We Are All Getting Digital - Old Rocker Shows the Way

| New York Times August 10, 2008 An Old Rocker Gets Digital By FRED GOODMAN

Peter Gabriel, the rock musician, has become a powerful player in the emerging online music industry by helping artists find new ways to market their music on the Web.

This has been sitting in my draft bin for about a week. Going digital is not really breaking news, it is an on going transformation. I am pleased that it is an Old Rocker leading the transformation.

This has been an off and on topic for this blog for sometime. What is of interest is the transforming of older paradigms defining mass media industries, such as music, into newer paradigms. The transformation has impact on individual artists and businesses, but it also has broader impact on how we define ourselves in terms of community. It also makes for an interesting model as to how endeavors that are more social in nature can survive in an environment which is more business, the combining of artistic freedom with the creation of an economically sustainable enterprise.

Past posts on this subject
The Power of Many! Music For All?
Troubadour Troubles - Economic, Legal, Moral? You Pick
Confusing Means and Ends and the Pathways Between Them

The Musician As Businessperson The Entrepreneur as Artisan

Overcoming Copyright Concerns aka Making Sure You Get A Paycheck

David Pogue of the New York Times has been mentioned in this weblog before under a similar subject, the The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality. Here Mr. Pogue asks Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns? - New York Times on May 22, 2008. This time he seems to have been attempting to offer some business advice to artistic entrepreneurs. The question of copyrights has been linked with the question of fair use in a number of posts. It is a double-edged question. One wants to protect the concept of fair use, but the individual artist finds himself at risk. Mr. Pogue asks the unresolved question.

"What is the writer or musician to do, though, if she can't earn money from her art? Simple, says the Slashdotter: earn your money playing live (if you're one of those musicians who plays live), or selling T-shirts or merchandise, or providing some other kind of 'value-added' service. Many such arguments seem to me to be simple greed disguised in high-falutin' idealism about how 'information wants to be free.'

This weblog has passed on advice from both the artistic perspective and the business perspective. A week after his article (May 29, 2008) Mr. Pogue received advice from his readers, though he was reluctant to take it. From the Desk of David Pogue - Readers Have Their Say in the E-Publishing Debate - NYTimes.com

Last week in this space, I agonized over the issue of releasing the books in my Missing Manual series in electronic form.

A number of passionate writers were confident that releasing free copies of my books would lead to more sales of the printed ones, not less. These people could not understand why I don't see that:

Mr. Pogue has every right to provide his product or services to the public as he sees fit and if he doesn't want to make them available free online, so be it. Not everybody is comfortable with all aspects of e-commerce. How useful his advice is though to struggling artists in another question. I am not certain that he even addresses the question. I am summarizing the question here, partially because of copyright concerns. The questioner is not asking Mr. Pogue to provide the materials for free. He is asking him to consider alternative avenues of sales/revenue and challenges him to do a test.

"All you have proven is that there is pent-up demand for an electronic version of your book. Your conclusion is only valid IF you had a legitimate electronic version to sell, and people chose to get the free one instead of the paid one.

Even if your book was on a pirated site, people (like me) would buy a legitimate non-DRM'd electronic version if you sold it. Until you do, you cannot make any claims about digital piracy from personal experience, because you haven't done a valid test."

Mr. Pogue's response: This is the crux of the matter, really: *nobody* can do a valid test. Some authors (like Cory Doctorow) point to anecdotal evidence that free e-versions boost the sales of printed books; other authors (like Stephen King and Steven Poole, whose blog I quoted last week) declared their e-book experiments failures. But a truly valid test will never be conducted because it would require parallel universes:

Mr. Pogue's response would be valid entrepreneurial advice if the questioner was applying for a job at CERN, but artisans in a new economy won't be able to wait for such a perfect universe(s?). I suspect that Mr. Pogue's position is based more on his view of the "morality" of the issue. Morality is in quotes not to question Mr. Pogue's ethics, but in recognition that it is not as straight forward an issue as some may claim. Does the artist need to give away his creativity because Slashdot thinks 'information wants to be free'? - No, but if the artist finds that selling t-shirts and using the music for marketing is a better business model than selling music and using the t-shirts for marketing, they better give it some thought. The old paradigms are gone.

diigo tags: web2.0, entrepreneurship copyright epublishing, pogue,

The Power of Many! Music For All?

