Why I'm Not Going to Vidcon

Next week in Los Angeles is Vidcon: "The first ever gathering of the most influential and popular independent video makers online and the communities that have made them a force in the world."

Many are saying Vidcon "is just a con," "It should be free," "What do they know that I don't?" etc. I disagree with all that. I would love to attend, and find true value in, a serious conference about online video, and where all this is going, and $140 would be a bargain ... if it were the right conference.

Unfortunately, Vidcon is not that conference. And not because they're charging admission, or because of who is organizing it, or who the speakers are, but simply because of the lack of serious in-depth content.

Looking at which of my own vlogs have received the most hits, the strongest reactions, and most emotional comments, it's the ones on copyright and DMCA issues.  I think most of us agree, that's a major problem on YouTube. But at Vidcon, there's a single 1/2-hour break-out session on "YouTube Policy, DMCA and Fair Use" (with "Meet Charles Trippy" going on in the next room over), but nothing on "What IS the law," "What IS fair use," "How to protect yourself," or anything on finding royalty free music, public domain images, etc.

There's a handful of sessions under the heading of "Online Video Film School," but none of them long enough to teach anything in depth or that will be remembered once the attendees return home. And, for each "Online Video School" there are two "Meet-up with [famous 'Tuber]" sessions.

There's a session on the Future of YouTube, lead by YouTube's "Director of Product Management," but nothing on the future of online video or social media as a new and exciting medium in which to create original work.

It seems to me (IMHO) that Vidcon – however well-intentioned the organizers may have been – will be more of trying to fit new media into an old media shell, and relying on "star power" to drive attendance and excitement for the event.

I look at the schedule and there's dozens of short sessions with no point to them, and not a single in-depth educational session that I might get anything out of. It's the short-attention-span YouTube gathering, and not much more.

I've attended many, many professional conferences over the years, and I've even helped organize at least a dozen or so conferences, but I've never seen such a jumbled, aimless mess of a schedule than the one for Vidcon.

My friend Rich of WorldAccordingToRich will be at Vidcon. He's interested in what "approach the entertainment industry at large is taking with the YouTube phenomena," and is hoping to get some insight into that. I get the importance of it to him professionally, but it has very little significance to me.

For social media to truly continue its growth into something new and different, we must allow it space away from "the entertainment industry at large." YouTube is more a phenomenon from Silicon Valley than from Hollywood, and its impact is (and should be) anything but localized to any dominant region. Social media belongs to the world, and there's nothing Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, or London can do about it.

In the last couple of years, the growing and nearly over-powering influence of old media on YouTube, simply as a means to promote movies/TV, has threatened to drown out those who are using YouTube to develop something entirely new. Yes, social media (YouTube, twitter, etc.) can be used to promote other traditional media, but if they become mediums that are nothing but promotional vehicles, they will die quickly.

I think there's so much more potential to new media yet to be discovered that I – personally (IMHO) – have no time to care about how Hollywood will use it.

I will watch the vlogged reports from Vidcon from WorldAccordingToRich and Renetto and others I know who are attending. But I don't expect to regret my decision to stay home.

Not Technically Unemployed

I'm not technically unemployed... I just have no work. There's a difference...

This is a blog post I've thought about writing for a couple of weeks, as so many of my friends are going through extended periods of unemployment, under-employment, or "being made redundant." Isn't that a great term? Being told that you're now "redundant." Great way to add insult to injury, don't you think?

On the one hand, I like to [try to] keep a positive public face about my current situation, be optimistic about future opportunities, and not look like I'm seeking sympathy, but in the end, I've decided it's more important to let my "redundant" friends know that they're not alone.

So, no, technically I'm not unemployed, as I'm a self-employed consultant ... I just haven't had anyone to consult to since April 1, and my only income for the last three months has been $22.82 in book royalties. Being self-employed means that when the work dries up, there's no unemployment benefits or severance packages, just the search for the next gig.

Part of being independent is that there's ups and downs. The last several long-term gigs have come one on top of the other, even over-lapping major assignments. A "high quality problem," as Tom G. would say. But since April 1, there's been a disconcerting silence from my usual sources of leads, and very little I've been able to dig out on my own.

I've been searching for irons and fires and trying to put them together, but I can see I may have a significant bit of down-time before the next long-term assignment. In six and-a-half years of being in business for myself, this is the most difficult time I've had. Of course, considering the economy, I suppose three months of downtime after a 6-1/2 year stretch isn't all that bad.

That said, overall, I again count my blessings and say "high quality problem," but that doesn't make it any easier. Especially when it's summer, and my wife (a teacher) is also without paycheck for a couple of months, and we've got contractors bidding on re-doing our bathroom and other repair work.

