NBC's Online Olympic Video Not Even Remotely Compelling

from the sharing?-stuff-we-want-to-watch? dept

NBC is hyping up how it's really embracing the web this year in its Olympic coverage. However, the details suggest that (as per usual with NBC Universal) it's taking a very old school approach -- meaning the web is treated as a second class citizen and that it won't be either useful or interesting to people online. That is, there are some restrictions that make its online efforts close to pointless. First, the videos won't be embeddable elsewhere. In other words, one of the key factors for online videos these days -- the shareability of those videos -- won't be allowed. NBC is trying to control and hoard the content -- which goes against everything the web should have taught the big shots at NBC Universal.

Secondly, while NBC is talking up 2,200 live hours of competition being shown online, it's sounding like those 2,200 hours will be of the content that people aren't as interested in watching. That is, the stuff that's being shown on TV will not be simulcast online. In fact, it won't be available to watch online until after it's been shown on TV (so, hardly live). So, any of the big important stuff will have to wait until NBC has shown it on TV (most likely on tape delay). So the only really "live" content you'll see is the stuff that isn't particularly interesting.

Filed Under: olympics, web video
Companies: nbc, nbc universal

IOC: No Chinese Internet Filters During Olympics; All Other Times It's Fine

from the why-just-for-the-olympics? dept

Back in February, a New Yorker story claimed that China was planning to disable its "Great Firewall" for the Olympics, so it may not mean very much to hear that the International Olympic Committee is now demanding that China do exactly that. If the Chinese government was already planning on opening up the internet, it's pretty weak to then demand it anyway. Besides, there does seem to be something rather sketchy about the IOC demanding China drop the firewall just for the Olympics, saying it "would reflect very poorly" on the country. Does it not "would reflect very poorly" on China during the rest of the time as well? It's a cheap ploy for the IOC to demand the filters be taken down just for that period of time. It gives the IOC publicity as standing up to censorship, even though it doesn't care what happens when the Olympics aren't in town.

Filed Under: china, filters, great firewall, ioc, olympics

Not Only Does The Olympics Want Special IP Protections; It Wants To Ignore Everyone Else's

from the funny-how-that-works dept

The Olympic Committee is rather infamous for its ability to convince governments to pass special intellectual property laws just to protect the Olympics. However, it appears as though the folks involved with the Olympics don't take others' IP rights so seriously. Slashdot points out that it appears the Beijing Olympics website has copied a flash game designed by someone else. So, apparently, not only does the Olympics want extra special rights concerning its own efforts, it wants to ignore the already existing copyrights of others. While I find it silly to even try to protect copyright on a simple game like this, it does say something an organization like the Olympics is so keen on over-protecting its own rights while ignoring them for others.

Filed Under: copyright, flash games, intellectual property, olympics, websites

China To Disable Great Firewall For The Olympics?

from the firewall,-what-firewall? dept

While the Chinese government has, at times, been known to deny that it censors the internet, it's a well-known phenomenon. In the last year or so, more and more details have come out about how the process works. Last fall a disgruntled censor explained the massive bureaucracy that goes into determining what is and what is not appropriate. There have also been reports noting the tens of thousands of people who are involved in censoring the internet, and how the system also relies on "volunteers" to both look out for "bad" content while also adding good content.

However, most of those reports focused mainly on the people side of the Great Firewall. Reader Jon now points us to James Fallows' more detailed look at the technological side of the Great Firewall, and the different methods that are used to block sites. Apparently, China has gotten a lot more sophisticated over the past few years in blocking sites. All traffic in and out of the country is monitored, of course, and it's now possible for the system to ban specific pages or articles that have objectionable content, rather than blocking an entire site (as it used to do). There are times when it will still block entire sites, but they can be a lot more narrowly focused. Another interesting point is that China is now using that same Firewall in two directions: if it doesn't want outsiders to be able to access certain documents, it will block foreigners from reaching certain sites within the country as well.

Perhaps the most interesting revelation, however, goes back to the ridiculous denials by Chinese officials that the Great Firewall exists. According to Fallows' sources, during the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, the Great Firewall will be mostly turned off, so that visiting foreigners won't notice any problems accessing foreign sites, and will (or so officials hope) tell people that the concept that China is blocking many popular sites is simply a myth.

Filed Under: china, great firewall, olympics, technology

Olympic Bloggers Learn The Rules; First Rule: No Blogging Anything Interesting

from the the-gold-medal-for-idiocy dept

The International Olympic Committee is known for their ridiculously overreaching attempts to claim intellectual property rights over all aspect of the games -- including various efforts to have laws changed just to give the Olympics special trademark and copyright protection that would bar things that would normally be considered fair use. At the 2004 Olympics, we noted how ridiculous it was that the IOC even banned athletes from blogging anything about the event, afraid that it would upset the media companies who paid their millions of dollars for "exclusive" rights. About a year ago, they promised that for the 2008 Olympics they would allow some blogging, but the rules had yet to be set. Now, the IOC has come out with the official blogging rules for athletes participating in the Beijing Olympics, and they seem particularly burdensome.

