OurMedia… Are You Kidding Me?
March 22nd, 2005
This changes everything. And I mean everything. Time to completely rethink the internet now.
If this is financially sustainable, it’s the single biggest development in the history of the medium as far as I’m concerned. If it’s not financially sustainable, it’s still going to disrupt the hell out of the industry for the next several years… in a very good way.
Further reading:
Like this entry? You probably shouldn't follow me on Twitter here. I recommend the RSS feed instead.
It’s the question of financial sustainability that raises the biggest concern for me. Flickr has just been bought by Yahoo; Snapfish has just been bought by HP; at another level, LiveJournal has been bought by Six Apart.
From a day-to-day user’s perspective, perhaps none of these will have any impact for some time. But they all indicate that, in one way or another, the business of free media hosting is a difficult one in which to survive. Flickr’s announcement made it pretty clear that it’s going to stay free for the moment, but as soon as a corporation pays money for a service, they’re going to reach a point where they’ll want a bit of ROI. (Witness Microsoft’s purchase of Hotmail and their (abortive) attempt to sell once-free e-mail back to its own users.)
You’re right, Mike, this is something new. And if they can maintain it, both in the face of escalating cost and attempts to seize/suppress content by law enforcement, then who knows where it might end.
Yeah, lots and LOTS of questions to answer. One the one hand, storage and bandwidth costs are going to keep going down, but on the other hand, the limits of what OurMedia will host appear endless so far. The project is probably getting seed money right now and it will likely need mass micropatronage at some point in the future, but so what? That still makes for a great disruptive force to me. And if the costs balloon too far out of control, cut the video part out and there go a good portion of your bandwidth, hosting, and storage fees. Text and images are cheap to manage.
It’s pretty interesting, that’s for sure. I spent quite a bit of time over there yesterday and while it’s exciting stuff, it’s also disconcerting on a few levels.
I mean, this is yet another (free or otherwise) place that is offering to store my photos, my thoughts, my words, etc. As if I don’t have enough between by own site, Flickr, Audioscrobbler, delicious, gmail, etc…
At some point it becomes too much to keep track of. As well, I don’t see me moving all of my media there. There are things I don’t want to share, things I’d like to stay mine and services that already do the job just fine. And I’m not too keen on adding another service to my already long list unless it’s very, very compelling to me, which OurMedia isn’t — yet.
Then there is the idea that if all media is free it may drop the value of good media. Not every great artist does it for the love, even if they’ve got a passion, then it’s just another flash in the pan. Realism dictates that money has to become an issue at some point is my guess.
But I don’t know, it’s early and it’s something to watch, no doubt about it. Not sure if I see it as the Web shaker you see though…
Keith: No doubt that the raw and unfocused state of the interface is hiding a lot of OurMedia’s potential right now, but looking behind the curtain, it’s the volunteer, non-profit nature of this that makes it a force to be reckoned with in my opinion. If Google came out and said “free everything for everybody!” then great (and they just might have to now), but in the end, it’s still ostensibly supposed to lead to their own profit. But this is different. This is tens, and soon to be thousands, of people volunteering their own time and effort to make this thing happen. God, it’s like Creative Commonsunism or something. And I mean that in a good way of course.
It could of course also fail very hard. But even in doing so, it has the potential to be a major catalyst along the way.
Looks to me like that site is going to get out of control. Can you upload anything you want? How do they sort out copywritten material? Here are a few titles from the videos section:
camp kill eachother 2
Riot videos
I don’t know if I would want to take on that project, but kudos to them.
Mike: I mean, yeah, I can see that. And it’s true that it’s hard to tell what it’s going to eventually become right now. To me it’ll be the quality of the media (and well the community and interface too) that dictates my interest more than anything, and it’s because of that I wonder what it’ll become and if it’ll be sustainable.
It could be really cool, or it could be another Friendster with files.
But who knows, it’s way to early to judge either way, but if you’re interested, that something.
What surprises me is that they actually have a nice interface compared to the mess that is archive.org
Hi Mike. I’m actually involved with OurMedia. Bryght got contracted to do some of the coding (the Internet Archive connection) and is donating hosting and misc. expertise around Drupal.
seed money: none that I know of! Marc Canter is beating the bushes looking for some more coin to polish the interface etc. etc. OM is planning to register as a non-profit, AFAIK.
