at Tiffany's as an example.
I read the novella about a month ago and I wanted to finally watch the movie. Unsurprisingly, I couldn't buy it at any local stores and it wasn't available for rental at Blockbuster. It wasn't on Netflix, so no instant streaming. Until I thought of Amazon Instant Video, I thought my only option was to order it off Amazon and wait. Unfortunately, even though it was available on Amazon Instant Video and I can watch Amazon content on my Tivo, I hit a snag when I found it it would take five hours to download. And with that, my pizza and movie night with Breakfast at Tiffany's died.
The incredibly frustrating part was the knowledge that, most likely, somewhere out there I could find a copy of the movie that I could download quickly and easily. Since I have a 360, I could play certain file types on that, so I could watch it on an actual television instead of a computer.
Now, piracy is a complicated issue and I'm not implying for one moment that if it was just easier to get things, piracy would stop. It wouldn't. However, the fight against online piracy has been going on since at least 2000 and, frankly, while I wouldn't say that Hollywood, the music industry, and the game industry are losing, I can't say that they're winning. They go after one service or site, another pops up.
That said, when it's easier to get an illegal copy of the item than it is to pay for it, that can't help their cause. They have to understand how people are using their products and accommodate that. I want to play music on my iPod, watch movies and shows on my television, and play games on my consoles. And, frankly, I've been spoiled by things like iTunes, Netflix, Rhapsody, and Hulu. I'm willing to pay for the content, but I'm not willing to go out of my way to get it. I want to be able to come home and be able to choose my movie after I've settled down on the couch. I don't want to have to plan ahead and go out of my way to get it. And I'm willing to bet a lot of other people feel the same way.
In short, if Hollywood wants to fight piracy, they at least have to make it as easy to buy the product legitimately as it is to pirate it. Doing so won't stop piracy, but I'm fairly sure that failing to do so means Hollywood is behind before the race even starts.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Not So Delicious Now
Edit: Turns out Delicious is only being sold, not shut down.
I'm not necessarily an early adopter, but I'm not the person who has to be dragged on the bandwagon, kicking and screaming all the way. In other words, I don't fear change, but I also don't embrace change just for the sake of change. What this generally means is that when a new product or service is released, I'm not going to buy it just for the sake of being current. I generally wait to see if it's something that will benefit me. If so, I'm all for it. If not, I'll let it pass. The plus side to this is that I seldom regret buying a product or signing up for a service. The downside is that I sometimes find myself wishing that I'd thrown caution to the wind and embraced the latest thing, just so that I could say I was there when it started.
I suppose that this was a long way of saying that I recently signed up for Delicious. If you aren't familiar with the service, it started back in 2003 as a social bookmarking service. Users added their links, including tags. The site was useful for two reasons. First, it allowed users to add and tag their bookmarks, meaning that they could access a current and neatly organized list of their bookmarks from any location. If you've ever switched computers and lost links or spent ages trying to figure out exactly where you bookmarked that link that you really need, you'll see why this was a good idea. Second, the site kept track of how many people added a bookmark, so it was a great way to see what was popular on a given day.
I've known about the site for ages, back when it was still del.icio.us. I never signed up, mainly because I didn't see a reason to. The idea of a large, systematic list of my bookmarks on a site like that was beyond me. I rarely bookmark sites and, when I do, I tend to do it in such a way that it's virtually impossible to actually find the site when I need it. I finally broke down and signed up a couple of months ago and I've been slowly building my own library of organized, tagged bookmarks.
Unfortunately, I found out today that Yahoo is shutting down Delicious. The timing was interesting for me because I had just decided a couple of days ago that it was pointless to save links to two or more sites (I also use Digg and StumbleUpon). I guess I was wrong about that.
I got off fairly easy, though. I only had a handful of sites that I needed to save, most of which I very easily added to Digg and StumbleUpon. However, looking at some of the comments to the stories, some people were apparently pretty upset. A few people mentioned having over a thousand (one person said 4800) links on Delicious with no backup. If that sounds a little excessive, if someone signed up for Delicious back in even 2004 and saved three links a week, that would come out to over a thousand bookmarks.
This raises a few questions on whether a service like Delicious is a good thing or not. As I said earlier, the benefits are fairly obvious. The user has a list of bookmarks that can be accessed from any computer and won't be erased if there's a problem with the user's computer. As anyone who uses multiple computers or who has lost data due to a computer problem and no backup, those are pretty obvious benefits. The drawback is that the user has little or no control over the content once it's posted. As shown with Delicious, the content disappear with little or no warning.
So what to do? Ignore online services and keep the material on your hard drive and under your control? Post and risk it? Post to multiple sites?