Bloggers will not be able to post any audio or video (remember, that might upset the media partners). They can post still photos but only if they were taken outside of "accredited" areas or inside those areas if no sporting events can actually be seen in the photos. In other words: please make your blog posts as boring as possible and make sure they don't include any of the stuff that people might be interested in. Then there's a bit of a contradiction, as the rules state that blog posts should "adhere to the Olympic spirit," but that "there should be no commercial reference or advertising." That's funny. I thought commercial references and advertising were the Olympic spirit.

Filed Under: blogging, olympics, restrictions

Where Are The Cyborg Olympics?

from the come-with-me-if-you-want-to-live dept

Earlier this week, double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius from South Africa was disqualified from participating in the 2008 Olympics by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). Born without normal lower legs, Pistorius uses artificial carbon-fiber feet that are more efficient, and on top of that, his lack of real legs makes him lighter -- as well as possibly reducing his body's production of lactic acid from exercise. So with these advantages, the IAAF judged that his prosthetics were unfair to other competitors.

However, this ruling brings up very interesting questions surrounding where society draws the line between natural and artificial augmentations of the human body. Lasik and similar eye operations can enhance human vision for athletes beyond average eyesight. Blood doping doesn't technically introduce artificial substances into the body. Natural gene mutations are okay for now, but it's likely just a matter of time before genetic engineering becomes an issue. So at some point, the line between a 'natural' athletic competitor and an engineered contestant will need to be more clearly defined -- if only because it will become increasingly difficult to tell the two apart.

The modern Olympics were set up as a way to bring nations together (if you believe Wikipedia). But if the entertainment aspect of these games becomes more valuable, then in addition to the Robo Olympics and cyber games, the post-modern Olympics may need to offer a place for cyborgs if the Paralympic games aren't competitive enough.

Filed Under: amputee, olympics, prosthetic

Copyright Out Of Control: Does Saying '2012 Olympic Games' Violate All Sorts Of Copyright Laws?

from the have-fun-with-it dept

It's been nearly two years since we wrote about the effort by the folks who run the Olympics to have British law changed to provide special copyright protection for the word "Olympics" and even "2012" (as that's when the Olympics will be held in London). This was hardly the first (nor last) time that the Olympics had gone overboard in trying to protect its brand. Years ago, they started threatening anyone who used the word, and more recently sought similar legal changes in Canada for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics (that's gonna cost me...). Over in the UK, playwright and president of the Writer's Guild, David Edgar is talking about how ridiculous all this is, specifically pointing to the Olympic committee's concern over a new novel called "Olympic Mind Games." Eventually (perhaps realizing the ridicule it would generate), it decided not to sue the author, but based on the law, it probably could have. As Edgar writes:

By declaring images, titles and now words to be ownable brands, these various organisations and individuals are contributing to an increased commodification and thus privatisation of materials previously agreed to be in the public domain. For scientists, this constrains the use of public and published knowledge, up to and including the human genome. For artists, it implies that the only thing you can do with subject matter is to sell it.

Edgar goes on to point to other similarly ridiculous attempts to misuse copyright or trademark law to prevent certain actions. The key problem here (once again) is that too many people now believe that the purpose of intellectual property laws is "protection" of the creator/owner. That's simply not true. The purpose of copyright law is to create the incentives to create the content in question. The purpose of trademark law, is really about consumer protection -- and making sure that someone doesn't buy something under the false impression that it was made and/or endorsed by someone else. Obviously, both of these require some amount of protection to make those things possible -- but in every instance, it should be viewed under the light of the original purpose of both laws. If the control is not related to the original incentive to create, or in preventing consumer confusion -- then the exercises in control should not be allowed under those laws.

Filed Under: control, copyright, incentive, olympics, protection

Beijing Officials: Olympic Food Will Be Safe Because We're Using Technology!

from the the-answer-to-all-our-prayers dept

There have been a number of food safety problems coming out of China lately, and it's no wonder that this has officials in Beijing more than a little on edge about the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It's amusing, though, to see Olympic officials explain that the food during the Olympics will be safe because of technology. It's as if they only need to say that they're using technology to keep people safe and everyone will automatically assume it's so. However, the details simply suggest that this is just for the logistics aspect. They'll be tracking where food goes, but that doesn't mean they'll be doing anything to make sure the food is really safe. At the same time, why should there be any difference in emphasis over the safety of the food used for the Olympics as opposed to the safety of food in general? If anything, this announcement sounds more like officials trying to calm any worries by invoking the magic word "technology," rather than taking real efforts to improve the safety of Chinese products.

Filed Under: beijing, food, olympics