Interested in music? Who isn’t?!

This  “Turn Up The Volume”, written by Rebecca, Maiy, Julia, and Gina, will provide you with all the latest in the music world. Here’s a preview:

Rebecca: Summer Concerts“Looking for summer concerts to attend? You have to check these ones out! It doesn’t matter what genre of music you listen to – one of these concerts should appeal to you.” Rebecca then discusses concerts in the NJ venues, such as PNC Bank Arts Center, Metlife Stadium, and Madison Square Garden. Some of the biggest names in the music industry will be in our area soon!

Maiy: “Billboard’s 2014 Money Makers Rich List: Ever wonder who really makes the big bucks in the music industry? Billboard just recently ranked the highest paid musicians of the past year, and you will not believe who made it to number one. The top 5 leading money makers all vary in genre, from country to rock’n’roll. These 5 artists really made record-breaking numbers this year.”

Julia:  New country music CDs and singles: “Some big names with new singles and CD’s that really shone are: Eli Young Band with their new album 10,000 Towns (March 3, 2014), Hunter Hayes with his new single Invisible (January 26th. 2014), Luke Bryan with his annual spring break album titled Spring Break 6 (March 12th, 2014), and Miranda Lambert with her new album Platinum (June 3, 2014).”

Gina:Latin Knights: RU Symphony Band with the Boston Brass: New Brunswick, NJ is home to many cultural events and venues. Among the most popular is the NJ State Theater, who has been hosting famous comedians, actors, and musicians for decades. Friday, March 14, was no exception. The title heading the marquis read “Latin Knights – Boston Brass and Rutgers Symphony Band” (She was principal flutist in this event).

This E-book will give you loads of information for the upcoming summer season. We did not want to target one specific audience so that is why we focused a multiple genres of music so there is something there for everyone. We also added a few advertisements in order to make it like a surreal magazine.

 

what’s true on the world wide web

“In this new world of the Net it is easy to copy information but hard to find it” umm what? I am extremely confused by the beginning of this article. I think honestly I missed the meaning of what the author was trying to say because I always thought that it was easy to find information on the internet … in fact that’s what I thought one of the main purposes of the internet was?

“Chief among the new rules is that “content is free.” While not all content will be free, the new economic dynamic will operate as if it were” This is one of the best all around internet describing sentences out there. Let’s take for example Itunes. How many of you have realistically paid for a song/ album or app, ever? Cause honestly I can say that I never have. When I first got my ipod, a little pink baby I pumped it full of music that I downloaded illegally from frostwire.com After a while my dad had to do away with frostwire because he began to put two and two together as to why my computer was getting viruses. But now as of 2011 I have discovered the power of youtube-mp3. Pretty much it’s a conversion website where you can put it ANY and I mean ANY url of anything on youtube (it doesn’t even need to be a song) and it will convert it to an mp3 file for you and bam free music. Although very illegal and kinda bad because it does make artists lose money it is very convenient for broke people (like me!!!!!). Even though google tried to shut it down for a while overall the power of free music prevailed and the website came back up. So that’s the whole thing, that content being free is the best option and even if it’s not the main option people will always find a way around it.

“Controlling copies (once created by the author or by a third party) becomes a complex challenge. You can either control something very tightly, limiting distribution to a small, trusted group, or you can rest assured that eventually your product will find its way to a large nonpaying audience – if anyone cares to have it in the first place” Here’s where I’d like to talk about wikipedia. Anyone can write anything on wikipedia, was the case up till recently. Partially because it wasn’t getting enough funding and partially because it’s such a huge pot of knowledge it was hard to control. There was an imaginary murder of a man named Andre Marshall in Bridgeport, Connecticut which was on wikipedia from October 30^th, 2006 to August 26^th, 2013. Wikipedia has just recently tightened their posting rules which makes it harder now for just anyone to post on their website.

Overall though this article was very business(y) and difficult to read so I hope that I understood its content correctly.

This is yours ? This is mine.

First off. I just want to start this off by commenting on how boring and confusing the prompt was this week. I usually don’t have too much of an issue with reading article because they are usually somewhat interesting but this week’s prompt had me checking the dictionary every couple of sentences. I looked up who Esther Dyson is and apparently she is one of the most powerful woman in the business world. So I guess she knows what she is talking about but she really didn’t dumb down the article at all for the regular readers. Also, I’m kind of confused how relevant an article from 1995 has to be. Technology has grown exponentially and the rules and regulations behind it has changed dramatically since when the article was written. A lot of the technology from back then are also obsolete while new inventions exist now which probably wasn’t even imagined back then.