Small Business Trend's small business expert Steven Teo writes about New Business Ideas: The Power of Many

Termed "crowdsourcing" by Wired Magazine, this trend looks set to be exploited by businesses and entrepreneurs who appreciate the power of crowds and communities:

One site Steven provided was of particular interest because it could potentially serve as a very viable solution for musicians looking for a new path

• Independent music site Amie Street knows economics inside out. It uses demand-driven pricing to let the community dictate the pricing of the tracks it sells on the website. Prices begin at zero and rise up depending on demand and supply factors. Community members recommend their favorite music and give back 70% of proceeds to artists after the first $5 in sales. We like it because it encourage musicians to mobilize their fan bases to support their music.
  

Troubadour Troubles - Economic, Legal, Moral? You Pick

The industry most mentioned throughout the Fair Use/Copyrights debate is the music industry. This is not a black and white issue and we lose something of value if we go to extremes in either direction. However, I do believe that the world is changing and we have to choose to fall behind or find new pathways.

Below are excerpts from those whom I believe have correctly identified that direction. What is provided here are only web-bites and for a deeper understanding the original posts should be read. The challenge and advice to those musicians wishing to avoid the 'starving' appellation is raised by Brand Autopsy.

What's a Troubadour to Do?

via Brand Autopsy by johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy) on 1/19/08

Mega-selling recording artist Natalie Merchant doesn't have a recording contract with a major label these days. The digital download era has rendered many top-selling artists, like Ms. Merchant, unattractive and irrelevant as it relates major labels releasing newly recorded CDs.

Writing in the New York Times, John Pareles tells us, "Ms. Merchant is back to the age-old economic model of the troubadour. People who want to hear her latest songs will have to see her perform them."

Wired Magazine gets additional advise for Ms. Merchant and other twenty-first century troubadours from David Byrne.

David Byrne's Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists — and Megastars

What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases, and that business will soon be over. But that's not bad news for music, and it's certainly not bad news for musicians. Indeed, with all the ways to reach an audience, there have never been more opportunities for artists.

The best advice though on helping modern musicians survive in the post-modern world of new marketing comes from -

Music lessons via Seth's Blog by Seth Godin on 1/7/08

Things you can learn from the music business (as it falls apart)The first rule is so important, it’s rule 0

• 0. The new thing is never as good as the old thing, at least right now.
  
  • 1. Past performance is no guarantee of future success
    The music business had a spectacular run alongside the baby boomers. As a result, the music business built huge systems. It was a well-greased system, but the key question: why did it deserve to last forever? It didn’t. Yours doesn’t either.
    2. Copy protection in a digital age is a pipe dream
    There’s a paradox in the music business that is mirrored in many industries: you want ubiquity, not obscurity, yet digital distribution devalues your core product.
    3. Interactivity can’t be copied
    Music is social. Music is current and everchanging. And most of all, music requires musicians. The winners in the music business of tomorrow are individuals and organizations that create communities, connect people, spread ideas and act as the hub of the wheel... indispensable and well-compensated.
    4. Permission is the asset of the future
    Today, of course, permission is an asset to be earned. The ability (not the right, but the privilege) of delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages to people who want to get them.
    5. A frightened consumer is not a happy consumer.
    I shouldn’t have to say this, but here goes: suing people is like going to war.
    6. This is a big one: The best time to change your business model is while you still have momentum.
    The sooner you do it, the more assets and momentum you have to put to work.
    7. Remember the Bob Dylan rule: it’s not just a record, it’s a movement.
    He understands at some level that music is often the soundtrack for something else.
    8. Don’t panic when the new business model isn’t as ‘clean’ as the old one.
    If there’s a business here, first few in will find it, the rest lose everything.
    9. Read the writing on the wall.
    Industries don’t die by surprise. It’s not like you didn’t know it was coming. It's not like you didn't know who to call (or hire).
    10. Don’t abandon the Long Tail
    Instead, in an age when it’s cheaper than ever to design something, to make something, to bring something to market, the smart strategy is to have a dumb strategy. Keep your costs low and go with your instincts, even when everyone says you’re wrong. Do a great job, not a perfect one. Bring things to market, the right market, and let them find their audience.
    11. Understand the power of digital
    You may believe that your business doesn’t lend itself to digital transactions. Many do. If you’ve got a business that doesn’t thrive on digital, it might not grow as fast as you like... Maybe you need to find a business that does thrive on digital.
    12. Celebrity is underrated
    The music business has always created celebrities. And each celebrity has profited for decades from that fame. Frank Sinatra is dead and he's still profiting. Elvis is still alive and he's certainly still profiting.
    13. Value is created when you go from many to few, and vice versa
    The music business has thousands of labels and tens of thousands of copyright holders. It's a mess. And there's just one iTunes music store. Consolidation pays.
    14. Whenever possible, sell subscriptions
    The biggest opportunity for the music business is to combine permission with subscription. The possibilities are endless. And I know it's hard to believe, but the good old days are yet to happen.

