A Look At Rupert Murdoch's History Of Internet Failures

from the what-do-they-have-in-common dept

Ross Pruden points us to a neat little graphic that Mediaweek put together, highlighting all of News Corps.' internet failures over the years (pdf) as it gets ready to launch its iPad only publication called The Daily. If you look at the image (or click it to go to the original Mediaweek pdf), you begin to sense a pattern: The downfall in almost every case is about Murdoch focusing on using the internet as mainly a broadcast medium, rather than a communications medium. Delphi was all about community... and then News Corp. tried to turn it into a place to sell his magazines and newspapers. Fox Interactive was all about pushing content, and had little community. MySpace, of all things, which was really about community from the beginning, has completely faltered under News Corps' control, because they tried to focus on using it to sell music and stopped investing in any sort of real community features -- as services like Facebook and Twitter totally leapfrogged them on that front. It's the same story over and over again, and given that The Daily is so focused on platform, rather than users, it seems likely to be a repeat of the same mistake all over again.

Filed Under: broadcast, community, content, internet, rupert murdoch
Companies: news corp.

Companies Come Out Of The Woodwork To Claim Comcast Is Violating Net Neutrality... But Exaggerations Abound

from the but-are-they? dept

Network neutrality gets thrown around all too often, quite frequently in misleading ways. As the NBC/Comcast merger gets closer, there were two separate claims that Comcast is violating net neutrality on Monday, probably in an effort to derail the merger or at least include greater restrictions. Of course, it's not entirely clear if either is really a "net neutrality" issue. The first is the more dubious. Cable modem maker Zoom complains that Comcast has jacked up "device testing" costs, creating additional hurdles for Zoom's modems to be used by Comcast customers. I'm reading through the details, and I'm struggling to see how this is, in any way, a "neutrality" issue. It just seems like a stretch by people who are generally against the merger. This has nothing to do with content discrimination and seems more like a standard business relationship complaint.

The other complaint is at least a bit more interesting -- but details are still lacking. Level 3 claims that Comast has told it that it will need to pay up to let Comcast subscribers access online movies offered by Level 3. I'm not familiar with Level 3's online movie offerings -- so if anyone has details, please let us know. Based on Level 3's statements alone (which are, obviously, one-sided), this certainly does sound like the original dream scenario of the telcos to charge content owners to reach customers -- effectively double charging everyone by pretending that their internet connections only reach halfway into the cloud, but to reach any other site, those sites should have to pay up too.

If this is true, and the details do line up, it's rather stunning (and incredibly braindead) that Comcast would make such a demand right now, just as the merger is close to approval. You would think that someone in management would recognize the sort of backlash such a demand would bring. Of course, again, I'm wondering if there are more details here. I wasn't aware of an online movie offering from Level 3, and I'm wondering if Level 3 was actually trying to do something more involved rather than just letting users access online content through existing connections. I'm sure the details will come out soon enough...

Update: And out come the details suggesting that Level 3 is exaggerating. Level 3, as suspected, does not offer a consumer online video offering, but is simply powering Netflix's video offering, and the discussion with Comcast was a standard peering discussion, which happens all the time when internet infrastructure players realize that one of their peers is delivering more traffic than it's taking. In other words, this looks like yet another case of claiming "net neutrality" when there's no actual net neutrality issue...

Filed Under: content, net neutrality, video
Companies: comcast, level 3, zoom

Content Is Advertising: Making Music Videos More Appealing And Interactive

from the choose-your-own-music-video dept

We often talk about the importance of recognizing that good content acts as advertising and that good advertising is no different than good content (such that people want to seek it out). And that's definitely true of the concept of music videos. They've always basically been "advertising" for the musician. These days, with YouTube, the music video has a new platform rather than MTV where music videos used to live. Lately, we've pointed out that some musicians are trying to get beyond the somewhat static limits of what a plain old "video in a box" can give you. For example, we discussed how the band Arcade Fire did an interactive video using HTML 5, that mashed up the actual video with the Google Street View of your childhood home.