The media itself “lives” on the Internet Archive permanently. So it is their storage (Petabytes) and bandwidth (Terabytes) that is being used.
The content vetting/spam issue is going to be a big one.
Storing content everywhere: this is *exactly* the problem we’re facing already. OM isn’t going to be another store. In fact, it’s a front-end to the actual store — archive.org. But the store is reliable and essentially unlimited, and OM wraps some additional metadata and community concepts around the local representation of that piece of media.
Now we have to run desktop/server tools to aggregate all our content back. So it lives out in the cloud, but also is accessible, searchable, and shareable locally.
As for law enforcement…well, let’s just say I currently have a fun project where law enforcement is going to be publishing some fun content through OM, under a CC license no less.
Keith — good point about the quality of the media. If it becomes the media equivalent of Geocities, a la mid 1990s, then I’m outta there.
I think that having lots of media of poor or mediocre quality can do different things to a space depending on how it’s organized. It could send a site the way of Geocities. With a better wrapper, though, good or popular media could shine more brightly in the context of a wider range of content, or float to the top somehow.
I’d just suggest that having loads of media, much of it uninteresting, is probably a good thing if handled right.
Boris: Thanks for chiming in, interesting stuff. On the “storing content everywhere” tip, this is why it has to be really compelling to the people who would be uploading media. I do see how, if you can sell people on the idea that archive.org is the actual store it could work. But even then, we’ve got to be motivated to move media there.
The big question for me is: why would I move my photos, for example, from Flickr, which I thing is great and am willing to pay for simply because it’s easy of use and it’s community features, to OM or archive.org?
I don’t see that draw now…but, I realize it’s early, just thinking out-loud is all. I do wish y’all luck and am very interested to see how it evolves. The community, quality of content and interface would all be important I’d think.
David: That is exactly my concern.
Boris: Very interesting. So it appears that as of right now, it’s basically time and existing storage/bandwidth that are being donated. No actual cash. That’s a good thing. What happens when archive.org needs to expand though? That cost has to go somewhere. Maybe the service becomes like listener-supported radio, and that’s fine… but it just seems like if this thing really hits, there are going to be all sorts of expenses to keep it going. Bandwidth, storage, legal, etc, etc. Theoretically all that could be donated as well, but wow… a community where every single person involved is truly donating their time? Didn’t Russia try that? :)
I wish you guys all the best, and I’ll be watching closely. Perhaps the bandwidth and storage situations can eventually work themselves out via a P2P distribution for the most popular content. Then you only have to serve up the tail.
Keith: I don’t think there is currently a reason to switch away from Flickr if you just want to share photos. There may never be. But what this project does is really put Flickr and everyone on notice that there is an entirely new model to reckon with. One that doesn’t even care about turning a profit. That might not be good for big business, but it’s certainly good for consumers… if it works.
Drupal is getting BitTorrent integrated through some other projects (DigitalBike, Downhill Battle, MFA). I imagine OM will get some of those capabilities.
There is likely some sponsor-type items in the works. Gotta fund Marc and JD flying all over the place :P
I have no idea of the constraints of archive.org. For all intents and purposes, “unlimited” is probably a good starting point as far as I can tell.
I have 3000 pictures on Flickr. I am happy to be paying them $5/month for the rest of my life for the entire “experience” of photos there.
I see the strengths of OM as being able to handle the rich media content of audio and video that people just don’t have the bandwidth and storage for today.
With OM perhaps pulling some more/better APIs out of archive.org, we might see some interesting services evolve around it. What happens on the OM site itself is secondary for me, although I’m sure the community will evolve in interesting ways.
From the looks of things, it looks to be a good way to feed the Internet Archive, if nothing else. And that’s not a bad thing at all.
Very interesting…
Have you heard Brewster Kahle over at IT conversations?
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail309.html
His drive and ambition bode well for this project.
Ben
When I first read “Creative Commonsunism” I thought I was reading “Creative Communism”
As far as OurMedia…I’m still a bit confused on the revolution that’s happeneing right before me.
Wow…this is all very interesting. If it works it will no doubt be a major coup in the interactive world. It just seems like the legal issue is a big hurdle. I mean even if you have rules and guidelines regarding the storage of copyrighted materials, it seems the maintenance of just trying to enforce those guidelines would be overwhelming.
