Startup.Com

I was actually very surprised by my reaction to this documentary. I did not expect to enjoy it as much as I did, especially being fairly new to knowing all this technical internet stuff. It was very educational, I had no idea as to half the stuff one has to do in order to start up a company. All the different levels of investors...I always just figured you got one guy that invested a loud and you were good. There's so much you have to cover and even when you think you have everything taken care of there's always something else. For example, in the beginning, when one of the partners started slacking and they wanted to buy him out. He probably made out better than all the rest seeing as the company bombed. I was also surprised by the way one starts off, selling a product that you haven't even created yet. I guess I would've always thought you'd want to sell the product rather than an idea. Seems a little risky. Seemed like they just had problem after problem with the site and maybe didn't put as much focus into it as they should have initially. Actually, it seemed like they couldn't get much of anything completely together. The way they handled interoffice relationships seemed a little childish. The whole Tom think probably could've been handled better. Tom was a wimp though. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't talk to any of them again after being treated the way he was.
Startup.com is a very informative but at the same time entertaining documentary on starting up a company and then watching it fall apart.

"Get Out of My Namespace"

Yeah, so I think that this entire name and lawsuit thing has definetly gone way beyond necessary. Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones demanding the "cease and disist" of the use of the name when it wasn't even his birth name...who does that? Seriously way out of line, so unnecessary! Then the ownership of 911...you have got to be kidding me! I'm sorry sir, Porsche is suing you for using 911. We understand that your child was hit by a car and needed medical attention immediatly but Porsche has rights to this number and you cannot be using it. A number of such significance and that has been used for so many years should not have rights that can be sold or owned. Oh and the lawsuit by Porsche against the village of Carrera...hhhmmm which one do you think came first. I'm pretty sure the people of Carrera didn't wake up one morning and say "I like that name that Porsche Company uses, Carrera . We should change our village name to that." Ummm, yeah, no, I don't think so.
The use of domain names is a different story though. I think association is a big thing when it comes to names, especially on the internet. Lets see, for example, disney...Disney should by all means have first dibs on this domain. Children are online all the time now. What if they were to innocently type in Disney.com in hopes of seeing Mickey Mouse. I would assume that disney.com would take me right to Mickey. But what if some other random company got that domain first and what if said company was some pornsite. Oh, yeah, I'm sure Mom and Dad would be estatic over that...how about the lawyers coming to their house to explain to their little one what was going on in that site. How about some super religious person looking to buy a car. They type in ford.com hoping to check out the new trucks...lets just hope thats what they get.
A limit as to what you can own has got to be made. Bondaries have got to be laid down! You need them as children and you need them more than ever as adults. Lawsuits are the American way, though, its all about who owns what. This name control thing won't be put to an end until that is taken care of first.
Money should not be playing the only factor in this name game. Association should be number one. Before anybody can have any right to a name they need to have some sort of association, not just because its a popular name or because they like it.
Seriously, though, this whole thing is rediculous. Things need to change...you cannot sue someone because they have the same birth name as you just because you are well known and have money. You cannot sue a town because of its name is the same as the name you've given a car...Way too extreme...

Microsoft Research DRM Talk

In this lecture the point they are trying to get across is basically that these DRM systems are bad. Instead of being helpful they're just causing a lot more work.

E-Biz Surprise

Hmmmm...What can I say about this article...How about it went completely over my head. I thought I was finally picking up on all this Internet Technology stuff and then I read a piece like this. I can't even tell you haw many times I have read it...I started off by having to reread each paragraph at least three times before moving onto the next. Then I tried reading it in its entire, straight through. Yeah, still not much from it. I like to tell myself that maybe it was just the writing that I couldn't follow. To make matters worse, yeah, they get worse, my tutor blew me off once again. They were nice enough to contact me this time and cancel. Yeah, things definitely are not going my way right now. I did consult a fellow student just to make sure I wasn't the biggest idiot in the world and he too said it was a tough piece to get through. I also confirmed that what I did get from the article is on the right track.
Basically, the gist of it was that they thought the internet business would be huge. It was, briefly, and then it crashed. But, now the internet is big again, bigger then they actually ever expected. If this is the correct concept, and I am on the right page, I do agree with it all. I feel maybe they jumped into it too quickly at first when we the computer users weren't quite ready for it yet. Now that the necessary technology to use the internet is available and affordable more people have the access. The internet has also become a great means of convenience in a world of thirty second minutes. It's all about convenience. As long as time continues to be a precious entity of life the internet businesses will only continue to grow. Last I heard they were not planning on adding a few extra hours to every day so it's safe to say the e-business growth will continue.
So, this entire response may be wrong but at least I attempted it. I was also told my tutor is "definitely on for this week". Apparently she's the only one tutoring this class so I can only hope she decides to show up :).

Tim O'Rielly-"Piracy"

In Tim O'Rielly's "Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution", I think he is basically saying that Artists are looking at piracy in the wrong way. Instead of viewing it as stealing and a loss in revenue they should look at it more as if it were free publicity. They should be greatful that people are listening to their music. Being unknown or not hear is worse than people downloading and sharing their music on the internet. Not to mention, that it is very likely that if one were to hear a song by an artist they have never heard before and enjoyed it they would thenpurchase the artists CD in order to hear more of the work. Work that they may never otherwise have heard. O'rielly also writes about people wanting to do the right thing, as in not steal. He uses the example of the people not passing around books they've downloaded from the internet because they didn't think it was okay. Therefore the books they had hoped would get out there never really did get around because the people thought they were doing what was right. He goes on to define piracy as an organized copying of some content in order to sell for ones own profit. O'Rielly then argues that realisticall shoplifting is more of a threat to an artist than piracy. Explaining that a store may only have a single copy of an artists works. If that single copy were stolen that would be the end of it. The store would have no record of the item ever being purchased therefore would never know to purchase another one. The work would then be lost and then the artist would then be at a loss. The artist looses the sale. Looses the possible recommendation that could have come from sadi sale. And, even looses the possibility of being "discovered" by a customer that could have fallen upon this unknown artist. O'Rielly goes on to say it is not the artist who should be afraid of piracy anyway, it is the Publisher. The publishers are looking at extinction due to the internet, rather than the artists. The artists are becoming there own publishers.

O'Rielly believe that the people will pay for a higher quality service anyway. For Example, television, you can opt for the basic, free viewing (ie rabbit ears). You do pay a price though, you have to deal with static, the fustration of getting the god awful atena in the right place and eventually resorting to standing in the corner of the room because it just so happends that you get the best reseption in that possition only. Or, you could opt for cable, which can cost a pretty penny but yoou can forget about the awful headaches of the free television and instead sit back relax and enjoy the perfect picture. Just like television people will pay for the better sound quality of a CD. O'Rielly wraps up by saying that the best way to go about it is to use piracy to the artists advantage. It is just another medium to promote their work and its free! "The smart company maximizes revenue through all it's channels"

1st Day of Blogging in CSI 110

I have just learned how to post a blog! Yay!