The above are again only web-bites (web-bytes?) of Seth's post that I found particularly insightful, even more insight at the original post.

As far as my understanding of the issues issues of fair use, copyrights and artistic content go:

• If it is your material, then it is an economic issue.
• If it is somebody else's material, then it is also a legal issue
• If it is the RIAA's claimed material, then it is also a moral issue.

Forwarding webpages with highlights and sticky notes, powered by Diigo

Confusing Means and Ends and the Pathways Between Them

Jeff Cornwall of Entrepreneurial Mind offers a post on Confusing Means and Ends Annotated but only if use use diigo.

The goal of entrepreneurship is not simply to find the next big thing to lure venture capital or make a mad dash to a public offering. It is to create a venture that creates income and wealth for the entrepreneur and allows the entrepreneur to pursue other goals in life through this economic activity, be it creating more jobs in a better place to work, offering a better product to the customer, or making the world a little better place. The goal of entrepreneurship should be to build a good business -- with legs -- that will help build this entrepreneurial economy.

He also offers what he calls "one of the funniest, albeit somewhat depressing due its truth, videos I have seen in a long time: Here Comes Another Bubble v1.1 - The Richter Scale via YouTube.

At the same Entrepreneurial Mind post Anita Campbell of Small Business Trends provided the following response.

Jeff, this sures feels like another bubble. I spoke with a Web entrepreneur yesterday who is getting some good traction with his free add-on for blogs. When he mentioned that his investors were likening his product to the next Google and that it could be worth billions, I quickly ended the conversation. $50 million -- even that seems outlandish, but at least I can understand the logic of a sales price that is consistent with other sales of like Web products. But billions? What are these people thinking?

Anita Birdied by: Anita Campbell | January 15, 2008 08:48 AM

Both Professor Jeff Cornwall and Anita Campbell have been important resources in the development of my thinking during the first quarter year of my weblog, but I still feel that this only lightly touches upon some of the issues that are raised by Richter Scales video. Those issues include Fair Use and the generational divide that it invokes and Creative Destruction as envisioned by Schumpeter which is seemingly hailed by many lately. These issues that have been dealt with under the fair use posts and creative destruction posts of this weblog. I may be playing Cassandra here but it doesn't seem like a bubble to me. It's too easy a plug, but it seems like a paradigm shift to me. What is changing for me is the view that Web 2.0 is not the paradigm shift. It is simply something else riding the wave.

diigo tags: creative-destruction, entrepreneurship

- post by brianddrpm

Consumerville USA Versus Creatorville USA

I have been attempting to formulate a position in regards to Fair Use and Copy Rights over the last couple of weeks. What I have really been trying to do is understand the issues from a perspective that incorporates my beliefs without compromising logic. However, as stated earlier, the difference in the perspectives of the opposing sides is so drastically different that what seems obviously logical to one side is illogical and more likely immoral to another side

From a Civic Media perspective I support Fair Use. From the perspective of entrepreneurs and artists protecting proprietary content I support Copy Rights. The problem is to understand the abuse that comes from both sides. Large media corporations abuse Copy Right by denigrating Fair Use, while many, the young being the most suspect, abuse Copy Rights by illegal downloads for free use.

I couldn't help but wonder if there isn't a common factor in all of this and I believe I found it from another source. Karrie Higgins reviewed two new books in the Los Angeles Times. The title of the article provides both a synopsis of the books and the perspective the reviewer takes.

Escape from Consumerville - Los Angeles Times.