However, a lot of the stuff that Esther points out in the article is true. The Internet has made it really easy for people to distribute and search up information. Now a days, if you put anything up in the Internet. It is up for grabs for anybody unless it is copyright protected and sometimes even if it is, it is difficult to protect it. There will always be hackers and users who torrent that will find ways around the rules to download and share stuff. It definitely makes a lot of ours lives easier and I am certainly not complaining. It is really convenient to be able to find television shows or movies online instead of having to pay to watch it in the theaters, buying the DVD, watching it on Netflix/Hulu, or however else. But does this accessibility really degrade the value of intellectual property ?

This is how it is on the Internet

This is a comic that I saw on reddit.com a couple of months that I was instantly reminded of when I read this article. I have to admit that it took a lot longer than I expected to find this picture. However, I also just took this picture from the Internet and is using it like it is mine. I really don’t even know who the author is to give claims to him but just in case the police are reading my blog posts for this class this isn’t mine. So like, don’t arrest me for copyright infringement !

But people seem to think that when they find stuff on the Internet that it is theirs to use. Sure, most people won’t really care if you use their cartoon on your blog post. But when people start claiming that it is theirs, it has to get a little annoying. I mean you put in the effort and it was your idea. Why should someone else get the credit for it ? Maybe because it is online that people think it is more believable that it was actually yours. You wouldn’t buy an iPhone and start claiming that you made it from scratch. I guess people buy cakes and food from outside sources and claim to their guests that they cooked it. So in that sense it’s kind of similar.

People try to get sneaky about it too ! Don’t believe the denial !

The Internet has made a lot of aspects in our lives easier. But such a huge congregation of information has to have some negative consequences. Since so many people use it and so much information is stored, people really don’t act as ethical. They’ll try to take the credit for other peoples work just for the quick 5 minutes of Internet fame. Sometimes it’s a shortcut so they don’t spend as much money or it’s just a hassle to ask for permission when it is so much easier to just use it. I mean, nothing is really stopping anyone from doing it so it just gets worse and worse. Copyright infringement is a serious issue in this world now and it’s really difficult to keep track of it or control it. Songs get leaked into the Internet world to listen to before artists decide to even release them. Movies are put on torrents to download immediately after the DVD comes out. DVD sales and music sales are decreasing little by little because such capabilities exist.

Major websites such as YouTube are realizing how terrible an issue this has become and have started to regulate it more. Videos are taken down almost every second because of copyright infringement and I have to say it’s kind of annoying. Most of the songs I search up and find on YouTube is all changed around the computer doesn’t detect the copyright infringement. Overall, it’s a terrible issue but I don’t really mind it.

 

Esther Dyson is Boring

I really hated this article. I don’t consider myself to be particularly stupid. In fact, I think I’m kind of smart. Still, this article was boring and difficult for me to follow.

I understand that Dyson was attempting to use examples that were easy to relate to and interesting, but really I was not thrilled. I think the writing style could have been improved. Dyson’s words were definitely eloquently written, but so boring. 

Aside from being boring, this article was also depressing. Dyson says,

“The problem for owners of content is that they will be competing with free or almost-free content, including their own advertising as well as the output of myriad creators who launch products on the Net.” 

Now don’t get me wrong. I LOVE that I can go to google, find a picture I like that is relevant to a project I might be doing, and simply drag it onto my desktop and use it. I don’t have to worry about the cyber-police, or the real police for that matter, coming after me and yelling about how I stole something. I do want people to get paid, however. Especially since there is plenty of creative material on the internet that artists and creators provide for other’s entertainment and then don’t get paid for.

This is sad. If I were to one day become a successful musician and then find that I’m really making no money off of my music because everyone is simply streaming it – I would be upset. (Upset being a toned-down version of how I would actually feel).

But that IS how it works now.

I think about Spotify as an example. If I understand correctly, anyone can stream music on Spotify. If you want to stream music without advertisements you have to pay a monthly fee that is particularly small given the amount of current music you have access to. Everyone is on Spotify – including Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga. But how can these artists expect to make the amount of money they deserve when you can simply stream their album for a small or nonexistent fee rather than purchasing their album at Best Buy or on iTunes?

