stories filed under: "access"

Innovation In Wireless: The Disruption In Connectivity

from the data-everywhere dept

Mon, Nov 21st 2011 6:33pm — Mike Masnick

This post is part of an Intel-sponsored series of posts we'll be doing here at Techdirt on the topic of innovation. Posts in the series consist of a video interview of myself (which you'll see below), the post, and another video interview with an Intel representative and others. That second video, obviously, is content from Intel, but my video and what I've written here was done with complete and total editorial independence. We hope you enjoy the content and take part in the overall discussion, either via the comments or through the interactive ad unit to the right of the post.

When most people think about wireless technologies today, they think about the fact that it makes it easier for them to connect their computers without having to plug in. Or that it lets data flow to their smartphones. But the overall impact can be seen as being much more profound. First up, here's a short video of me talking about the impact of wireless technologies: I think it has become easy for many of us to take for granted the power of wireless connectivity. It's almost difficult to remember what life was like before we had data at our fingertips anywhere, at any time on any device. And, yet, it wasn't that long ago that this wasn't true at all. WiFi has only been around for about a dozen years. Mobile cellular data (at any reasonable bandwidth) is much more recent. And, yet it's become so embedded in our lives. The idea that you can get directions anywhere, pull up information about any shop or restaurant, or even access any content at all is so powerful, yet almost feels mundane already.

But think about just how powerful it is in areas that were barely connected at all in the past. We've read stories about communities in developing nations where small players, who only used to have access to the nearest market, can suddenly reach out to others, and actually allow for competition for their products. That can be a massive change, in that it gets rid of a monopsony situation, allowing the poor in developing countries to get out of a never-ending cycle of poverty.

Similarly, wireless technology alone is enabling new careers and new types of businesses. There are the famous stories of women (and it's almost always women) in certain rural villages, who have built careers out of carrying around mobile phones that can be brought to different farmers, and used on a time-share-like system. This allows those farmers to have access to data and connectivity, but also has provided a way for those women to build up a career for themselves.

And think, then, about what begins to happen as the vast richness of data and information, that we now take for granted, reaches further and further into the far corners of the globe. The ability to do more, to build more and to connect more is going to reshape the lives of the many billions of underprivileged people of the world in ways that we can't even begin to fathom. The world just reached an astounding 7 billion people -- most of whom don't have access to many of the things we in the west take for granted -- including information. Wireless technologies have a chance to change that equation, and what comes out of it may be completely unexpected, but tremendously powerful. The idea that people who in the past may never have had an impact on the world may now be able to reach out and share their ideas and innovations with everyone is a revolution that is destined to bring powerful new ideas to the entire world.

Below you can see a video Intel put together, discussing how powerful wireless technologies can be.

Filed Under: access, innovation, wireless

15 Comments

Apps Letting You Stream Your Own Music From The Cloud Being Pressured Over 'Licensing'

from the you-don't-own-what-you-thought-you-own dept

Fri, Nov 4th 2011 4:00am — Mike Masnick

When Google, Amazon and Apple all entered the "cloud music" space at about the same time, we pointed out that we seemed to be missing the real point of the cloud. That was, that all of the services required the storage provider's own client app to play the music stored there. As I noted, that's not what the promise of the cloud is. It should be about being able to store data in the cloud and then let any relevant app access that data through an API. It's positively ridiculous that the (all legal, by the way) music I have is stored in multiple places in the cloud. For years, I've backed it up with a person Amazon S3 account. But when Amazon launched its cloud music player, I couldn't just point the player to my S3 storage, but had to re-upload. Then when Google launched its Music Beta... re-upload. The best player in the space may be MP3Tunes, who is the most open and willing to let third parties in. But most of the big guys are limited.

So it's interesting to see that some folks are writing third party apps to access music in Google and Amazon's cloud... but apparently Amazon flipped out about the aMusic iPhone app and, as sent in by Jeffrey Nonken, politely asked the developer to kill the app, noting that since Apple doesn't have licenses that "allow" third party access, he has to wait until they have such licenses.

This is, to put it mildly, stupid. If I have legally obtained files, and I put them in a locker where only I have the legal access to them, why shouldn't I be able to point any app I want at it. This would be like saying that if I had a cllient side app playing music on my hard drive, I couldn't then get another app to play the same files... unless the hard drive maker got the right "licenses" from the record labels. How does that make any sense at all?

