Netflix Kills Qwikster Before It Has A Chance To Live

from the one-step-forward-two-steps-back dept

In a not all together surprising move, Netflix announced its plans to kill Qwikster. It cites a backlash from consumers over the plan to separate the DVD and streaming services into two brands with separate websites. The whole raking over the coals it got from the media probably didn't help its plans, either. So before it even had a chance to live, Qwikster is dead. However (not surprisingly), Netflix plans to retain its current pricing model.

What this development really reeks of is a strong disconnect between Netflix and its customers. These are moves of a company focused on how to best benefit itself, not how to best benefit its customers. Based on the overall reaction to the price change and the service split, it looks like Netflix never took into account what its customers would think or how they would react to the change. Instead, it focused on its own situation first, and then retroactively tried to spin it in terms of how it might benefit consumers. Had it taken the time to objectively think about and plan for customer reaction rather than looking out for its own interests, it could have prevented all this bad publicity and retained many of the customers it lost. Hopefully, Netflix will take this folly as a learning opportunity and make positive changes to its business philosophy and customer relations.

Filed Under: consumer focus, names
Companies: netflix, qwikster

John Elway No Fan Of Punk Band Elway; Asks It To Change Name

from the perhaps-annoying-ex-football-qb-is-a-better-name? dept

A few weeks ago we wrote about how actor Kevin Spacey had his lawyers get threatening over an album from the band Cassettes Won't Listen, because the album was called "Kevinspacey." To deal with this, the band changed the album name to Evinspacey. Now Capitalist Lion Tamer points us to a similar story, in which former Denver Bronco's star quarterback John Elway has had his lawyers send a letter to the punk band Elway, demanding that the band change its name (though, the band claims that it wasn't a "cease and desist" letter). The band, apparently, isn't giving in that easily:

Of course, any Coloradoan worth their salt might point out the absurdity of Mr. Elway's insistence on legally strongarming a virtually unknown punk band rather than focusing his attention on mending the badly broken Denver Broncos, but that's a whole different issue.

We have no intention of changing the name again. We love the name, regardless of what connotations are inferred by the listener. Surely, if the Dead Kennedys could become one of punk's most popular bands without incurring litigation, Elway can keep their moniker and continue making so-so music for our dozens of fans to enjoy

Your move, John.

Of course, this trend kind of makes you wonder if more and more bands are naming themselves or their albums after celebrities in an attempt to get a publicity boost from any potential legal shenanigans.

Filed Under: elway, john elway, music, names

Facebook Blamed For Accused Killer's Name Spreading...

from the free-speech-anyone? dept

Steven sent over a story out of Australia, where the guy accused of a triple murder (an adult couple and their 16-year-old daughter), has had his name "suppressed" by the court, in an effort to keep the jury from pre-judging the guy. However, before that could happen, the guy's name got out and quickly spread all over Facebook, leading some to claim that this is Facebook's fault:

"Because Facebook is such an interactive site there could be tens of thousands of people who have access to the name," barrister Craig Caldicott said.

"It may have a huge impact on justice because a potential juror may have access to that information and opinions that have been published.

"Facebook are in breach of the suppression order -- it's the company who put it out there."

Frankly, almost nothing Caldicott says here makes sense to me, other than the fact that many people might have access to the name. However, I honestly don't see how the name would have impact on justice. A potential juror could know everything about the case -- three people stabbed in their home, etc. -- without knowing the guy's name. How would knowing or not knowing his name make any difference at all? Separately, it's not Facebook that put the information out there, but the users, people in the community who wanted to share that information. The information is effectively public information, and it's silly to then blame a company, because its users are spreading information that is already widely known.

Another oddity in the story is the news that the victims' family had to spend time asking Facebook to take down the name:

Mourning family members and memorial page administrators spent the afternoon trying to delete all references to the man, but his name was public knowledge well before his court appearance.

I don't understand why they should be doing this at all. The name is out there -- and you'd almost think they'd like the name to be out there, rather than trying to hide it. I guess they're afraid that it will negatively impact the trial, but again, I'm at a loss for how the name makes any difference if people already know the actual details of the murder.

Filed Under: australia, jury, names, privacy
Companies: facebook

Will Kids Change Their Names As They Become Adults To Hide From Their Google Permanent Record?

from the modern-problems dept

Nearly five years ago, we wondered what would happen when the generation that grew up with the internet and social media started running for office. The idea was that when you're kids, you often do silly things that you regret later in life. In the past, those things fade away as memories. However, these days, many of them are now recorded for posterity and easily findable on a search engine. We've wondered if this will lead more people to brush off youthful indiscretions, but there's another possibility as well. Perhaps it will become more standard for kids to change their names as they reach adulthood. That, at least, is the suggestion made by Eric Schmidt in discussing how society hasn't yet come to grips with a world in which so much data is recorded and available. Of course, it's a pretty simple database mapping to link one to the other, so I do wonder whether or not that really makes a difference for other than the most basic of searches.