Umm… sorry Mike, I love your blog, but I really don’t see this as a huge deal. Just because someone SAYS they’re going to host EVERYONE’s digital media, doesn’t mean they will.
I for one, will not be uploading ANYTHING to ourmedia, as I don’t see the point. Is it just another audience to tap? Why not get hooked into an existing community site with MORE users? Does everyone really want such a MASS media delivery system with such a MASS audience?
I’m more into the nich thing myself. Sorry, Mike, this changes NOTHING. Much like your DOESN’T VALIDATE badge program, consider me the first to actually BOYCOTT ourmedia. I have no desire to publish, or to consume, digital media at their site. (I’d prefer to continue generating revenue from Google Ads on my OWN site, thank you very much.)
Jude: Wow, why so militant? As I said, “if this is financially sustainable” it’s a huge deal. Looking at all the smart people who are involved in the development of OurMedia, it’s hard for me to believe they haven’t already sorted some of this stuff out. After all, you wouldn’t think running a site like archive.org is possible either, but it is… and it’s been doing its thing for several years now.
As for you not uploading stuff to OurMedia, that’s totally fine. Not everyone will. But it’s there for people who need it. I for one, know that I’ll be using it to host large assets in the future. One of the reasons people have been hesitant to post video to their sites up until now is that if it explodes in popularity, you get stuck with a HUGE bandwidth bill. That is a huge deal. OurMedia claims to solve this problem.
Also, why go so far as to “boycott” something like this? It’s one thing to say you have no use for it (which is fine) but “boycott” generally implies that you are against it on some much higher philosophical level. More than that actually… it kind of implies that you think it’s bad for the world, and thus you are protesting against it.
P.S. The invalidation badge is kind of tongue-in-cheek. No need to boycott that either. :)
Mike: I’m gonna have to side with Dustin & Jude on this one ( just a little less adimantly and a little more psychologically stable — I won’t be boycotting anything :)
This smacks just a little too loudly of pre-bubble zealotry to me. How is this different from 5 years ago when we were unshakably confident in the world-altering future of the web and the unending rise of the stock market because of “all the smart people who [were] involved”? I realize this is a little different because it’s non-profit and volunteer-based, but still …
To be honest, when I first read the post, I thought you were being sarcastic. To me this is nothing more than Wikipedia with uploading capabilities. But, I certainly could be wrong. Your enthusiasm, if nothing else, has convinced me to take a second look. But, I’ll have to be really (really) convinced. We’ve all been burned before.
Mike, the late 90’s called, they want their hyperboles back ( JK of course ;)
(Editor’s Note: Fair enough. I consider Wikipedia pretty huge, however. So if this is the media equivalent of Wikipedia, then that’s huge in my book. I guess it all depends on what interests you about the development of the internet. To me, bandwidth and publication rights have stifled quite a bit of development so far.)
(Editor’s Note 2: And yes, I’m well aware of my tendency to speak in hyperbole when excited! Just try and ignore it. :) )
…Wow… I’m…speechless. Thank you, Mike, for the linkage! There is so much creativity, information and…just, wow! I’m completely astonished. I will never be the same after seeing that site.
This is a great idea. However, the size of the audience and not the volume of content should be the measure success. To get a sizable audience the quality of the content will be a key factor.
Well it is nothing new really. Indpendent Media Center has been around a long time offering free hosting to most any media files. With sites in every language and one for most every city in the US. Just thought I’d mention that. . . ;)
I’m glad somebody remembered IndyMedia, sheesh! Did y’all just start looking up from your web design books and out at online media landscape?
Have to third Jascha’s and Joe’s remarks. Indymedia has been doing this for six years. There is remove for improvement on IMC’s side, especially as it is slipping in the integration of new web technologies; we’re (I’ve been very much involved for two years now) barely getting into podcasting and RSS to say nothing of much needed online community building. But it is there, all over the world, and looking over OurMedia’s mission statement was to me a review of what’s already been accomplished.
But Ourmedia.org looks truly awesome, and welcome to the independent media landscape. We need the help. My point is to profess it is SO groundbreaking underestimates what is out there now, and undermines the hard work of the people behind it. I just hope OurMedia’s mission also includes to interact with likewise organizations, not to reinvent the wheel.