This is definitely a big problem with "cloud" services these days however, where folks like the record labels think they retain ownership and control of files that people think they legally "own," limiting how they can listen to them. That seems to give the labels much greater rights than are reasonable granted under copyright law... just because the files are stored at a data center, rather than on a local hard drive.

Filed Under: access, apps, cloud, copyright, licensing, streaming

51 Comments

How Copyright Extension Is Harming Classical Music

Culture

from the for-shame dept

Tue, Sep 27th 2011 11:05pm — Mike Masnick

With all the talk of the EU's decision to retroactively extend copyright from 50 to 70 years, despite no evidence that this is needed or useful, very little attention was paid to the massive harm this causes. Multiple studies showed that such an extension wouldn't provide much, if any, money to musicians, but most of the money would actually be diverted from artists to major record labels. And it gets even worse. Copycense points us to some reports about how copyright extension is guaranteeing that plenty of classical music won't be heard:

Last week, the EU ratified a new law extending copyright in music recordings to 70 years. That, argued Bob Stanley, was a bad thing for most musicians, and for music itself: much would now remain locked in the vaults of the big record companies. Stanley had been looking at the world of rock and pop, but PristineAudio, who runs a label specialising in out-of-copyright recordings, explained the ruling had far-reaching implications for classical music as well. "One major release of ours earlier this year illustrates well something this new act most certainly will kill off. A historic concert given in 1960 by British conductor Leopold Stokowski with the Philadelphia Orchestra � fell into the public domain in Europe [in 2011], and we were able to transcribe the conductor's own copies of the master tapes, prepared for him by the radio station, and release in the highest quality a concert that has long been of great interest to collectors.

"The irony of copyright law as it stands is that historic orchestral broadcasts are often almost impossible to reissue by anyone, until they pass into the public domain. The standard contract with an orchestra would allow for an initial broadcast and then a single repeat transmission. Thereafter, a new contract would need to be drawn up with the musicians for any further use of that recording. Trying today to track down the performers (or their estates) for a symphony orchestra that existed in 1960 is well-nigh impossible."

That's not the "irony" of copyright. It's the design of copyright, which has always been about granting monopolies to a few players, while limiting the market. It's a protectionist plan designed to protect a few industry leaders, rather than do what it says on the face of the box: promoting progress by increasing cultural output.

Filed Under: access, classical music, copyright, copyright extension, europe

71 Comments

Labels Dropping Out Of Spotify Are Totally Missing The Point

Music Industry

from the it-ain't-about-direct-revenue dept

Fri, Sep 23rd 2011 6:47am — Mike Masnick

We recently reposted a blog post by the indie band Uniform Motion discussing how much money they make from various music platforms. A bunch of other blogs reported on it too and it created some misguided controversy. First, however, in our post, we included the band's Bandcamp streaming widget and are going to do so again here, because it's fun and the music is good. So click play as you read the rest of the post: The controversy started because some people focused almost exclusively on the amount that the band said it made from Spotify streams. Following that, three indie record labels pulled all their tracks from Spotify, with quotes such as "there does not appear to be an upside."

Spotify tried to stem the criticism by noting that users don't pay per stream, and that it's just selling access, and thus "it does not make sense to look at revenues from Spotify from a per stream or other music unit-based point of view," and later that Spotify is generating significant revenue for labels. To be honest, this response is a bit tone deaf. Even if Spotify isn't a per-unit business, it's always going to be how musicians view the service. Of course, the bigger point, made by Jay Frank, is that if indie bands don't make much money, it's not Spotify's fault -- it's the fact that not many people listen to their music.

And that actually gets to the bigger point, and shows why it's short-sighted (bordering on braindead) for labels to drop out of Spotify, claiming the payments aren't high enough. We noted in our original post that depending solely on direct payments for music is simply a bad (or, at least, incomplete) business model for musicians. But, making it more difficult for anyone to hear you doesn't help you get any money either. As Frank notes in his piece:

The issue is that you then encounter the one thing worse than getting paid peanuts and that�s obscurity. People want to be entertained by music, not have to hunt things down. It has to be easy, which is why Spotify has gained so much traction. If you manage to get an average music fan�s attention on your band (out of the THREE THOUSAND others that released something that week) for 2 seconds and they look on Spotify and it�s not there, do you know what they do? They move on to another song. And you�ve lost your chance of gaining a fan. And the royalty. The number of people who would then spend time searching for alternative listening methods is miniscule.

