Slap Chop Remix Being Used As A Real TV Ad

from the fantastic dept

Back in May, we wrote about the amazing remixed autotuned "rap remix" of the infamous Slap Chop infomercial. In the post, we noted that the ad was almost certainly infringing on basic copyright, but it was actually doing an amazing job attracting more attention to the product. It's much more entertaining than the original ad itself. And, amazingly, it looks like the folks behind Slap Chop (no slouches when it comes to recognizing viral ways to get their message out to the world) have embraced the remix. Details are minimal, but Lee points us to the news that the remix is going to start airing on TV as a real commercial for the Slap Chop: Once again, it's great to see the convergence of a few different things we talk about here, including how advertising is content and content is advertising, along with a better way to respond to "infringement," by recognizing how you can take advantage of it, rather than breaking out the lawyers and threatening to sue.

Filed Under: advertising, content, copyright, remix, slapchop

Odd Argument: Google Will Lose Out Once Everyone's Comfortable Paying For Stuff

from the wait,-what? dept

I think that Google has a fair number of weak areas where there are wide open opportunities to attack its business, but honestly I have a lot of trouble believing that Google's embrace of "free" services is its Achilles' heel as claimed in an article over at SeekingAlpha. The argument is that Amazon and Apple have figured out how to make paid content work, and that goes against Google's general culture:

Because it's not culturally disposed to charging fees and has few billing relationships, Google's online search clout has been limited to free ad-supported arrangements. Google's share of total domestic online revenues could be at risk as user payments begin to match or exceed advertising, Mitchell contends. Google claims more than 30 percent of online ad market and a smaller share of online content apps payments.

This is wrong on so many different levels, it's hard to know where to start. First, I'd argue that Amazon and Apple haven't really figured out how to make paid content work. Both still mostly use it as a loss leader (or very very low margin leader) to sell higher margin physical goods. Second, the growth projections for paid content are (a) questionable and (b) starting on such a small base as to be effectively meaningless when compared to a market as large as advertising.

But, furthermore, the idea that if paid content/apps actually do become popular, Google couldn't capitalize on that, is difficult to believe. Google has certainly experimented with various forms of paid content and software. The fact that they haven't gone all that well doesn't mean that Google couldn't quickly come in and enable the ability where it does work.

So, yes, there are plenty of places where an attack on Google could be successful. But betting on the success of paid content and paid apps to bring down Google? Sorry, it's just not believable. But, you have to hand it to some Wall Street folks for actually thinking that the way to beat a company that gives away most stuff for free is to charge for it. After all, haven't we been hearing for years that "you can't compete with free?" And, now suddenly we're being told that offering something for "free" can't compete with a paid offering?

Filed Under: business models, charging, content, free
Companies: amazon, apple, google

Making Banner Ads Cool Again

from the is-it-possible? dept

We talk a lot about the idea that advertising is content and content is advertising, and there are always those who get confused and insist that they hate advertising... and that if they see content as advertising they won't pay attention. But explain that to the millions of folks who tune into the Super Bowl each year to watch the commercials rather than the game. If the content is good, no one cares that it's also advertising. Of course, usually when we talk about this sort of thing, we're talking about content/advertising that goes outside the usual boundaries of advertising -- since the traditional forms of advertising have been so overdone and are so painful that people instinctively ignore them.

But could the banner ad, for example, be rescued? I still remember, way back in the early days of banner ads, actually paying quite a bit of attention to an HP banner ad for the Mopier. In fact, I remember the ad so much, I still remember the name of the product it was advertising. That's because the ad itself was fun. It was a game of Pong within the ad itself, with the paddles controlled via mouseovers. That was advertising that worked... But, for the most part these days, banner ads are either boring or intrusive. Yet, sometimes, people still do creative things. Mike (different one, obviously) pointed me to an award-winning banner ad from Pringles, which is quite silly, but fun to click, because it tells a story (and does so amusingly) and you want to find out how it ends. I don't know if the initial call to action is enough to get people to dive in, but if advertisers actually put more thought into making their ads interesting and fun, perhaps people wouldn't just ignore them all the time.

Filed Under: advertising is content, banner ads, content, content is advertising, pringles

Can Someone Please Tell Us How You Determine What's A 'Legal' Search Engine From An 'Illegal' One?

from the is-it-like-obscenity? dept

I've had a lot of trouble with courts around the globe pinning blame on search engines for what they find, using a questionable interpretation of the law for "contributory" infringement or "inducing" infringement. Such things leave open such a wide spectrum of questions, it basically puts any search engine at risk. People have questioned in the past why Google isn't targeted the same way The Pirate Bay or Torrentspy were, because functionally they're doing the same thing: they index information and help people find it. Of course, some will say that The Pirate Bay is somehow guilty because of the way it acts towards copyright holders, but since when has attitude changed whether the same action is legal or illegal?