Still, I often find these discussions by adults to be a bit condescending towards kids. Yes, kids do all sorts of silly things, some of which they may regret later, it's not as if everything they do is regrettable. On top of that, I tend to believe kids are a lot smarter than many adults make them out to be. While there may be many things that make adults cringe, I would bet a lot more kids understand what they should avoid doing online than adults give them credit for.

Filed Under: children, eric schmidt, names, privacy
Companies: google

From Magazines To Restaurants... Conde Nast Licensing Magazine Names For Restaurants

from the well-there's-an-idea dept

I'm not sure how well this will work, but it does seem like an interesting experiment for publications to expand their revenue streams. Magazine publishing giant Conde Nast is setting up an entirely new division to focus on licensing its magazine names for restaurants. There's the GQ Bar & Grill and the Vogue Cafe, for example. The focus right now is not on the US market, so these won't be appearing here, but in places like Hong Kong, Dubai and Moscow. Of course, the general idea isn't new. As the article notes, Playboy has famously licensed its brand all over the place. However, it is an interesting recognition that a publication's brand has additional value beyond the publication itself. So what do you think? Techdirt Cafe? Anyone want to license that?

Filed Under: gq, licensing, magazines, names, publications, vogue
Companies: conde nast

Is Forcing IsoHunt To Block Search Terms A First Amendment Violation?

from the legal-questions... dept

Given similar rulings, and the judge's comments so far in the IsoHunt case, I find it quite unlikely that the company has any chance of getting out from under the injunction issued against it. However, IsoHunt's lawyer, Ira Rothken (who has been involved in a few similar lawsuits), is trying to make the case that the current injunction is way too broad and a violation of the First Amendment. The argument is that the injunction bars certain searches, telling Isohunt operator Gary Fung that he cannot allow searches for certain movie titles, such as Alice in Wonderland. But, Rothken points out, the movie studios don't own that name. They may own a particular movie under that name, but using that to block all searches on the name goes beyond what the law allows:

One issue concerns how Fung should remove searches from his three search engines: Isohunt, Torrentbox and Podtropolis. The Motion Picture Association of America, which brought the case, has sent keyword searches it wants removed, like the number 10, Alice in Wonderland and Dracula, Rothken said.

"One person's copyrighted Wizard of Oz is another person's public domain work," Rothken said in a brief telephone interview Tuesday. He said the movie studios should provide URLs or hashes, which would positively identify which search link should be removed.

"The motion picture studios do not have a monopoly on names on things. That is where the injunction is violating the First Amendment," he said.

I'm sure that copyright system defenders will brush this off as being a pointless exercise, but he's actually got a very reasonable point. Asking for blocks on names alone seems to go well beyond what the law is supposed to allow. It's yet another example of the difference between real copyright law and file sharing copyright law. Copyright law does not allow for a block based on just a name. But, apparently "file sharing copyright law" does. And that's a problem, if you actually believe in the rule of law and interpreting the law accurately.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, names, search
Companies: isohunt

Chinese Court Tosses Out Guge Lawsuit Against Google Over Name

from the nice-try dept

A few weeks ago we noted that a company named Guge was suing Google in China, claiming that Google ripped off its trademarked name by using the name Guge in that country. The problem? The company Guge only named itself that a few days after Google announced plans to use the name Guge in China. That seemed like a pretty blatant moneygrab, and thankfully, the Chinese courts have agreed, tossing out the lawsuit and allowing Google to continue to use the name.

Filed Under: china, names, trademarks
Companies: google

Guge vs. Google: Publicity Stunt Or Reasonable Lawsuit?

from the just-guge-it dept

A Chinese company named Guge Sci-Tech Co. is apparently suing Google's China operation for also using the name Guge. While at first this seems to have more legitimacy than other lawsuits over Google's name, it may not be that clear cut. Guge Sci-Tech only registered their name in April of 2006 -- at a time when Google had already said that it was going to use the Guge name in China. The real problem was that Google didn't bother to register the Guge name itself until November of 2006. All of that makes you wonder if this is really all just a publicity stunt for Guge Sci-Tech. If it is, it might not be working. The AP report on the story doesn't even bother to list what Guge Sci-Tech does.

Filed Under: china, names, trademarks