So taking yourself out of Spotify means you get no royalties, which seems worse than little royalties, and you make it harder for fans to find you, learn about you... and decide to support you in other ways. So, how does it benefit artists to not be in Spotify? I don't get it... Complain about Spotify's royalty rates all you want, but you can still leverage the platform to make money in other ways (direct to fan, shows, merch, etc.). And then laugh as Spotify gets none of that revenue, despite helping you build your fanbase.

In fact, some competing indie labels have already noted that Spotify has helped other parts of their business. The label Earache recently noted that Spotify appears to have increased their iTunes revenue:

While none of us have a crystal ball to see exactly which way the future of this business is going to turn, we have been actively embracing all possible legal outlets for our artists and their music. We have given away free album downloads by both Gama Bomb and Wormrot and like to think we keep an open mind on the latest ways people �consume� their music.

I do not believe for one minute the record industry is dying but evolving (as it always has) and it is up to us as record labels to find, develop and build careers for our artists utilizing our accumulative years of experience.

I think it is no coincidence that when Spotify launched here in the USA, we also had our best ever month of sales on iTunes. Spotify is just one of the many new ways that fans can find and listen to new music by our recording artists and should be seen as that and nothing more.�

Exactly. That's a record label who understands the bigger point. Those leaving Spotify in protest aren't doing themselves or their artists any favors.

Filed Under: access, music, obscurity
Companies: spotify

58 Comments

Why People Pay More For Access To Infringing Content

Culture

from the the-way-they-want-it dept

Fri, Jul 29th 2011 11:27am — Mike Masnick

It's kind of funny to see the entertainment industry make totally contradictory statements about cyberlockers and usenet access providers in talking about infringement. On the one hand, they complain about how it's "impossible to compete with free" because "pirates just want everything for free." But, at the same time, they whine about how cyberlockers and usenet services often charge people for access, thus making them commercial enterprises who (according to the industry) "profit from piracy." But those two things seem somewhat contradictory. If people who engage in unauthorized file sharing only want stuff for free, then why do they pay these providers to get access? And if it's impossible to compete with free, then why does it look like these services have successfully done so? Correspondingly, why doesn't the industry open up its own competitors?

All of this comes to mind as Glyn Moody points us to an "open letter" that Mark Goodge wrote to UK Culture Minister Ed Vaizey, in response to Vaizey's statement that the blocking of access to Newzbin2 wasn't a big deal, because users should simply go to services that offer "legal access to movie downloads at reasonable prices."

However, as Goodge points out, he knows people who pay more for access to Usenet than it would cost to pay for a competing legitimate offering. And the reason is because their infringing activity has nothing to do with just "wanting everything for free," but wanting more convenience, more selection and fewer restrictions:

The reason people will pay for Usenet+Newzbin is that they want to be able to obtain movies in a format that suits them, not a format which suits the provider. They want to be able to download them and watch them whenever they want, not have to be online in order to stream them (assuming, of course, they�ve got enough bandwidth to stream movies anyway). They want a download service that gives them the same ownership and flexibility as buying DVDs. And they want to be able to obtain the movies they want to see without artificial geographic restrictions.

So, apart from the fact that it simply isn�t true that services such as Lovefilm are a suitable solution, it�s pretty clear that there�s a whole untapped market here for legitimate online purchase of movies via download. People are willing to pay, and willing to pay a fair amount -- provided that what they get in return is what they want.

At the moment, the only people making any money out of this market are those involved in infringement. As long as the movie industry maintains its outdated business practices and carries on treating its (potential) customers as the enemy, that�s how it will stay. Blocking Newzbin may result in a short-term drop in the number of people getting movies via Usenet, but it won�t lead to an increase in people getting them via legitimate means until there are suitable alternatives which provide the same level of convenience and functionality.

Contrary to popular belief, most people who �pirate� movies are not doing it for financial reasons. They�re doing it simply because nobody is offering them a product that they want to buy.

In other words, they're happy to pay... if only the industry would offer it to them in the manner that customers want. This isn't a surprise. For years, studies have pointed out that those who infringe really tend to be unserved consumers, who aren't getting the offerings in the form that they most want it. Smart companies realize that this is a form of (free) market research, and look for ways to better satisfy their customer base.