I mean, maybe that’s not a great argument to use for Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga since both women make more in a day than I will make in my entire lifetime as a Social Worker. However, artists that are up-and-coming and want to promote their music by putting it on Spotify might get great publicity but it won’t get their albums sold.

These artists are competing with their own music which can be streamed for free.

So perhaps this isn’t exactly the argument Esther Dyson is making in her article but it was difficult for me to understand exactly what she was saying. Maybe the point of this blog post should simply be that YOU should go buy albums instead of just streaming them on YouTube or Spotify. Support your favorite band. That is all, friends.

 

 

The Intellectual Value of understanding what I just read

Reading “Intellectual Value”, by Esther Dyson, was a incredibly difficult. The introduction to the article made it seem normal, but after reading through the whole thing I’m not able to summarize what it’s about. I’m really not sure what I read because of how Dyson writes. It seemed like the article was made of separate ideas that didn’t flow well together or that Dyson was trying too hard to make everything connect. It probably also has to do with the fact that Dyson created paragraphs at random. I wasn’t really a fan of the comparisons Dyson made either. They didn’t do a good job of furthering her argument.

A summation of how I felt while reading this article

Other than the fact that I didn’t like reading this article, it was pretty obvious that the article was old. Dyson used the term “Net” a lot which I found pretty amusing because I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone use that before, let alone read it. And this article obviously says that it was issued in 1995. What I thought lacked in the article was more concrete examples of Dyson was trying to convey. Obviously, in 1995 the internet was still young and not many companies or people adopted the internet yet. If Dyson was able to use social media sites as an example, I think the article would’ve been able to make more sense. Dyson talks about how there will always be copies of original ideas through the internet. The transition from Myspace to Facebook would’ve definitely been a great example.

After reading the article, I really can’t say I understand what Dyson is referring to when she talks about “Intellectual Value” or “Intellectual Property”. She states:

“The intellectual value of context can’t be replicated so easily over the Net. Unsurprisingly, it depends on the activity or presence of a person – locally or remotely, in real time or at least in individual response. Intellectual property is the embodiment or automation of effort, replicable easily for all. Intellectual value, on the other hand, is the effort, service, or process itself; it can sometimes be shared, but the effort can’t be replicated without another person around to do the same task.”

I feel like there is really important information in this paragraph, but after reading it a few times, I still don’t know what Value and Property mean in this context. I understand that property is a physical asset where value is intangible, but I didn’t understand how the whole article was related.

Everything Dyson was talking about made it seem like she was against “free” and “almost-free” software that was distributed by the internet and that companies “will be able to control the pricing of their own products, they will operate in an increasingly competitive marketplace where much of the intellectual property is distributed free and suppliers explode in number.” Basically, it seems that Dyson thinks that competition makes “intellectual property” worse off. I’m really not sure why anyone would even think that. There’s a reason why in economics you learn about competitive markets and monopolies and why having a competition is good for the consumer and business. 

For those who don’t know, competition is good for consumer because it gives the consumer the ability to be able to make the right decision for themselves. So if there’s a bunch of free software that are derivatives off another program then it should be the consumer’s responsibility of whether they care or not. Because I don’t want to spend a lot of money to buy Adobe Photoshop, I downloaded a free application called “Gimp”. It basically does the same thing as photoshop although it doesn’t have the same “name power” as Adobe. To me personally, the margin of difference between the two is very small, so I decided to go with the free application.

I don’t think intellectual property being copied should be as overblown as Dyson makes it. Competition is natural and shouldn’t be seen as a threat. And I believe the internet does no harm to intellectual values or properties.

 

Intellectual Value?

Reading “Intellectual Value” by Esther Dyson, I  cannot help but think she was on to something…

I did not enjoy reading the article at all but she made some pretty important and accurate  points about today’s internet use which is strangely weird since the article was written in 1995. I think that her point about how it’s easy to copy information but hard to find it is very true.

When you really think about it, we really do use the internet as our source of information no matter what we are looking up. Whether its information on a pair of sneakers that are coming out  or about a topic we have to write about for an essay, all this information is on the world wide web for free. I wonder what we do if we had to pay for information.