The latest example we've seen is from singer Andy Grammer, who has just put out this "interactive" music video, which is basically a "choose your own adventure" version of a music video. As the music plays, you're given various choices as to what happens next, and the whole thing is incredibly seamless (though, warning: it takes freaking forever to load before you can start): Now there's nothing completely earth-shattering about this. The video is still a music video, but it does make the whole experience a bit cooler and it certainly gives people a reason to watch the video a few more times to see other variations (and there are a lot of variations), which might also help getting the song stuck in people's heads (in a good way, it's catchy). But it does show that it's good for artists (and their labels -- in this case, indie S-Curve Records) to think beyond the traditional box (quite literally) in ways that they interact with fans.

One of the complaints that some people make when we talk about the importance of connecting and interacting with fans is they think that all we're talking about is that musicians should hang out on Twitter all day. But nothing is further from the truth. For some musicians Twitter might be the best way to connect. For other musicians, putting together cool videos like this can help them connect. The point is to experiment and to figure out what works, rather than just doing the same old thing and expecting everyone to rush to you.

Separately, it's worth noting that the video itself was sponsored by Old Navy. We've seen brands doing this a lot more lately, such as State Farm's sponsorship of Ok Go's Rube Goldberg video. Once again, this works on the multiple levels of advertising and content meshing in a way that isn't intrusive or annoying, but which makes everyone better off. And, of course, that's not all either. To make this video work, S-Curve is using technology from a start-up called Interlude... which it has invested in as well. Without a doubt, this video is also advertising Interlude and its technology.

Filed Under: advertising, andy grammer, content, interactive videos
Companies: interlude, old navy, s-curve

Authors Do Not Create Content In A Vacuum... So It's Too Bad Copyright Often Pretends They Do

from the on-the-shoulders-of-giants dept

The website Copygrounds, which has been interviewing various people involved in various copyright issues, has an interview with the always interesting Henry Jenkins (who we've quoted a few times in the past). The whole interview is worth reading, but I wanted to call attention to one key part, when the interviewer asks Jenkins about the European concept of "moral rights," which the US has explicitly rejected:

The current American system rewards authorship rights to corporate owners at the expense of both consumers and authors. The European tradition rewards moral rights to authors at the expense of the rest of the culture. Neither represents the most desirable system, in part because both falsify the actual conditions of authorship. Authors do not create value in a vacuum. All writers are already readers who are processing elements of their culture as the raw material for their own expressive and intellectual output, and in turn, their work becomes the raw materials for the next phase of creative expression.

That line: "Authors do not create value in a vacuum," is a good one, and deserves to be repeated. So much of the debates we have on copyright and related issues seems to center on this belief that they do. In that patent realm, it's the whole "flash of genius" concept, but it certainly applies in copyright as well. The system is designed as if people are creating things entirely from scratch, rather than pulling from the culture around them to put it together in new and creative means. Disney, of course, is famous for taking old stories and making them new again, and yet it refuses to let others do the same to its works. Authors do not create value in a vacuum. And, of course, it goes beyond the idea that authors are building on what's come before. The value piece is often added by the readers themselves, and how they interact, mold and share the content that has been created. Authors do not create value in a vacuum... but we've built up laws and institutions that seem to assume they do.

Filed Under: authors, content, creation, henry jenkins

Sesame Street Recognizes That Advertising Is Content... On A Horse... Cow

from the i'm-on-a-horse dept

Earlier this year, we talked about the viral sensation of the Old Spice "I'm on a horse" ads, which have since morphed into various other successful campaigns: Not surprisingly, this has created a ton of parodies and spoofs... but what I wasn't expecting was that Sesame Street would do its own parody of a TV commercial: Now, it should be admitted that Sesame Street has been getting a bit edgier lately, with the whole controversy over Katy Perry's "appearance" with Elmo, and the whole "sexy" Sesame Street Halloween costume thing, but still I find this fascinating. While there are some who are worried about the role of advertising on children's TV, this seems to be an admission by Sesame Street in recognizing that ads are content too, and it can use that to its own advantage. Lots of people love the Old Spice ad, so why not play off of that to get some attention to its own work?