Tragically, the entertainment industry instead looks to politicians and the courts to block consumers from doing what they want, and then pretend it's for consumers' own good.

Filed Under: access, content, convenience, infringement
Companies: newzbin

136 Comments

MPAA Still More Focused On Those Darn 'Pirates' Rather Than Making Money

Movie Industry

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Wed, Jun 29th 2011 2:32pm — Mike Masnick

It appears that the MPAA's whac-a-mole game of pointlessness continues. As a whole bunch of you have been submitting, the MPAA's international arm (just chop off the last "A" in the name and you get the MPA) is asking a court in the UK to issue an injunction forcing ISP BT to block everyone's access to Newzbin. Newzbin, of course, is a Usenet aggregator, that was found liable for infringement via its service, in large part because the site's staffers actively promoted that you could use the service to infringe. This was no surprise, as courts don't look kindly on encouraging people to infringe. What then followed was a bizarre and convoluted mess, in which Newzbin reappeared -- though it's not entirely clear how or who was behind it.

So, now, the MPA has decided that it's easier to just try to block access to it. Apparently the UK already has a "Great Firewall" type of system that requires ISPs to block access to sites deemed to be child porn sites, and the MPA says that it should be simple to start censoring "pirate" sites that it doesn't like as well. Of course, if you don't see the slippery slope there, you probably missed the story about how a list of "pirate sites" to be blocked, which was put together for ad giant GroupM with help from MPAA members Viacom and Warner Bros., included such evil sites as the Internet Archive, Vimeo and SoundCloud. How long until the MPAA asks them to be blocked from the UK as well? Of course, this is what happens when "fighting piracy," rather than "helping studios adapt and make money" is your number one priority. You end up with an entire "content protection" division with multiple vice presidents... but no "here's how we adapt and make money" division. And all those "content protection" lawyers have to have something to do, so why not press for blanket censorship? It sure beats working...

Filed Under: access, censorship, mpa, mpaa, uk
Companies: bt, mpa, mpaa, newzbin

39 Comments

Microsoft: Hey, If We Had To Go Through Europe's Crazy Antitrust Process, Why Shouldn't Google?

Legal Issues

from the at-least-they-see-the-irony dept

Thu, Mar 31st 2011 3:16am — Mike Masnick

I've suggested in the past that neither Microsoft nor Google should be pointing the antitrust/monopoly finger at each other. After all, both companies seem prone to getting accused of antitrust violations. Yet, as a competitive tool to whack at competitors, it's apparently way too tempting. Not long after Microsoft spent years defending itself against antitrust charges in the EU, it has now filed a complaint against Google in the EU, alleging antitrust violations. To be fair, the company is pretty upfront about how this might seem ironic:

There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today�s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step. More so than most, we recognize the importance of ensuring that competition laws remain balanced and that technology innovation moves forward.

To be fair, the specific antitrust concerns that Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith lays out against Google appear to be a bit more compelling than some of the previous attempts by Microsoft to make Google out to be a monopolist, such as silly claims about where companies appear in search results. Specifically, Microsoft highlights Google blocking access to certain YouTube data, so that only Google can provide good searches of YouTube videos, as well as blocking Microsoft's mobile platform from accessing more YouTube data, which is done by Android.

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube--and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft's new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It's done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn't offer a competing search service.

Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft's new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft's YouTube "app" on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube's mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.

While the full details aren't clear, and this is only one side, those do seem like valid concerns if it's true that Google is really limiting such access. The concern over antitrust is always in whether or not the company is abusing its position to hold back competition unfairly. I don't know if Microsoft has a case, and I'm especially skeptical of the EU's antitrust process, which seems more focused on punishing success than on making sure there's no real consumer harm. However, this is certainly going to be a case worth paying attention to over the next few years...

Filed Under: access, antitrust, eu, youtube
Companies: google, microsoft

23 Comments

Why Do Reporters Feel They Need To Get A Quote To Report What They Know?