Either way it's beginning to feel like judges are determining what is and what is not contributory infringement in the same way "obscenity" is determined, using Justice Potter Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it" test. This is a bad thing, because while some may claim the extremes are clear (which is certainly questionable) there's a large gray area in the middle that is completely unclear. And having a huge unclear gray area means a lot of potential liability on innovators -- leading fewer people to innovate. And that's undeniably bad.

Take for example, the situation going on in the UK, where Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman decided to do something that makes a lot of sense: create a search engine for videos online, indexing a variety of different sites. This was as a part of their company Scopelight, and the search engine itself was called Surfthechannel. This is certainly a useful product. But, of course, the search engine's algorithm has no way of knowing if that video has been put up by the copyright holder on purpose or if it's unauthorized. Even more tricky, how does it determine fair use? So, it did the reasonable thing: it includes everything. Lots of the videos are legal. Plenty are potentially unauthorized. Apparently that wasn't good enough for a UK-based anti-piracy group UK-FACT, who had Scopelight's premises raided, claiming the site is illegal, since people can find unauthorized content via it. Of course, you can find unauthorized content on Google as well.

But you know who's liable for that? Whoever actually put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it.

UK-FACT was unable to get criminal charges filed against SurfTheChannel, but no matter, a civil case has been filed instead. So, once again, a judge is going to have to determine why a third party website can be guilty of others' infringement based on a highly subjective "I know it when I see it" set of reasons. This is a bad deal for everyone.

Filed Under: content, copyright, search engines
Companies: scopelight

AP: Others Who Use Our Work For Free Are Stealing... Now Who Wants To Provide Content To Us For Free?

from the double-standards-much? dept

The Associated Press has been going on quite the rampage over the past few months about all those evil online sites that are "stealing" its content, demanding that those who use its content absolutely must pay for it. We joked in response that the AP and other newspapers complaining about people "stealing" their coverage should actually be paying the people who make the news. After all, aren't they really creating the "content"? That was meant as a joke, but sometimes you have to wonder if people at the Associated Press even realize the double standard they've set for themselves.

After all this complaining about others using its content for free, Valleywag points out that the AP was asking people to submit free accounts, pictures and videos of the train crash in Washington DC this week. Apparently "free" only works in one direction with the AP. If it's outbound, it's stealing. If it's inbound... that's reporting.

Filed Under: content, entitlement, journalism, news
Companies: associated press

NY Times Discovers That Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising

from the about-time... dept

For many years we've been repeating the idea that advertising is content and content is advertising, and if you think one is different than the other, than you're not going to understand today's content business models at all. More and more people have been figuring this out over the years, and it's nice to see the concept finally warrant a mention in the NY Times, where it covers a recent T-Mobile ad that aired on TV only once, but spread like wildfire online. You can see it below: The NY Times focuses on how this kind of advertising is "free," but that only gets part of the point. Yes, if others are passing along your content it's "free" advertising, but in order to get others to pass along your content for free, it needs to actually be good -- and you have to make sure it's actually advertising what you want it to advertise.

Filed Under: advertising, content

Confused French Indie Labels Sue Google

from the let's-work-on-the-logic-bit dept

It appears that the collection society for indie record labels in France, SPPF, is a bit confused about how the internet works. It's sued Google over videos on YouTube, claiming that while Google had removed a bunch of videos that were using songs covered by SPPF, many of those songs had returned! Of course, that's probably because other people uploaded them. But rather than put the blame where it's due (on the uploaders), SPPF has just decided to sue Google. Even worse, SPPF never bothered to sign up for Google's totally free program that lets artists upload content they want protected so that Google can match the content and either stop it from being uploaded or allow the copyright holder to profit by putting ads on it. So, basically, SPPF is complaining that Google won't do what Google absolutely would do if SPPF only used the tools Google has provided. And, claiming that SPPF shouldn't have to be proactive on this makes no sense either -- because how is Google to know whether the use of the content is authorized or not? This lawsuit seems like folks at SPPF were just too lazy to actually understand how Google/YouTube work and so they sued.