"ONE of the great ironies of living in a consumerist culture is that, in pursuit of success, so many of us unwittingly surrender our freedom. We confuse career and consumer choices with personal liberty, when in fact they all represent the same underlying decision: to buy into the system that produced them. Two new books -- "Unmarketable: Brandalism, Copyfighting, Mocketing, and the Erosion of Integrity" by Anne Elizabeth Moore and "The Freedom Manifesto" by Tom Hodgkinson -- remind us that we have other options. We can resist rampant consumerism despite its infiltration into every corner of our culture. The key is to reject the competitive ethos at the core of capitalism and embrace failure."

I have, previously, taken a position against this line of reasoning. The motives are honorable and I readily agree with turning against over-consumption,in fact almost every phrase in the article, we do confuse career and consumer choices with personal liberty, yet I still have to take a stand in opposition to this philosophy. My first fundamental objection, saying that "we buy into the system that produced them", is only half the story. We also collectively produce that system. The people shopping in Wal-Mart worked someplace else creating goods or services to make their purchase possible. Yes, we can argue that manufacturing jobs went over seas but people there are also both producing and buying into the system. I may agree that nobody should buy a Hummer, but I also recognize that somebody will be out of a means of support. Yes, there are substitute industries which are less harmful to the environment and more beneficial to humanity. That is not, however, the key that is being sought, rather the, "key is to reject the competitive ethos at the core of capitalism and embrace failure." Perhaps this word is being used in a special manner, but it still strikes me as a dismal philosophy.

This is, to my mind, the common factor in the Fair Use/Copy Rights debate. We have come to think of ourselves as a country of consumers, not producers or creators. The majority of the young see themselves as only as consumers with no stake in producing anything of value and little reason to compensate multi-million dollar media corporations who are seen as amoral if not immoral. The multi-million dollar media companies have no moral foundation as they have purposely worked to turn us into a nation of consumers and now seek to solidify their advantage into perpetuity. This is where I can completely agree with the philosophy Ms. Higgins expounds.

We part company in that I still believe in a Democratic/Free Enterprise system. I see too much in the world today that gives me faith that working for creative excellence is the best means of helping the world and even with all of its faults the Free Enterprise system guided with democratic principles is still the best means to achieve that. This though is not though the end of my philosophical conundrums. I am still opposed to completely unfettered markets in the Milton Friedman ideal.

This strikes me as being especially true regarding the concept of Creative-Destruction. In the "New" Economy, the destruction portion begins immediately upon bestowing your creation on the world. We seem to be entering a world of just-in-time obsolescence. The question is how do we formulate a basis of interacting with each other that works. What I have written here does not really resolve anything. It merely puts down some more evolving thoughts on a complex subject.

In a past post I wrote that, "I do not believe is the Generation X and Y are immoral as a whole. They are defining themselves differently but doing so those not make them immoral even if they don't follow old rules." The trouble with this line of reasoning is that the fact that they don't agree with our morality does not mean they by default automatically have one of their own. What I quoted in the same post from Professor Cornwall seems all the more important.

Whether it's in everyday life or in the business world, we have to be careful not to boil morality down to a simple list of don''s that serves as a checklist of how to be ethical. Business ethics should so much more than a list of rules to follow. It should be a much broader set of standards of how we treat one another.

More On Fair Use And Free Culture (Not Free Use)

I found this at Matthias Zeller Memento post Larry Lessig’s Talk - Software Patents and Free Culture from earlier this year. The slide show was originally by Rashmi Sinha’s weblog.
In this slide-show Larry Lessig provides more background on Fair Use from his perspective.

Larry's Talk - Free Culture

From: rashmi, 5 months ago

| View | Upload your own

SlideShare Link

A more updated talk by Larry Lessig is available here:TED | TEDBlog: How creativity is being strangled by the law: Larry Lessig.

New morality? New rules?

The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality - Pogue’s Posts - Technology - New York Times Blog

The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality

David Pogue of the New York Times writes about Copyright Morality, the other side of the coin in the fair use debate. The issue is posed as a generational one. It is only a generational gap though because the separation between those firmly embedded in the Internet world and those who are not is divided by time or age rather than geography.

We are speaking of two different worlds and there is no means by which one world will rule over the other or be able to merely ignore the other. The morality of the older generation, the one with the power and money, is often based upon an institutionalized morality where control over resources dictated the moral use of those resources. I do not believe that RIAA has the moral high ground.