All of the information that we read online can be copied and pasted just by a click of a button so this is when I began to understand the issue of intellectual property. Dyson said, “ The problem for providers of intellectual property in the future is this: although under law they will be able to control the pricing of their own products, they will operate in an increasingly competitive marketplace where much of the intellectual property is distributed free and suppliers explode in number.”

At first I had no idea what that meant but after re-reading it a few times, I got the message. She is saying that all this information that is available online  for free, sometime in the future it will not be and in order for these people to profit they have to give some type of intellectual property that is different so that they can profit.

The over all feeling I had from the article was annoyance. There are a few sentences in the article ‘i did not understand, along with the weird comparisons she makes. I still do not think I even comprehended that article, I feel like the only thing I learned was the fact that she predicted that we would all use the internet as a source of information and the fact that many of us do copy and paste because we won’t get in trouble.

I actually decided to google the author and it said that that she is a former journalist and Wall Street technology analyst who is a leading angel investor, philanthropist, and commentator focused on breakthrough efficacy in healthcare, government transparency, digital technology, biotechnology, and space. She was named by Forbes magazine as one of the most powerful women in American business, is regarded as one of the most influential voices in technology.

So, I guess she did know what she was talking about, we just couldn’t comprehend it because we are so used to easy to read articles and texts.

My Thoughts On Intellectual Value

The article was very interesting and although it was long, I actually enjoyed it. It’s pretty cool that it was written in 1995 and almost everything Esther Dyson talks about is happening right this moment. How did she predict that? Is she psychic? Anyways…the main example I used for understanding the article was youtube. Now a days, people are really creative, thinking of new concepts and making their videos look very professional. However, I don’t think the quality is necessarily going down. I think the quality of the videos are actually going up. Everyone I watch on youtube has invested in professional lights, equipment, cameras and video editing programs. Back then, people just got by with their webcams. Now, it’s almost a given that a video will have 720 HD.

I used to create music covers on youtube and didn’t have any real equipment. I simply used my webcam that came with my laptop and edited the video with windows movie maker. However, after a while, I felt like my videos weren’t good enough to upload and share. I felt they were inadequate with the rest of the videos that were being recorded in actual recording studios and were edited by professionals. It is hard enough to get noticed and recognized on youtube, so if you’re equipment isn’t up to standards, your video will probably get a couple hundred to a thousand views (if you’re lucky). At least, this is what I have experienced. And honestly, that sucks because a lot of people have real talent. They just won’t get noticed because they aren’t recording in a studio. I feel like a lot of artists think real musicianship means recording in a studio and sounding perfect. The quality has definitely gone up but are they really staying genuine and true to the music? Or, are they just doing it to get recognized and become famous? I really don’t know. I’m not saying that this applies to all musicians on youtube. I’m just raising the question. And I’m not saying that I don’t appreciate these qualities. I love artists such as Madilyn Bailey, Boyce Avenue and Sam Tsui, don’t get me wrong. They sound amazing and if you have the opportunity to record in a recording studio, and have your song edited by a professional, why would you pass it up? It’s just something I’ve noticed these these past couple of years.

I miss those old qualities of youtube, when people recorded themselves with their webcams and the material/video was raw. No special effects, no big sha-bang. Am I the only one? But then again, I don’t know what I would do without high quality videos. They are visually appealing and sound great. Esther also mentions that content will be free. That’s definitely the case for youtube. You don’t have to pay for anything. However, some youtubers now advertise products or have their own makeup/clothing line. Thus, you have to pay for “follow up services.” They’ll leave a link to their products or a personalized link to make a profit, and that’s how they make a living off of youtube. Esther also mentions that advertising will be much higher quality and that is definitely the case. Advertisements on youtube have become advanced and are visually appealing.

It’s interesting how Esther brought up the fact that creators face an eternal problem: the value of work generally won’t receive recognition without wide distribution. Only by attracting broad attention, can an artist or creator hope to attract high payment for copies. However, if a creator decides to distribute their work, there’s a chance that someone out there will steal their ideas and claim it as their own. I’ve seen that happen before and people have called others out. There’s definitely some risk involved. I also think she’s right when she says, “The trick is to control not the copies of your work but instead a relationship with the customers – subscriptions or membership. And that’s often what the customers want, because they see it as an assurance of a continuing supply of reliable, timely content.” People I follow always say they see their subscribers as their own friends and it’s because they form a relationship with them. They wouldn’t be able to make a living off of youtube or get opportunities without us and we wouldn’t be entertained or knowledgeable on certain things without them. We rely on one another. What are your thoughts on the article?