So, I keep in touch with colleagues and let them know I'm available, I read the job listings to see if there's anything to tempt away from my independent practice back into "a real job," and I've started another book project of some nonprofit case studies from my last several long-term consulting gigs.

All-in-all, I've been keeping myself busy, and I plan on enjoying the summer, even if I have to do it on a lower budget than I might prefer.

So, for those of you who are redundant, I share your pain. Even though we all know "it's the economy, stupid," it's hard not to take some of it as a personal failing in moments of weakness. But we just have to push past that, keep ourselves occupied, and look for that next great opportunity. It's out there somewhere. It has to be.

Summer Movies (so far)

We tend to go to the movies more during the summer months. First, we have more free time, as my wife (a teacher) is off of work. Second, when the temperature starts rising, it's nice to go someplace dark and cool for a couple of hours.

But it can be frustrating, as the types of movies that are out in summer tend to be the types of movies we avoid: anything with a number in the title, anything that's a remake of something we watched on TV 30 years ago, and the all important Rule of 15 (anything that's likely to have more than 15% of the audience under 15 years old). Still, we've managed to see a few good films so far this month; Exit Through the Gift Shop, Solitary Man, and Micmacs.

Exit Through the Gift Shop is a documentary about Thierry Guetta, a shop-keeper, turned documentary film maker, turned street artist, and the world of graffiti artists such as Banksy, Space Invader, and Shepard Fairey (the guy who designed the iconic Obama poster). It's an absurd story that calls into question the fine lines between street art and fine art, between fine art and commerce, between paying ones dues (the suffering artist) and overnight success, and between being a filmmaker and being just another guy with a video camera and a mental problem.

Yes, the big question is always "but is it art?" but it's all the other questions along the way, and larger-than-life characters, that make this a fascinating, fast moving, and entertaining movie.

Solitary Man is the most commercial of the three films we've seen so far this summer. Michael Douglas plays a successful businessman who hits the mid-life crisis free fall with swift, steep, and beautifully self-destructive results.

It's a story we've seen before (catering to aging baby boomers is big business itself), and if you pay too much attention there are enough holes in the plot to fill the Albert Hall, but the performances (including far too little of Susan Sarandon, Danny DeVito, and a wonderfully viscous and spoiled Mary-Louise Parker) make it an enjoyable afternoon at the cinema never-the-less.

Micmacs is the truly amazing, charming, and creative gem of the group. Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amélie) gives us the world of the luckless Bazil. While a boy, Bazil's father is killed by a land mine, destroying his family and childhood. Years later, the quiet life he's made for himself is again sent into turmoil by a stray bullet finding his head, which he barely survives. Now, out on the streets, he's taken in by an underground group of misfits and petty thieves (think Terry Gilliam directing Fagan, the Artful Dodger and the rest of the Oliver Twist gang), who help him exact revenge on the companies who made the landmine and the bullet.

But that plot, and characters like Elastic Girl, Slammer, and Calculator, only scratch the surface of how wildly inventive and visually stunning this movie is. I saw one review that said it was like a live action Toy Story. Having not seen the Toy Story series (see my rules for summer movies above), I can't say how accurate that is, but I would say that the style owes much to Tex Avery and Chuck Jones. There is a political message underneath all that creativity, but Jeunet slips it in quietly and without disturbing the creative flow. Best movie of the summer so far.

Post Election Hangover

Yesterday was election day in California, and I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised with the results on most of the ballot propositions - an area where I was preparing myself for bitter disappointment.

Despite putting $46 million of our (ratepayers) money into Prop 16, PG&E's power grab attempt went down to defeat, along with Prop 17, Mercury Insurance's "please make us give you a discount" attempt. Nobody is giving you something for nothing, and just enough people saw through these two corporate abuses of democracy for what they were, and by slim margins turned them down. Good for California and good for Californians! We're not as dumb as we might look.

My one really big disappointment was the passage of Proposition 14, deceptively and cynically titled, "Increases Right to Participate in Primaries." The idea here is to eliminate the power of political parties, by putting all primary candidates on a single ballot. The top two vote getters then face off in the November general election.

Now, if you read this blog regularly, you know I'm a registered independent, and all for breaking the stranglehold of the two major parties ... if it is to open up the process to more choice. But nature abhors a vacuum, a rule that also applies to political power. In this case, party structure is simply replaced by money and name recognition.

The diagram from the official voter information pamphlet (shown here) says it all. Instead of several party primaries, each with maybe four or five candidates selecting their nominee to face off in a general election where again there will be a half-dozen candidates, each representing a different party, we'll now have a primary with a confusing dozen or more candidates leading up to a general election choice of only two ... and both potentially of the same party!