Filed Under: advertising, content, grover, old spice, sesame street

How Many Times Will Content Industries Claim The Sky Is Falling Before People Stop Believing Them?

from the crying-wolf dept

Michael Scott points us to a fantastic draft paper by respected intellectual property lawyer/scholar Mark Lemley recapping the long history of content industries declaring that the sky is falling every time a new technology hits the scene. From photographs (going to destroy painting) to musical recordings (going to destroy live music) to radio (going to destroy recorded music) to cable TV (going to destroy regular TV) to the photocopier (going to destroy books) to the VCR (going to destroy the movie industry) to audio cassettes (home taping is killing music) to the MP3 player (ditto) to file sharing (ditto) to the DVR (killing TV) and onwards -- the content industries seem to have a problem in immediately declaring that the sky is falling... when it turns out it's never actually falling at all. The paper is a quick read and quite enjoyable. Now, I should admit that I had no idea that the paper gives me an all-too-kind and surprising name check at the end, which I didn't know about until I reached that part of the paper, but I had actually already started writing up this post, so hopefully no one thinks that influenced my decision to write about it.

There isn't necessarily anything new in the paper. Many of you probably know all of these stories, and they've been discussed at length over the years in posts and comments here on Techdirt. However, it's nice to put a bunch of them together in a single document just to highlight the same pattern over and over again:

1. New technology
2. Legacy industry freaks out saying the world is ending
3. Industry flocks to DC & the courts to demand fixing
4. Turns out that the new technology actually increases the market

Given how many times this has happened, isn't it about time that politicians, judges and the press stopped just believing the industry every time they make this claim? Shouldn't the burden of proof really be on these industries to prove that they're actually being destroyed?

And, yes, many of these technologies did require changes to business models -- which may have meant that some legacy players went out of business. But failing companies and failing industries are two totally different things. It's important to remember that. As Lemley notes in the paper:

The content industry, it seems, has a Chicken Little problem.

It may, in fact, be the case that the sky is falling. But, if you claim that the sky is falling whenever a new technology threatens an existing business model, the rest of the world can be forgiven for not believing you when you claim that this time around it's going to be different than all of the other times. Now, let's be clear, each one of these technologies changed the business model of the industry. They caused certain revenue streams to decline. But they also opened up new ones.

Filed Under: business models, chicken little, content, innovation, mark lemley, predictions, technology

Wishful Thinking: Hollywood Believes Next Generation Of Kids Will Pay For Content

from the don't-stop-believing dept

Well, it looks like Hollywood is going to keep betting against basic economics. A new report has come out suggesting that the latest generation of kids are perfectly happy to pay for digital content. The report suggests that it's just the slightly older generation -- "the Napster generation" -- that isn't interested in paying for content. Perhaps I'm missing something, but there appears to be no indication of how this conclusion was arrived at, other than some random research firm says so. There is no indication of an actual study or methodology -- though, if someone can actually figure it out, please let us know in the comments. Frankly, this sounds like wishful thinking. It's premised on the idea that the reason many people don't pay for content today is because they "don't know any better." But that's hogwash. People understand the legalities of it all. It's just that many don't buy into it. Furthermore, having the legacy players bet on this fiction that the next generation of kids will magically start paying for what their older siblings got for free means that these legacy players will hold back on making the major changes they need to make to their business models. This kind of report is the sort of thing that is written to make big company execs feel good about their unwillingness to adapt -- rather than give them any sort of useful advice.

Filed Under: content, kids, paid content

Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free

from the economic-confusion dept

It's sometimes entertaining when powerful executives don't seem to understand the rather basic market forces that they're facing. Take Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC Universal, who's done a pretty good job driving the operation into the ground over the past few years. In a recent interview, he apparently said (as he's hinted in the past) that it might make sense to charge for TV content online, noting that:

I do not think that it is a foregone conclusion that content should be free on the Internet.