But I must say that I still see stealing as wrong, I still pay for my downloads and I do not understand the attitude of those young myself. What I do not believe is the Generation X and Y are immoral as a whole. They are defining themselves differently but doing so those not make them immoral even if they don't follow old rules. It was Entrepreneurial Mind that introduced me to Sam Davidson. I am not saying that Sam Davidson would download songs without paying, but he is an excellent example of what Generation X can produce.

Professor Jeff Cornwall wrote in his blog Entrepreneurial Mind some time ago a post encouraging entrepreneurs to translate their ethics and values into concrete actions in their businesses.

While business ethics is getting much more attention in the press, in the boardroom and in the classroom, I am concerned that our definition of business ethics is sliding into a legalistic world of rules compliance. Whether it's in everyday life or in the business world, we have to be careful not to boil morality down to a simple list of don''s that serves as a checklist of how to be ethical. Business ethics should so much more than a list of rules to follow. It should be a much broader set of standards of how we treat one another.

The issue of ethics applies to everyone in the market. The question is, and Professor Cornwall could very well see it differently, do we need a new set of rules?

Tech Bubble Burst and Blown Again and Again

This is an update on the Tech Bubble video. The original was first found at Businesspundit where it stopped working and still doesn't work. Same with a number of other sites that featured the video. Below is a working copy of the banished version of the video found at Marketing Pilgrim. This time the video is through Metacafe instead of using YouTube.



Here Comes Another Bubble - video powered by Metacafe

Now we have the 'legal', 'authorized', 'well nobody is complaining as much so we can enjoy it' version below. I wrote that if it was Fair Use then Richter Scale should be able to keep the video up, but if it was not then they should re-edit the video (which they did) and apologize (which they did not). This version has a list of credits at the end. Whether or not this was truly Fair Use has still not been settled. At least not to the point where we have a legal and even moral principal to base future decisions on. We have a problem if that question can only be settled through long legal battles or if Fair Use becomes the easy out for not paying for artistic or private content. You have your choice to not view the first video if you think Fair Use did not apply, or you can compare to see the difference.

Richter Scales did not to my knowledge and according to their blog make any money off of the video. That does not settle the issue, but it does go to the idea, at least to my mind, of artistic parody. What it does not do is provide a means of protecting artists and small entrepreneurs (or artists actually trying to make a living) who have to take risks in the marketplace. We still have not defined how we protect them except by Larry Lessig's quip, "Fair Use is the right to hire an attorney."

My original post and follow ups on this are here. It seems that we can put this little Internet imbroglio behind us. The larger issue, however, has not been resolved, merely put aside. The industry is still coping with the concept that there is a difference between fair use and free use. As this post is getting too long, and I am still tossing this issue around in my own head more will come later.

New Media Yes New Morality Maybe

Bursting Silicon Valley's bubble through song - Los Angeles Times

This may be a reflection of why traditional news media is in trouble. This issue has been out on the web since at least the beginning of December and has been debated back and forth throughout the blogosphere. Not only is traditional media late on the uptake, it also seems to have a shallow understanding of the issues. Not that I or anybody else that I have found so far does much better.

The intelligentsia of the Internet seem to want to be unfettered in what they can offer on the web. TechCrunch took the position that

having Bubble 2.0: The Video , taken down because of a copyright notice sent to YouTube, seemed, “weird since it is obviously a parody and thus should fall under fair use.”

Later TechCrunch told us that “The Bubble” Is Back. According to TechCrunch it

“was down briefly when photographer Lane Hartwell complained via her attorney that one of her photographs was used without her permission. The offending (or non-offending, depending on which lawyer you ask and who’s paying them) image was removed and the new video, called v. 1.1, is now back at YouTube. The creators blog about the new version here, and give credit to all source material here. Everyone can now have fun again, and Hartwell and her attorney can sleep well at night knowing that her copyrights are unviolated and her photos unmolested (and unviewed).”

According to the LA Times article, though, that did not satisfy Ms. Hartwell and others on her side of the issue. It is far harder for a solitary artist not firmly entrenched in the web 2.0 world to effectively state their case but there are potentially thousands with artistic and proprietary content that they have to put at risk. It may be far too easy to cry Fair Use when it is actually free use that is the goal. I am not siding with Ms. Hartwell, though it may seem that I am. I am saying that a good deal more work needs to be done regarding this issue.

