Here’s a question I’ve been pondering for quite some time: If everyone is acting like the Lumière brothers, where is the Sergei Eisenstein of broadband video?

Let me explain what I mean:

Four days before the end of 1895, the Lumière brothers held what would come to be known as the first commercial screening of a movie—actually, a series of ten short films approximately 46 seconds each in duration, and more akin to a primitive style of reality television, since the language of film had yet to be invented.

The Lumières, considered to be among the first filmmakers, made film history as such. Much more accurately, however, they were really inventors and early technological pioneers; according to Wikipedia, the brothers were responsible for patenting a number of significant film processes, including the creation of sprocket holes for the advancement of a film strip within the camera and projector.

It’s also clear that the Lumières, pioneering as they were, failed to understand that the technology they had helped invent wasn’t just a mere extension of photography, but a brand new art form. Their contributions were incredibly important, but they thought of the moving picture as more of a novelty and ultimately declared that “the cinema is an invention without any future.”

The Lumières were correct in assuming that the novelty of seeing people projected onto a giant screen clambering in and out of trains (as is the case with one of their most famous shorts, Arrival of a Train at a Station) would soon wear off. But it took a mind like Eisentein’s to understand that the invention—the technology itself—had the potential to become a powerful art form and so much more than just a novel technique for recording human activity.

(more…)

On the heels of Cynthia’s recent post: If you’re looking for proof that Internet TV is gaining major momentum, read up on Joost getting a $45 million boost from media titans including CBS, Viacom, Turner Broadcasting, Sony, National Geographic, and Warner Bros.

Instead of throwing up lawsuits to block emerging technology (which never works), the old guard is buying in to the new game. Interesting.

The stakes can get very high:

The company, Purdue Pharma, agreed to pay $600 million in fines and other payments to resolve the criminal charge of “misbranding” the product

Caveat brandor!

I never saw that famously viral “Lazy Sunday” bit from Saturday Night Live on an actual television. I saw it about a million times on YouTube or when friends emailed it to me. In a way, I cheated the system. I got the entertainment without having to endure any commercial or network promotion. Somewhere, a sponsor is weeping.

In the editor’s note of the April/May issue of Streaming Media magazine, Eric Schumacher-Rasmussen covers the ongoing debate about protecting intellectual property in the days of user-uploaded video sites like YouTube and Joost.

I’m down with the point he argues, but he cops out before tackling the biggest piece: monetization. He writes:

Heaven knows that the ability to catch clips from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and The Colbert Report only helped boost the overall market awareness of those Viacom properties. And “Lazy Sunday,” the Saturday Night Live clip that made YouTube a household name in late 2005, brought more publicity to that show than NBC could have ever dreamed of.

True points, both. Then he wraps up with:

But while up-and-coming filmmakers and musicians have seized the web as a means of promoting their art, er, intellectual property, so should the major entertainment players recognize that, like terrestrial radio, the web serves as a way for fans to find new favorites they’ll then invest in either directly with their wallets or indirectly by turning to the “official” as-supported sources.

I think he stumbles here:

1. There’s a huge difference between up-and-comers and major players. Up-and-comers need exposure, and lots of it, so they give away their content on purpose. It’s like handing out demo CDs. So that comparison is off base.

2. The issue with user-upload sites goes directly against Schumacher-Rasmussen’s suggestion. If the major players could control where their content went and how folks access it (like streaming a terrestrial radio station via a radio station website), then they wouldn’t be crying. Control of the content means you can get a viewer to either pay money or watch an ad, something that earns money. The way in which the major players make money may have to change, but they do still need to make money in order to continue making programs.

User-upload sites take away control of the content, and as a result take away the ability to make money, in either the advertising or pay-per-view models. You may be a big fan of free access to content, but I look at it by comparing programs on HBO to the cable access programs produced by high school kids. You pay for one, you don’t for the other.

At the end of the day, which would you prefer to watch?

If you’d like to feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of “Web 2.0″ sites, see this collection. It will be interesting to see which of those sites fail and which succeed. Does the volume of competition and the proliferation of niches imply a bubble? If so, the typically American manic optimism that fuels it is an economic plus, according to Slate columnist Daniel Gross.

And it’s driven by technological innovation:

…the excitement of a new technology interacts with some of the more unstable components of America’s character—boundless optimism, a tendency toward entrepreneurship, a tolerance of creative destruction, and greed—to produce a kind of mania. So, every time a hot new technology comes along (whether it’s the telegraph or the Internet), Americans collectively lose their minds—and then lose their shirts.

Looking back through the last 150 years, a familiar pattern emerges. A wonderful new technology or economic idea arrives. A few good years of solid growth help engender a sense that things are different and that new rules apply. Hype and rosy projections—from Irving Fisher’s 1929 prediction of a “permanently high plateau” to Dow 36,000­—justify investing at stratospheric levels. The trend, previously confined to the business community, crosses over into popular culture. Everyone’s buying stock, investing venture capital, refinancing a mortgage, installing compact fluorescent light bulbs. And then, pop! The bubble bursts, heroes become goats, and bankruptcies spread. As corruption and venality are exposed, self-loathing and recriminations rule the day. (See: subprime lending, spring 2007.) And that’s when all the moralizing narratives about the tragedy of bubbles get written.