The Mostly Bad of “Intellectual Value”

This might be the first article of the semester that I truly didn’t enjoy reading.

At all.

The Bad

Esther Dyson, in “Intellectual Value”, wrote very technically, overusing words like “content” and services”. When used repeatedly without further explanation, these words seem to lose their meaning. Half of the time, I had no idea which “content” and “services” she was referring to. She didn’t really use examples in her article, so many of her ideas and arguments weren’t grounded. I couldn’t relate too well because nothing she said was specific enough for me to wrap my head around.

The one example that Dyson seemed to harp on was a real estate metaphor. This metaphor was confusing and basically unhelpful in helping me to understand her point about intellectual property. For example, Dyson says:

“Owning land gives you the right to charge for the value you put into it. But the business of real estate is increasingly concerned with location and ancillary conditions such as zoning rights and obligations. Yes, land ownership matters, but it’s not the most interesting factor in real estate today. The same is true in the Net world: content ownership matters, but it’s hardly the key factor in intellectual commerce”.

Not only do I feel like comparing real estate and the internet is generally unhelpful and, quite frankly, one of the worse examples of the many available, but it also doesn’t make much sense. On the surface level, yes intellectual property and real estate are both examples of … property but the similarities really stop there. While individual property refers to ideas, real estate property refers to physical ownership of a deed. Overall the connection between these two ideas fell flat and did not help Dyson to make her point (or any point) about intellectual property on the internet.

It’s important to realize that Dyson’s article was written in 1995. Home computers were not nearly as pervasive as today and mobile devices as we know them today were only dreams and conceptions. While intellectual property is certainly an issue worth discussing today because it is still relevant, we all have to come to this article with some caution. She is writing from a perspective that is almost 20 years old. In technology years, that’s ancient history as we have made unbelievable internet advancements since then, in terms of distribution, access, content, and purpose. It’s understandable that Dyson could not predict future advancements from her position, but it’s still important to take this article with a grain of salt.

The Good

While Dyson’s article is mostly confusing and dry, she does make the valid point that it is easier than ever to copy content from the internet for a variety of reasons.

I often find myself taking images straight off of Google for projects and papers without bothering to figure out their sources and copyright policies attached to them.

It’s as easy as CTRL+C.

Not only is it easy to copy text, images and videos from the internet as far as technical skill, it is easy in terms of succeeding.

Let’s face it, I never fear being sued for copying a picture of a cat from the internet without properly citing in my project. I just know I won’t get caught. Perhaps people know I’m using their cat pictures, but they just don’t care. Us students seem to be able to get away with this duplication of intellectual property (at least with the creators, because professors tend to frown on this). We don’t present a true threat to content creators on the internet because we’re small fish, unable to benefit monetarily from the ideas we copy from the internet. Owners of intellectual property have nothing to fear from college kids passing off their pictures and text on posters because our only goal is to get an A and our distribution list consists of one person: the professor.

In terms of the skill involved in duplicating intellectual property on the internet …well, it really involves no skill. Or time. Or difficulty. Where it used to take time and effort to copy and book on a physical copier or by hand, now we have CTRL+C. Instantly, we can duplicate content. And this makes it so tempting to duplicate more. Where it might have once been the same amount of work to create individual content as it was to copy content, it is almost stupidly easy to copy content now.

Could this be an issue? Yes, definitely. Did Esther Dyson explain this well? Not at all.

Intellectual Value; valued by all.

Let me first start off by saying that reading Intellectual Value by Esther Dyson was difficult for me.  It was not an easy read nor did I enjoy what she was talking about.  Her paragraphs were hard to follow as they would ask a question and then, when I expected it to be answered, ask yet another question.  None of her opinions or concepts really stood out to me, hence making the overall experience I had reading this article….boring not as enjoyable as I had hoped. 

But onto the content of her article: Intellectual Property.  

Personally, I believe that the sharing of Intellectual Property on the internet benefits everyone.  I mean, think about this: how many times have you been told by a professor to write a paper about some random topic for the next class?  Well, you’re not going to just snap your fingers and automatically know all about the topic and you’re certainly not going to go preform research and experiments to figure the material out on your own…HA, you’re not even going to walk to the library and read about it!  You’re going to do that most convenient method of research: utilizing the internet.  What you find on the internet is of course produced by someone else; hence marking that material as their intellectual property. However, it is on the internet for your use.  It is on the internet for everyone to see and understand.  