Filed Under: content, copyright, france, music, videos
Companies: google, sppf

NBC's Zucker Still Seems Like He's Feeling Around In The Dark

from the still-getting-used-to-this-whole-internet-thing dept

It's hard to know where to start with this story on an interview with NBC head honcho Jeff Zucker from the D conference this week. He makes a few comments about replacing "analog dollars with digital pennies", saying he thinks they're now up to dimes, but his comments overall still don't create much of an impression that he understands the fundamental changes needed to his company's business any better today than he did a couple years back. For instance, he talks about the high cost of producing network TV, and how it's made it impossible to "sustain just average programming." Is that such a bad thing? Perhaps too much "just average programming" has led NBC to its current #3 spot among TV networks. To this point, he says that a show like Seinfeld, which didn't perform all that well in its initial four episodes, wouldn't survive today. But whose fault is that? It's hard to see how it's anybody but the networks'. If they can't do a better job of determining which shows will be hits, or crafting popular shows, that certainly seems to be their own problem. Taken in whole, the comments largely seem to smack of the same old "the world is changing... which means there's a problem with the world, not with our business" thinking that dominates old media. While NBC's Hulu is an early success, it doesn't mean the company fully grasps the change needed. For instance, if finding new hits is such a problem, why not leverage the online presence to test and build new shows? Or here's a novel thought: Hulu's a popular site, so why not test shows there before putting them on the broadcast network?

Filed Under: content, jeffrey zucker, online video
Companies: nbc universal

Lock Up Your Content... And Have All The Traffic Go To Your Competitors

from the it's-how-it-works dept

Kevin Stapp writes in to highlight a simple fact that has been discussed time and time again: that if a newspaper locks up its content behind a paywall, it will lose a ton of traffic beyond just the regular readers who refuse to pay, because the sites that send you links (and traffic and new readers) will simply point elsewhere. As an example, Kevin points out that with Slashdot's post about Craigslist suing Henry McMaster, it initially had a paywall-blocked WSJ link... but quickly added a free link from another news source. This is a key point that old school newspaper folks keep forgetting. They think that their job is to deliver the news, and the readers' job is to read the news. But that's not the way it works anymore. These days, the community helps spread the news -- and by making that more difficult, you decrease your value to everyone, and make it more difficult for readers to help spread the news and promote your paper's coverage.

Filed Under: competition, content, journalism, paywall

Hulu Continues Its War On Users

from the this-is-not-good dept

We've wondered in the past if it's really possible for Hulu to survive in the longterm, given its awkward position between consumers who want to watch content, and content providers who want to put massive limits on how people can access content. This got plenty of attention in the ridiculous (and totally unnecessary) fight to block Boxee. In that case, even Hulu admits that it would like to allow Boxee (which is nothing more than a different type of browser), but that its content providers won't allow it (despite the fact that anyone who uses Boxee can simply open up another browser and watch the same content).

One of the biggest complaints with Hulu is that its content is limited only to people in the US, so those trying to access it from elsewhere get a message saying "too bad." Of course, there have been rather simple workarounds, using proxy servers to access the content. A couple months ago, when I was in the UK, I wanted to watch something on Hulu, but was blocked because of the location. Luckily, I just logged into my VPN, and Hulu let me through. Yet, today that might not work. Apparently Hulu has started blocking various anonymous proxies, saying that to watch Hulu, you need to log out of the proxy/VPN and "prove" that you're really in the states. Beyond being ridiculous, this can be a security risk. Many of us use VPNs for security reasons.

Again, my guess is that this is due to pressure coming from Hulu content providers, rather than Hulu itself. It makes little to no sense for the company to waste time and resources blocking people from viewing their content. However, it's that ongoing split, whereby Hulu has to waste time and resources making its service worse that may eventually spell doom for the company. Those who are blocked are likely to just go elsewhere -- such as BitTorrent -- to find the content they want, and thus the content providers won't get any ad revenue, whereas on Hulu they do share in the ad revenue. It's difficult to see how it makes any sense. Sure, some might point out that there are "rights" questions involved -- since the content providers may not have licenses to display the content outside the US, but given the basic geographic restrictions the site has set up, you'd think that Hulu had passed a sufficient bar that no court would accuse the company or the content provider of willfully violating any license agreements.

There's a pretty simple maxim that Hulu may be unable to follow: if you have to spend time and money making your product worse, you're going to have a hard time surviving. I recognize that Hulu has been something of a success to date, but it's hard to keep that up when you keep screwing over your users.

Filed Under: content, proxies, video
Companies: hulu