Supporters say this will give us "more moderate candidates" as everybody will have to play to the middle. But to rise above a field of 15-20 candidates in a state the size of California, it will only give us better connected and wealthier candidates. More corporate shills to continue the status quo.

Speaking of which, the Republicans nominated two former Silicon Valley CEOs for top office; eBay's Meg Whitman for Governor and Hewlett Packard's Carly Fiorina for Senate.

In her victory speech, Whitman, who will face off against former Governor Jerry Brown in November, said that she was ready to "shake up" the Governor's office with thinking from "outside Sacramento." Whitman (who spent over $70 million of her own cash to secure the nomination) said she'd be a different kind of Governor because she isn't "beholden to anybody."

Now, if she were following a Democratic Governor, or even a Republican "career politician," that might be a good argument. But she's hoping to follow the non-politician, self-funded millionaire, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Has she not been paying attention? Probably not. She's so new to this "democracy thing" that she's rarely bothered to even vote in her adult life.

The one thing I can say for Whitman, however, is that she at least was a successful CEO, not that that will automatically translate to governing success. On the other hand, Carly Fiorina, who will be trying to unseat Senator Barbara Boxer in November, just about destroyed Hewlett Packard. When they finally fired her, their stock value was about 1/3 what it was when she was hired. Along that path, she laid off over 30,000 employees, sent thousands more jobs from California to Asia, and accepted a $20 million golden parachute to leave Silicon Valley. Ummm... she's seeking to represent me?

At Fiorina's celebration, a spokesman for the California Republican Party expressed his joy at having these two candidates to run against the Democratic "professional politicians." He says he welcomes the perspective of these leaders because they'll remove the shackles of oppressive regulation from businesses. How he managed to say that with a straight face while millions of gallons of oil having been spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for the past 50 days show that he learned some acting skills from the current Governator.

This post is getting quite long ... sorry, that's what happens when I don't blog for a while ... so I'll end it here, but in coming months I'll explain why I fully support Jerry Brown, our once and future Governor, and our Senator Barbara Boxer. And where, and why, I will likely not be voting a straight Democratic ticket in November.

What's So Wrong About Enforcing Citizenship Laws?

A friend, who I consider of at least average intelligence, and reasonably reasonable, just innocently put out the statement, "The folks opposing the efforts of Arizona to enforce citizenship laws have yet to convince me why it's a bad thing."

Well, of course, I gasped in shock. How could any right thinking person not recognize this obvious evil? But then, I tend to get outraged easily and these are easily outraging times. So I've learned to maintain my calm and think about a reasonable answer that might explain "why it's a bad thing."

Simply, it puts the concept of justice as we've practiced it in the USA for over 200 years on its head. We have a justice system in which we value the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and we have a dedication to freedom that includes freedom of movement and travel without harassment from authorities. Each of those is reversed by the Arizona law.

What has been voted on by the legislature and is awaiting the governor's signature is a law that requires all law enforcement figures to presume that anybody who may not have been born here is here illegally, without any proof or reasonable suspicion that any crime has taken place. All immigrants (and anybody who might look or sound like an immigrant) would essentially be required to carry their papers proving they're here legally with them at all times and subject to this question on a continuous basis for simply going about their daily business.

People who came to this country legally - and many who were born here but "look wrong" - will be subject to a burden that no other citizen or legal immigrant is subject to. And, of course, only a complete fool would deny that this is aimed solely at those of Latin decent. No British tourist or immigrant is likely to be hassled under this law. But Latinos who've lived their entire lives in Arizona will be.

This law has very little to do with "enforcing citizenship laws" and quite a lot to do with holding out one group of people and making them subject to additional official harassment. That is racism, pure and simple.

And, of course, there's the question of proper authority. Border patrol is the jurisdiction of federal authorities, not state or local police. This law creates an unnecessary burden on the police as well, who will be charged with carrying out this racist policy.

Of course, where there is evidence of a crime, the proper authority must investigate. And if, in the course of investigation of a local crime, police determine that a suspect may be in the country illegally, they should turn that fact over to the federal authority to prosecute. But the presumption of a crime is un-Constitutional and un-American.

When I was young, and the Soviet Union was still our greatest threat, one of things we were told that made our country so much better, was that we had no need for "Internal Passports." That in the USSR, people had to carry papers to travel from town to town, whereas we were free to move about within our borders. When I think of the effect of this law on the Latino population of Arizona, I am reminded of this and again, I say, anything that makes us resemble the old Soviet Union is most likely un-American.