I think that the steps taken should depend on the value of the content. For instance, I read webcomics. When I find a strip that's either very amusing or might be relevant to something in the future, I bookmark it. Given that some of the bookmarks are a couple of years old and haven't been used in that time, losing them wouldn't be a huge tragedy, so why bother backing them up? On the other hand, something like pictures or video might be much more valuable. In that case, a little extra effort might be worthwhile, but it has to be within reason.
For my part, I'm not going to write off online services. Having a copy of important files stored remotely is a good thing. I am, however, going to avoid putting my faith in one service. For instance, for links I know I want to keep, I plan to use both Digg and StumbleUpon. I'm also going to work on keeping the bookmark folder in my browser up-to-date and organized, rather than just bookmarking and letting it go. For photos, I plan to make sure they're organized and tagged on my computer, then post to Flickr and a backup site.
It seems like a good number of the articles and blogs I read mention cloud computing. I think it's a wonderful thing and I think it's going to be used more and more. However, even as I use it more and more (and I know I will), I also plan to keep things organized on my hard drive and to be more diligent about backing things up. Hopefully, I'll be able to implement a system that lets me accomplish both.
I'm not necessarily an early adopter, but I'm not the person who has to be dragged on the bandwagon, kicking and screaming all the way. In other words, I don't fear change, but I also don't embrace change just for the sake of change. What this generally means is that when a new product or service is released, I'm not going to buy it just for the sake of being current. I generally wait to see if it's something that will benefit me. If so, I'm all for it. If not, I'll let it pass. The plus side to this is that I seldom regret buying a product or signing up for a service. The downside is that I sometimes find myself wishing that I'd thrown caution to the wind and embraced the latest thing, just so that I could say I was there when it started.
I suppose that this was a long way of saying that I recently signed up for Delicious. If you aren't familiar with the service, it started back in 2003 as a social bookmarking service. Users added their links, including tags. The site was useful for two reasons. First, it allowed users to add and tag their bookmarks, meaning that they could access a current and neatly organized list of their bookmarks from any location. If you've ever switched computers and lost links or spent ages trying to figure out exactly where you bookmarked that link that you really need, you'll see why this was a good idea. Second, the site kept track of how many people added a bookmark, so it was a great way to see what was popular on a given day.
I've known about the site for ages, back when it was still del.icio.us. I never signed up, mainly because I didn't see a reason to. The idea of a large, systematic list of my bookmarks on a site like that was beyond me. I rarely bookmark sites and, when I do, I tend to do it in such a way that it's virtually impossible to actually find the site when I need it. I finally broke down and signed up a couple of months ago and I've been slowly building my own library of organized, tagged bookmarks.
Unfortunately, I found out today that Yahoo is shutting down Delicious. The timing was interesting for me because I had just decided a couple of days ago that it was pointless to save links to two or more sites (I also use Digg and StumbleUpon). I guess I was wrong about that.
I got off fairly easy, though. I only had a handful of sites that I needed to save, most of which I very easily added to Digg and StumbleUpon. However, looking at some of the comments to the stories, some people were apparently pretty upset. A few people mentioned having over a thousand (one person said 4800) links on Delicious with no backup. If that sounds a little excessive, if someone signed up for Delicious back in even 2004 and saved three links a week, that would come out to over a thousand bookmarks.
This raises a few questions on whether a service like Delicious is a good thing or not. As I said earlier, the benefits are fairly obvious. The user has a list of bookmarks that can be accessed from any computer and won't be erased if there's a problem with the user's computer. As anyone who uses multiple computers or who has lost data due to a computer problem and no backup, those are pretty obvious benefits. The drawback is that the user has little or no control over the content once it's posted. As shown with Delicious, the content disappear with little or no warning.
So what to do? Ignore online services and keep the material on your hard drive and under your control? Post and risk it? Post to multiple sites?
I think that the steps taken should depend on the value of the content. For instance, I read webcomics. When I find a strip that's either very amusing or might be relevant to something in the future, I bookmark it. Given that some of the bookmarks are a couple of years old and haven't been used in that time, losing them wouldn't be a huge tragedy, so why bother backing them up? On the other hand, something like pictures or video might be much more valuable. In that case, a little extra effort might be worthwhile, but it has to be within reason.
For my part, I'm not going to write off online services. Having a copy of important files stored remotely is a good thing. I am, however, going to avoid putting my faith in one service. For instance, for links I know I want to keep, I plan to use both Digg and StumbleUpon. I'm also going to work on keeping the bookmark folder in my browser up-to-date and organized, rather than just bookmarking and letting it go. For photos, I plan to make sure they're organized and tagged on my computer, then post to Flickr and a backup site.
It seems like a good number of the articles and blogs I read mention cloud computing. I think it's a wonderful thing and I think it's going to be used more and more. However, even as I use it more and more (and I know I will), I also plan to keep things organized on my hard drive and to be more diligent about backing things up. Hopefully, I'll be able to implement a system that lets me accomplish both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)