But that excitement leaves behind something permanent and useful, according to Gross: infrastructure. And in fact Web 2.0 may be the offspring of the last decline:

The Internet pop has left us with Web 2.0—Facebook and Skype, MySpace and YouTube, and, most of all, Google. Each of these companies either was started or gained critical mass after the Internet bubble burst. Each gained tremendous scale overnight thanks to all the cheap excess capacity built during the 1990s bubble.

While we’re relatively new on the blogging scene, we here at Inspire Action are swaggering just a bit. We’ve been nominated for a Blogger’s Choice Award for Best Marketing Blog—and we’ve managed to claw our way on to the list of top ten nominees.

Thanks for the props, and thanks for the votes. As with any beneficiary of public appeal, we’re hungry for more. If you haven’t voted yet (and think we’re worth the nod) click that big Blogger’s Choice badge and give Inspire Action your endorsement.

We’ll promise to keep kicking out our signature combination of commentary, prediction, insight, and advice—all served with a generous side of snarky irreverence, or irreverent snarkiness, whichever you prefer.

Any time a new technology comes out (think tape recorders, VCRs, even YouTube), fear and the exaggeration of lost profits are always the first reactions. Most recording, film, and television industry players jump right on the cease-and-desist bandwagon, practicing their favorite hobby: tossing around lawsuits. I’m not saying they shouldn’t protect intellectual and creative property, but history proves that they always underestimate the promotional value of these new technologies.

Take Acceptable TV, a sketch comedy program I came across on VH1 a couple of weeks ago. Not only is VH1 broadcasting the program on their cable network, they’re also airing it online at VH1.com and on the Acceptable.tv website. VH1 is embracing the Web and all the benefits it offers as an additional avenue for promoting their products. They’re also taking full advantage of the Web’s interactivity by inviting viewers to vote for their favorite sketches. The top two come back the following week as new episodes and the rest of the program is filled out with new content. To top it off, users can submit their own sketches for viewers to vote on, and the winner gets aired on the next show.

Acceptable.tv—with its blend of YouTube and traditional broadcast, plus a dash of reality show voting and the chance to be on TV—is just one way that online video programming is evolving.

Internet video networks are popping up all over the place. There’s KITE.TV, a site that allows users to create their own TV shows, instantly broadcast them to “channels,” and publish the content to websites, blogs, social networks, and mobile phones. Then there’s GoFish.com, which combines user-generated content with branded programming. And check out Sara’s post from April 9th about Magnify.net, which also lets users create and populate their own channels.

It’s already crowded out there, and some of these networks (if not all) may not be around in six months. But there’s no denying that more and more people are making the Web their primary stop for information, communication, and entertainment. Fighting—instead of facing—this evolution is going to put a lot of people in the entertainment industry behind the curve, losing valuable market share as they ignore what their audiences obviously want.

In the realm of tech media, there is one undisputed king maker: The Wall Street Journal’s Walter S. Mossberg. For the past 16 years, his endorsement of a product or service has established the very landscape of technology with which we are all so familiar. Key Mossberg columns, for example, set AOL apart from the early ISP pack, and helped the Palm Pilot hit the tipping point.

Along with straightforward assessment of performance, Mossberg brings the practical perspective of a 60-year-old who will not be distracted by flash. Functionality is paramount. As he says in this recent New Yorker profile:

…“I write my column for the average person.” He adds, “That’s one of the reasons I write about it as a class war”—techies vs. consumers.

At a time when the techies are throwing innovation at us consumers at a dizzying rate, Mossberg’s remains a voice of common sense—something any tech player would do well to tune in to.

Just four years ago, Howard Dean rattled campaigning cages with his Web-fueled presidential push. Yes, his run faded like a late 90s startup, but it had indelible influence. Candidates of every stripe are now taking their outreach online—and it’s a necessity, not a novelty. Today’s Washington Post spells it out. Money quote:

…the Internet isn’t just a tool. It’s a strategy, a whole new way of campaigning, a form of communication, from blogs to MySpace to YouTube, with far more potential than the old media of print and television.

The handshake sessions are losing their significance. If you want to reach voters (like any audience), you have to meet them on their turf. Increasingly, that turf is virtual.

Last month, while sifting through all the buzz about MySpace’s planned presidential primary, I was struck by this info bit from TechCrunch:

MySpace has more registered members than Mexico has people. If it was a country it would be the 11th largestin the world.

I knew that MySpace was enormous—but bigger than Mexico?

Then, just last night, per its nod from Ze Frank, I checked out something even more striking: Webcomic Randall Munroe’s incredibly cool Map of Online Communities and Related Points of Interest.

I hear the Gulf of YouTube is lovely this time of year.