Requirements for internal passports, the presumption of guilt before evidence of a crime, and a policy that singles out one group for official harassment all add up to why I think "it's a bad thing," a dangerous thing, and one more major blow to democracy and freedom and all that I love about America.

I don't know if that will convince my friend, but I certainly know where I stand. And I won't be standing in Arizona anytime soon if this becomes law.

Keep Your Laws Off My Cappuccino Stout!

Assemblyman Jim Beall (D-San Jose) is normally somebody I really like. He's a great, honest guy, who actually cares about the community. Both now, in the state legislature, and earlier, on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, he's been a friend and advocate of the nonprofit community in which I work. But, Jim, if you're reading this, now you've pissed me off.

Assemblyman Beall has introduced legislation to ban caffeine in malt beverages (IE: Beer). The target product, it seems, is this:

...sweet malt beverages known as "alcopops," which often mask the flavor of alcohol and tend to be marketed to younger drinkers. ... many of these products come in 23-ounce cans that contain the equivalent of five to eight cups of coffee, are 12 percent alcohol and are sold for $1.99. A regular energy drink, by contrast, can cost $2.99...

Personally, I've never heard of these before, but I can see why it would be an issue. But there's a couple of problems with attempting a ban.

First of all, the products are likely just a response to consumers who were already mixing energy drinks with vodka. Those who want a "buzz-drunk" will continue to do that, whether or not the pre-mixed version is on market shelves. This could be yet another law that will have absolutely no effect on the actual situation: those who market alcohol to under-age drinkers and lack of public knowledge of the dangers of the buzz-drunk.

Secondly, and what's really got me worried, is in trying to remove a few products aimed at under-aged drinkers, they could accidentally ensnare and ban legitimate adult products, such as ales, porters, and stouts enfused with coffee or chocolate.

According to the article, "Beall said he is working with beer lovers to make sure they can still enjoy brews such as the Cappuccino Stout from Lagunitas brewery in Petaluma." Well, I hope so! I love that brewery, and their product. But, somehow, I'm nervous that this bill can be written broadly enough to target all offending products, but narrow enough to keep Lagunitas and other creative craft brewers in the clear. It seems that whatever loophole is written in to save craft brews will be exploited by those market to kids.

Aren't there already laws against marketing booze to minors? Whether it's the manufacture who promotes the product to kids or the retailer or bartender who sells it, we have the tools to crack down on wired drunk adolescents already. Let's use these resources to get rid of the "alcopop crisis" and leave the craft brews alone!

Can Lesbians be Funny?

Well, of course, the answer is yes, lesbians can be very funny. But that doesn't mean that all lesbians have a sense of humor. Let me explain...

Last Saturday evening, I went to see the Queer Queens of Qomedy show at the Rio Theater in Santa Cruz with my wife and sister-in-law. When the sister-in-law first invited us, she also warned us, "It's an all lesbian show, are you sure you'll be comfortable?"

We assured her we would, but it did raise a moment of concern of whether or not the "comedy" would be overly politically correct rants against the male dominated society and inside "jokes" that would go over our heads. Luckily, that moment of concern didn't last long, and we decided to go to the show.

Simply put, one of the best and funniest nights of comedy we've enjoyed in a very long time.

The organizer of QQQ is Poppy Champlin, and she led off the show with an act I thought couldn't be topped. But the second comic, Sandra Valls came close. After a brief intermission, and bit more from Poppy, Roxanna Ward closed the show with a musical-comedy combination that had us crying from both laughing so hard and her beautiful singing (when she wasn't mooing).

And there was no need to worry about political correctness. Sacred cows were slain and eaten raw. And any "lesbian-centric" humor was at least as raunchy and outrageous (and easily understood) as any male comic you'd see in Las Vegas. No, strike that; it's hard to find raunch in Vegas anymore. This was much better.

Which brings us to the point: Just because lesbians can be damned funny, doesn't mean all lesbians have a sense of humor. Last night I received an email from Poppy Champlin (I signed up for the QQQ mailing list after the show) saying that of the 370 people in attendance at last Saturday's show - the vast majority of whom seemed to be loving it as much as I did - one person was highly offended by the non-politically correct humor, and is starting a campaign to get QQQ in trouble with their sponsor, Olivia Travel - an organizer of lesbian cruises and vacation packages.

Poppy's email was asking for those of us who enjoyed the show to let Olivia know. I have sent them a direct message thanking them for bringing the show to Santa Cruz, and asking that they do it again next year. And, I'm taking this space on my blog to give a shout-out to all funny lesbians who dare to be outrageous and risk offending people. And thank you, Poppy, Roxanna, and Sandra, for a great night out.