The problem, of course, is that we're well beyond should. Sorry, Jeff, but you don't get to decide that. The technology and the market have already decided that the content is or will be free online. It might not be authorized. It might not be legal. But the content is free. "Should" has nothing to do with it, because the technology and the market don't care about "should." Yes, this sucks for those who only understand how to run a business when they're a gatekeeper who controls things, but it doesn't mean there aren't really good businesses built on free content. NBC should know this, since an awful lot of its history was built on exactly that... And I don't recall Zucker's predecessors whining about that darn "free" broadcast TV.

Filed Under: content, culture, economics, free
Companies: nbc universal

Viacom In Denial Over Court Smackdown In YouTube Case

from the common-sense? dept

With Google's victory over Viacom concerning the applicability of the DMCA's safe harbors to YouTube, it's no surprise at all that Viacom quickly announced its intentions to appeal. And, perhaps because of that, it needs to make statements about how wrong the ruling is. But, as with its position statements and filings throughout this lawsuit, much of the rhetoric from Viacom's General Counsel Michael Fricklas makes no sense at all:

Copyright protection is essential to the survival of creative industries. It is and should be illegal for companies to build their businesses with creative material they have stolen from others. Without this protection, investment in the development of art and entertainment would be discouraged, and the many artists and producers who devote their lives to creating it would be hurt. Copyright protection is also critical to the web -- because consumers love professional content and because legitimate websites shouldn’t have to compete with pirates.

This is both misleading and inaccurate. Fricklas, who I actually think understands these things a lot better than many others in his field, is certainly not dumb. But it's beneath him to mislead with the statement above. Whether or not copyright protection is "essential to the survival of creative industries" (and recent research has shown that statement to be false), the question at play in this lawsuit has nothing to do with whether or not copyright law is allowed to be used. It's merely a question of liability. Nothing in this ruling says that copyright law doesn't apply. It just says that Viacom can't blame Google for the actions of its users. Fricklas tries to mislead by pretending this is about whether or not copyright law applies at all.

It's also frustrating that some reporters covering this story also seem to be taking the same position, saying that this ruling is "a big blow for traditional copyright laws." It is not. Not even close. This ruling does not change traditional copyright laws in the slightest, and is entirely consistent with numerous previous rulings (all cited in the case). All this ruling concerns is who is liable for infringement: the user who uploads infringing material, or the platform provider who hosts it. The folks who crafted the DMCA made it clear that liability belonged squarely on the shoulders of those who did the uploading, and the court agreed.

Nothing in this ruling takes away from copyright law or changes copyright law, and even if you believe Fricklas' unsubstantiated claims that copyright law is essential, nothing in this ruling changes the nature of copyright law. Pretending otherwise is being purposely misleading. Once again, it appears that Viacom is now more interested in fighting this out in the media, rather than the court room.

Before that, however, YouTube and Google stole hundreds of thousands of video clips from artists and content creators, including Viacom, building a substantial business that was sold for billions of dollars. We believe that should not be allowed by law or common sense.

This case has always been about whether intentional theft of copyrighted works is permitted under existing law and we always knew that the critical underlying issue would need to be addressed by courts at the appellate levels. Today's decision accelerates our opportunity to do so.

This is, again, blatantly misleading on so many levels that it really discredits Fricklas. It means that he either does not understand the actual legal issues being discussed in this lawsuit or he's being blatantly dishonest. You pick which is more likely. YouTube and Google "stole" nothing. If they had stolen anything, then Viacom should have gone to the police and pressed criminal charges. But Fricklas knows the law and knows that laws involving theft and laws involving copyright infringement are entirely different. On top of that, he knows that it was users who uploaded the content, not Google. Implying otherwise is misleading. As for what the case "has always been about," again, he's wrong. It's not about that at all. It has always been about one thing and one thing only: who is liable for infringement done by users on a platform. The fact that Viacom chose to focus on the easy target of the platform provider, rather than those actually responsible (the uses), was simply a bad legal choice that Fricklas apparently does not want to accept blame for making.