However, there was one statement that Dyson made that made me agree with her overall stance.  She states, “Owning land gives you the right to charge for the value you put into it. But the business of real estate is increasingly concerned with location and ancillary conditions such as zoning rights and obligations. Yes, land ownership matters, but it’s not the most interesting factor in real estate today. The same is true in the Net world: content ownership matters, but it’s hardly the key factor in intellectual commerce.” This made me stop and think.  The comparison she makes between owning physical property and intellectual property are striking.  As much as content ownership matters, Dyson claims that it is hardly the key factor in the intellectual commerce debate. 

I guess I never really thought about the people who own the material I take for such granted on the internet.  I guess in a way I do owe them something for the research of theirs I have used.  However, I do not believe that there will ever be a way to monitor intellectual property or make users pay for it.  I believe it will and should be used by all. 

A “foreign economy” No Longer

After reading Intellectual Value by Esther Dyson, my initial reaction is: Yes, Gina, there was a time when there was no Internet, and there was a time when people didn’t know how it would affect intellectual value.

Here were her opening questions:

“What will almost-free software and proliferating* content do to commercial markets for content? How will people – writers, programmers, and artists – be compensated for creating value? What business models will succeed in this foreign economy?”

 

*(By the way, proliferating means “to grow or produce by multiplication of parts”, for those like me who didn’t know. It’s kind of like bunnies.)

 

 

• What has our almost-free software and proliferating content done to commercial markets for content? Lots of things! Interpreting “commercial markets” as all the .com websites, proliferating and redistributing content has only flourished the livelihood of websites. Let’s take one for example: FunnyJunk, a photo and video sharing website that has been around for over 10 years. It used to be one of the top of its kind, but now it does mostly redistributing work, sometimes not even crediting the contents’ true creators (The Oatmeal hates FunnyJunk pretty much). Like most other websites, it makes its money in advertisements. This “commercial market” has plenty of content; unfortunately not much of it has intellectual value.
• How will people be compensated for creating value? By becoming Internet superstars obviously, thriving off whatever those benefits may be. How will I, a non-Internet superstar, be compensated for my various musical blog posts and YouTube videos of my flute playing? Mostly by knowing that people around the world can view my content and enjoy it (or make fun of it). Hopefully no amateur expects to create and share content on the Internet thinking they will either generate a new meme or make money off of it. Unfortunately, the compensation for creating value on the Internet is mostly gratitude and a moral pat on the back. What is deemed “value”, as you well know, is up for immense interpretation.
• “What business models will succeed in this foreign economy?” Once again, we have been given an article that’s old and outdated, so the answer to this question is fairly obvious. Let me give you some information to comment off of; maybe you’ll know of other “business models” that has also succeeded. But first, this is no longer a foreign economy; it’s probably the biggest economy in the world! In no particular order:

 

1. FaceBook
2. Google
3. eBay
4. Craigslist
5. YouTube
6. Yahoo
7. Bing
8. AOL (well, they once succeeded)
9. MySpace (refer to above parentheses)
10. WordPress

 

 

I tried only listing websites that had no other starting point. For example, I didn’t list ESPN.com because ESPN started as a television program.

Some of the websites listed above may not seem like as business-like as others, but all of them were able to use a good balance of marketing, advertising, PR-ing, and aesthetic appeal to make their business profitable. Very profitable. Almost too profitable if you think about it.

 

Side-note: I like how the internet used to be referred to in the ’90s as “the Net”

 

The Curve of Intellectual Value

As iffy as I think the article Intellectual Value is, I particularly like Dyson’s view on how a thing’s popularity inhibits a thing’s popularity. She relates the intellectual value of an object on the Internet to a party. Speaking to college students, I’m sure most of us have left a party early if there weren’t enough people. A party of 5, let’s say, may not be seen as popular; there weren’t enough people to spread the word about the host and the party, plus the less people that attend, the less chance that something exciting will happen.

To relate this to the Internet, a video on YouTube with 100,000 videos has certainly been more popular than a video with 1,000 views.

 

Honestly, I think it would have been wiser to write about a more current article, although I am happy that I got to read an article from 1995, a time that seems practically ancient in the technology world.