Journalism

from the journalism-failures dept

Wed, Sep 29th 2010 1:43am — Mike Masnick

Greg David does a nice job highlighting one reason why so many "traditional" journalism offerings are in trouble these days, in discussing why no news reporters seemed willing to point out that Jeff Zucker would surely be moved out of NBC once the Comcast takeover was done. While that news was finally made official recently, before that, the press dutifully reported the claim that Zucker would remain. Yet, as David points out, almost everyone covering the space knew it wasn't true, but they felt they had to report it because they couldn't quote someone to say otherwise, or they might lose access to NBC. After detailing why it was inevitable that Zucker would be tossed, David explains:

Reporters knew all this. Some believed they couldn't write it unless someone told them it would happen. They also knew that if they did write Mr. Zucker was doomed, he might not be accessible to them and he could even shut the NBC Universal door entirely to reporters who angered him.

The end result, of course, is that readers of the NBC stories wonder why the reporters were so wrong about Mr. Zucker's future.

I visited an undergraduate journalism class at Baruch last week and was asked how much advertising pressures affected editorial coverage in my years as editor of Crain's. The answer was hardly at all. Rather, I told the students, reporters self-censor themselves not over concern about advertising but because they want access to companies.

The Zucker story showed that once again that is reporters' interest in access not advertisers who censor the news.

In some ways, though, this is all a damaging circle. They need "access" because that's how they get those meaningless quotes that allow them to say what they know is true, but won't say without a quote. This is partly why I keep trying to explain to PR people that I don't want or care about access to companies in most cases. My posts tend to be me saying what I believe -- and if someone from a company has something important to say, they can say it in the comments. If reporters were more willing to actually say what they know and not worry so much about access (which isn't nearly as valuable as they think), perhaps people would actually trust them a bit more.

Filed Under: access, journalism, point of view, reporting

24 Comments

Woman Sues Facebook After Getting Banned

Legal Issues

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

Thu, Sep 2nd 2010 11:31am — Mike Masnick

Michael Scott points us to a story of a woman who not only drove from Maryland to California to go to Facebook's offices to complain about having her account banned, but (when that didn't get the account reinstated) then she sued the site for the ban. Facebook says she was banned for harassing others. The woman, Karen Beth Young, says she was just promoting causes she was interested in, and, in doing so, friending lots of people (about 4,000 by the time the account was closed). She claims the ban violated her constitutional rights... and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The constitutional claim is almost certainly a non-starter. As a company, Facebook certainly has the right to ban pretty much anyone it wants to ban. The ADA claim also seems like it won't go very far, but as Eric Goldman notes, with so much ADA litigation, there's always a chance that "a court could have sympathy for the plaintiff." In this case, she's claiming that she has a bipolar disorder, and Facebook "does not provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities," like her. But that implies the problem was with her mental health issues, rather than her actions on the site. This seems like yet another case of someone saying that if they don't like something it must be against the law... even when that's not the case at all.

Filed Under: access, ada, free speech, lawsuits
Companies: facebook

43 Comments

People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference

Business Models

from the partly-right dept

Fri, Jun 11th 2010 6:41am — Mike Masnick

A bunch of folks have been sending over this short video by Forrester Analyst James McQuivey about the idea that people pay for access to content, not for content itself, and that this has always been the case:

As he notes, in the past, content and access were often bundled together, so people confused the two. But, today, they've become somewhat separated, which is why many of the content industries are struggling. McQuivey's suggestion to people is to build business models that focus on charging for access and that's how you "get people to pay for content."

He's absolutely right that people have paid for access (a scarce good) and that getting people to pay for access is a business model that works (though, hardly the only content-based business model). However, the problem is that I think he underplays the difference between access and content, such that many people will hear his talk and assume that "paying for access" really means "putting up an artificial paywall that forces people to pay." The mistake there is in not realizing where the real separation is between access and content.

People pay for their broadband connections. That's access. People pay for their mobile phone data plans. That's access. Those are scarcities. Putting up a paywall or a micropayment system is not paying for access. It's trying to set an arbitrary limit on content. Unfortunately, McQuivey's "example" of paying for access is a bit misleading. He talks about Netflix's streaming offering. But he ignores that most of those subscribers were originally paying for DVDs, and the streaming is a throw-in. Where the real "access" that Netflix has tapped into lies in its ability to easily and conveniently get movies onto your TV. That's what people are paying for. It used to be DVDs (and still is for many Netflix customers), and more recently it includes integrated streaming. But that could come under pressure from other forms of easy and convenient access to the same content, so Netflix will need to continue upping its game.

So while I agree with McQuivey, and have said similar things in the past, I think he underplays how difficult it is to be in a position where you really can charge for "access." There really aren't that many players who can do so legitimately. I worry that many people will view this video and jump to the wrong conclusion, and try to artificially block access in order to get people to pay.

