I’m quite a big fan of Buzz, despite its many teething issues. Like most of what Google does, the technology is open and builds on or creates standards everybody can use. I found this article while reading about how it all works – if you like knowing how web applications work then you’ll probably find it interesting.

While Facebook, MySpace and Twitter all want to get everybody to communicate within a little closed off, monopolised area of the internet. Buzz is based on technologies you can read about and use for yourself – no Facebook Connect button required.

People say that social network sites are by their nature monopolistic: if people join the one that their friends use then there will always be just one or two major players in each country. Buzz is an attempt to do things differently though. If Buzz takes off (and the initial plans are followed through) then lots of different sites can be views on the same data in the same way that I can talk to anyone with an email address.

On the internet this has always been the right approach to technology. The web took down the closed gardens of Compuserve, MSN and AOL because it was open. Email is open and far more useful than AOL messaging was, or Facebook messaging is now. HTML5 will (hopefully) kill off Flash because you can use it without plugins and you can write it without paying Adobe for expensive software. Gordon – a Javascript Flash runtime is worth a look too, but it’s still interpreting a broken and closed technology.

Obviously Google isn’t being altruistic – if Buzz became popular and people still chose to use GMail as the client then they’d be fine with all the extra advertising – but by allowing anybody to use the technology they’re giving Buzz every chance of becoming the web’s social network.

I found an interesting response to the Pirate Bay trial outcome on Next Left – a blog for the left-wing think tank, The Fabian Society. I agree with most of the points raised, especially with regards to the need for free (as in speech) content and the general criticisms of the copyright-industries for neglecting the out-dated copyright laws until it became too late to save the situation. However – the article praises Spotify as the future of music, making the claim that advertising supported streams are the ‘future’.

Getting music for free in exchange for viewing/hearing adverts will only really benefit the most popular acts surely? The pittance available to less popular stuff wouldn’t support anybody. That said – something has to give in this situation and it won’t be the fast-moving, innovative, smart, tech-literate internet generation that has become used to free (as in beer) content. Digital Rights Management has failed for music (even iTunes are allowed to sell MP3′s without DRM now). Prosecuting individual file-sharers risks further alienation of customers. Shutting down Napster, Oink, Pirate Bay and their like just acts as further incentive for ‘better’ technologies that make it harder to track the sharing and/or shut down the information sources.

They use more sophisticated DRM techniques for video content, but even there the battle cannot be won. As an example, see this post on a BBC blog from last Tuesday

DRM Insanity

This diagram from the post, shows the restrictions on recording and distributing HD TV, and it’s nuts. How can a technology whose primary purpose is to inconvenience people ever be accepted? It’s being used to prevent the BBC allowing HD recordings of HD content. The majority (if not all) of the BBC’s content should surely be free (in this case – as in speech, but in general – as in beer)? At least for those who live in the UK and pay the license fee.

Going back to the music – it’s hard to justify £10 for a CD of an album recorded 40 years ago – especially when similar products like DVD’s are available for fractions of that price. However, in some senses the music industry has an advantage over most of the movie/TV industry – their product can be used as ‘bait’ to sell tickets to live performances. Live performances are much more integral to the way music and comedy are sold, as well as being something that people perceive to have more intrinsic value. I have a feeling that this is the direction the music industry has to be moving in.