This will probably turn into another deviantart.com or newgrounds.com where anyone anywhere can host their artistic endeavors for free. I’ve had a DA account for 4 years now, and they’ve slowly been sinking into the wasteland that is amateur 13 year old angsty art. Same with livejournal, snapfish, xanga, geocities, any of the free publicly accessible digital content storage providers.
I don’t see anything very exciting here, but it’s worth keeping an eye on at least.
This is interesting, thanks for sharing.
Shooting from the hip, as a tend to do with great frequency, the project sounds like…. oh let me think real hard….THE WEB. I know the “Web” is not a free; you have to pay for hosting and a domain name, etc.
But, in theory it is free in that it is inherently open and non hierarchical; that is, there is nothing inherently built into the Internet and Web that is not totally open and free to anyone and everyone (yes, you need a computer, access to Internet, etc…but this built into the actual technology, it is a matter of human factors, such as socio economic issues). This is what makes the impact of this relatively new phenomena so profound. At it’s core, the Web is free, or free media, or free communication, or free speech, and so on. (again, “browser market share” is about companies trying to make profits, not the actual substance and essence of the Web, there is a difference).
Second and last thought, thankfully, is that this is terrific as an idea (and for now an alpha reality), but I wonder if it is sustainable as a non-profit venture. I really don’t know the answer, but if it going to be funded as a social issue, who will it benefit? All of mankind? The design and arts community? I mean big picture, as a funder I would ask “why this” or “for whom” in greater detail than I saw on the site. I don’t mean to be negative, I love the idea, just practical in my question.
Thanks
That’s a very big statement. They are opening the flood gates for all personal media? Good luck!
Yea its great and all, but at some point someone (namely, ourmedia.org) is going to have to take responsibility for their “service”. Anybody can get together and decide to host other peoples media; this is evident by all the other mentioned media hosting services (flickr, blogger, audioscrobbler, delicious, gmail, ect…).
This whole concept of liberating personal media is a utopian ideal that looks and sounds wonderful; it promises to be this great communal depot of creative individual expression, but will remain a pipedream without any structure. At somepoint it has to become a business. I mean, who cares about a flood of imagery created by every tom, jim, and dave that owns a camera and photoshop? More importantly, who cares about cataloging, promoting, delieverying, and sorting the quality from the crap submited by every tom, jim, dave, and nancy (pc) who owns a camera and photoshop? If its just going to be a dump of media… I’ll never care to sift through it; I would rather pay for a quality service. Moreover, as a content creator… I would also rather pay a service that I knew offered myself and my content options as far as cataloguing and distribution along-side other quality content.
OurMedia Redux.
Wow, this site is slow and broken. So much for redefining the internet, I can barely click a link. After reading a bit about this, I can see why Mike was excited (sort of) mostly because of (as Mike said) the people involved.
However, I have to crown OurMedia as a total bust. I checked it out specifically to see how fast the servers were, and what I found was, they are not very fast at all. In addition to that, most “media link urls” seem to be completely hit or miss. Sometimes redirecting several times to different urls (including some at archive.org and it’s server farm,) other times, the link is just dead.
Lastly, signal to noise, if the web at large has one meaningful site in 10,000 much of that is because there are people actually paying to have their sites designed, built, hosted, etc. OurMedia, by providing free access to all, removes this important filter, and the result is a LOT of JUNK. I honestly don’t even understand what I’m supposed to do there. Do I just keep clicking links and arbitrarily try out new media based on it’s title? The index pages provide no indication of the media type (some of us don’t have QT, Real, or WM and would prefer not to follow those links) and the categories are a bit broad.
Anyway, if they did nothing else but host and deliver, I think they’d be far better off, no one needs their weak community, they just want the free disk space and bandwidth. As currently implemented, I wouldn’t upload a 10K JPG to OurMedia for fear that it would take way too long to load.
So, along with my last visit to ourmedia, consider this my last post on the topic.
Sam Bisbee and Our Media
Through the always interesting site of web designer Mike Davidson, I came across a new site called Our Media, which looks really promising. Create. Share. Get noticed. That’s what Our Media is about. Our Media is a global community and…
OurMedia: This is Big
OurMedia is a new web service that launched last week. If you haven’t heard about it yet, you will… It’s making waves. The intention is to promote the dissemination of media to the world at large, no strings attached. Create…