Expanding The Definition Of Innovation and Fair Use

My recently posts regarding fair use have raised some philosophical concerns for me, as has my definition of innovation. I threw both fair use and civic media into the same pot, which are two separate but I believe related issues. I have now tagged those website specifically related to civic media as civic media. However, I have retained the fair use tag on all of them. Right now I am of the opinion that you can't have one without the other. I realize that they can be dealt with from different perspectives but to my mind independent filmmakers or others worrying about fair use are practicing civic media .

As regards to the tag innovation, I made the stipulation that it had to have some economic impact but in gathering the public tags of others who had reviewed the fair use of civic media or fair use websites one tag that was used under civic media was innovation. This seems now to be a very reasonable definition and right now I can't find a better word. I don't believe creative is the proper adjective here. So I now have to expand my definition of innovation to include social impact as well as economic impact.

Define How We Communicate Define Our Culture

What is Civic Media and Fair Use?

MIT World » : Copyright, Fair Use, and the Cultural Commons
I am still on about the Fair Use debate. There was, my memory was telling me, another MIT panel discussion on Copyright and Fair Use. The links to the MIT World video and the websites that are cited in the post's synopsis are again being added to the "What is Civic Media and Fair Use?" online folder. The other choice, which will likely be taken as well is to tag the related websites with a common link. Still haven't decided which is best. Perhaps focusing on a specific subject is good use of the diigo webslides.

ABOUT THE PANEL DISCUSSION:
Moderator William Uricchio sets the scene for panelists' discussion of current copyright wars with a brief historical overview of copyright protection. In 1790, when news traveled by horse and carriage, copyright protection was good for 14 years. Today, when a digital, networked society enables instant transmission of data, protection lasts 70-plus years. Uricchio notes, "Bizarrely, the faster information circulates, the longer we're extending copyright protection. It seems totally at odds with where our constitution framers and case law emerged from."

Copyright came into being not just as a way of protecting authors' rights, says Wendy Gordon, but as a set of liberties for the public as well.

There is also a further aspect to this which gets into the expansion of culture. MIT and other resources have dealt with in insightful that I also want to explore.

Fair Use Is Fair To Whom?

Wired Magazine provides more depth to the Tech Bubble 2 video debate and gives some voice to the other side of the issue in two articles.

Copyright Claim Erases Parody Video From YouTube | The Underwire from Wired.com

Why Lane Hartwell Popped the 'Here Comes Another Bubble' Video

This seems to be one of the most important issues facing the Internet today. It is far easier to cry "Fair Use" when its a multi-million dollar media firm stopping the use but if its a solitary artist the same principle is not quite as easy to apply. The fact that Lane Hartwell as let this be known before should have least given some pause to using her work. Though, despite not being a lawyer, I have to question if the parody needs to be direct or the picture only needs to be used in the creation of parody.

However, if it is truly parody, then Richter Scales should fight to get it put back on. If it is not parody and fair use does not apply then Richter Scales should apologize and edit the picture out of the video. How hard can that be? There is no easy answer though. The question is not merely a personal one between parties though as this Slashdot articles informs us Slashdot | Fair Use Worth More Than Copyright To Economy. Personally I could serve on a jury for this as I can see both sides of the argument, though you will notice I am keeping the video up so that could disqualify me. The three articles are being added to the "What Is Civic Media and Fair Use?".

Tech Bubble Burst and Blown Again

This was originally from Businesspundit and as rob says, "Its Fantastic" Unfortunately it stopped working. Same with a number of other sites that featured the video. Undaunted, I found it again at Marketing Pilgrim. This time instead of using YouTube the video is under Metacafe.



Here Comes Another Bubble - video powered by Metacafe

Here is why it stopped working on YouTube. This came from NewTeeVee and was posted by Liz Gannes.

Which happens to be one of those topics I have been wanting to get back to write about. What is Civic Media? is another Ask.com web-available folder that contains a number of different webpages on this particular subject. Despite my new found fondness for del.icio.us, I still, conceptually, like the idea of having a repository or file folder for a set of related webpages. I know that at a certain level there isn't that much difference but having it all together under one title with a specific purpose still appeals to me. My "Generation Jones" side overshadowing my fletching "Generation X" side. The main link that caught my interest in the folder is MIT World » What is Civic Media? The latest to be added was TED | TEDBlog: How creativity is being strangled by the law: Larry Lessig.