Filed Under: access, business models, content

108 Comments

<< Newer Stories

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Tuesday
12:08	Superbowl Ads Try To Make 5G Sexy, But Consumers Still Aren't Buying The Hype (13)
10:54	Israeli Police (Mostly) Cleared Of NSO-Related Wrongdoing While NSO Issues Legal Threats To Calcalist Over Cover-Up Claims (4)
10:49	Daily Deal: FlashBooks Business Book Summaries (1)
09:30	EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem (39)
06:08	ID.me Doesn't Have Enough Humans To Backstop Its AI, Allowed A Guy In A Bad Wig To Illegally Obtain $900,000 In Benefits (16)
Monday
20:16	YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring (65)
15:43	Eleventh Circuit Smacks Georgia Sheriff Around For Posting 'Don't Trick Or Treat Here' Signs In Sex Offenders' Yards (22)
13:38	The Intersection Of Section 230, SLAPP Threats, The Streisand Effect And Sex Discrimination In Corporate Structures (10)
12:02	FCC To Take A Closer Look At Racial Discrimination In Broadband Deployment (2)
10:44	Missouri's Governor Still Insists Reporter Is A Hacker, Even As Prosecutors Decline To Press Charges (22)
10:39	Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Adobe CC Training Bundle (0)
09:38	How EARN IT Could Give Abusers A Get Out Of Jail Free Card: By Making Evidence Inadmissible (21)
05:37	Law Firm Sues US Citizen And Immigration Service After It Tries To Claw Back Docs Obtained Legally Thru A FOIA Request (12)
Sunday
12:00	Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (14)
Saturday
12:00	This Week In Techdirt History: February 6th - 12th (1)
Friday
19:39	Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon (348)
16:26	Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World (62)
14:02	Declassified Documents Shows The CIA Is Using A 1981 Executive Order To Engage In Domestic Surveillance (12)
12:13	Can We Compare Dot-Com Bubble To Today's Web3/Blockchain Craze? (11)
10:49	Cop Trainer Encouraging Cops To Run Facial Recognition Searches On People During Traffic Stops (20)
10:46	Daily Deal: The Complete 2022 Microsoft Office Master Class Bundle (0)
09:46	Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again (79)
06:33	Unknown American VC Firm Apparently Looking To Acquire NSO Group, Limit It To Selling To Five Eyes Countries (13)
Thursday
21:09	Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence (146)
15:30	The Top Ten Mistakes Senators Made During Today's EARN IT Markup (61)
13:31	Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents (43)
12:00	Yet Another Israeli Malware Manufacturer Found Selling To Human Rights Abusers, Targeting iPhones (2)
10:45	Surprise: U.S. Cost Of Ripping Out And Replacing Huawei Gear Jumps From $1.8 To $5.6 Billion (12)
10:40	Daily Deal: The Complete GameGuru Unlimited Bundle (0)
09:36	Senator Blumenthal, After Years Of Denial, Admits He's Targeting Encryption With EARN IT (20)

Innovation In Wireless: The Disruption In Connectivity

from the data-everywhere dept

Apps Letting You Stream Your Own Music From The Cloud Being Pressured Over 'Licensing'

from the you-don't-own-what-you-thought-you-own dept

How Copyright Extension Is Harming Classical Music

from the for-shame dept

Labels Dropping Out Of Spotify Are Totally Missing The Point

from the it-ain't-about-direct-revenue dept

Why People Pay More For Access To Infringing Content

from the the-way-they-want-it dept

MPAA Still More Focused On Those Darn 'Pirates' Rather Than Making Money

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Microsoft: Hey, If We Had To Go Through Europe's Crazy Antitrust Process, Why Shouldn't Google?

from the at-least-they-see-the-irony dept

Why Do Reporters Feel They Need To Get A Quote To Report What They Know?

from the journalism-failures dept

Woman Sues Facebook After Getting Banned

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference

from the partly-right dept

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

More

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More

from the data-everywhere dept

from the you-don't-own-what-you-thought-you-own dept

from the for-shame dept

from the it-ain't-about-direct-revenue dept

from the the-way-they-want-it dept

from the good-luck-with-that dept

from the at-least-they-see-the-irony dept

from the journalism-failures dept

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

from the partly-right dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More