I'm all for arguing the merits of whether or not Google or its users should be liable for infringement. But implying that this case is about changing copyright law or "permitting theft" is simply untrue.

Filed Under: content, copyright, michael fricklas
Companies: google, viacom, youtube

Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared

from the getting-over-that-hurdle dept

I've been noticing a trend lately of content creators who discover unauthorized copies of their works are being shared actually responding somewhat reasonably to it. In almost every case, the story starts out with a claim of how they were upset and annoyed at first... but quickly got over that. In the past few days, I've come across two more such examples. The first, from the LA Times, involves the producer of the movie Unthinkable, starring Samuel Jackson. Apparently, due to the studio that financed the flick going under, the film suddenly was without domestic US distribution rights, and couldn't find any fast enough. So it went direct to DVD. But... before the DVD came out, the film leaked, and it's now one of the most talked about films on IMDB, even though it hasn't even been released!

The producer notes that he had very mixed feelings about the whole thing:

"I've been unbelievably torn over the whole thing," says [producer Cotty] Chubb, best known for having produced such films as "Eve's Bayou," "Dark Blue" and "To Sleep with Anger." "It's tremendous to go on IMDB and see that our user rating is 7.3, which is the highest rating of any movies in the current Top 10 there -- you have to go down to 'Iron Man 2' to find a higher rating. But on the other hand, while everyone is debating all these important moral questions, I want to ask them another important question -- hey, guys, what about the morality of watching this movie on the Internet for free?"

Of course, rather than freak out, or threaten to sue, Chubb just asked people exactly what he wanted to ask. He posted a comment himself, politely asking those who had seen the movie directly on IMDB about what their feelings on downloading the film were, and whether or not there was a price they would pay for it, while also noting that he was quite "grateful" for all of the attention the movie was getting due to the downloads.

After tons of people responded -- almost all of whom saying that there's nothing wrong with downloading a film -- Chubb didn't freak out, but recognized the onus is on himself and the industry to respond:

"We've got to come up with a new model, because the old one just isn't working anymore," says Chubb. "You just can't fight against a model where the movie is available for free. People clearly want to download movies online, so it's time we figured out how to get some money out of it."

Similarly, here's a totally different story, about author Peter Nowak discovering that his latest book was available for unauthorized download. Again, his feelings were mixed, but he eventually realized that getting angry and fighting this served no useful purpose:

My initial reaction was shock - how dare someone rip off something that I put so much work into? For a moment, I completely understood Lars Ulrich, the Metallica drummer who years ago became the poster boy for the anti-file-sharing establishment when he and his bandmates sued Napster.

Fear not, though - my anger was short-lived, and not just because I'd like to avoid becoming a self-important douche like Lars at all costs. I'm certainly not the first author to get pirated, and I won't be the last. It's an inevitable reality that everyone today must face. And no, I don't think any number of Draconian copyright laws are going to change this. Technology has let the cat out of the bag, permanently.

As someone who has partaken of the occasional Torrent, it would be hard (and thoroughly hypocritical) for me to be angry. I'm also not of the mind that file-sharing necessarily hurts the artist or creator. In my experience, most people who download something for free weren't going to buy it anyway, or they already have and just want a digital copy, so it's not exactly a lost sale. Moreover, if they like the product they've downloaded, they may recommend it to someone else, who in turn may actually choose to buy it. In a way, the so-called "pirate" can become a good sales advocate.

In fact, he then notes that there are plenty of examples of authors using such publicity to their advantage, while also realizing that some of the problem is that his book doesn't have an official ebook version yet, though he's now working hard to make that happen as soon as possible.

I think it's completely normal and natural for people to have that initial negative reaction -- especially if they don't follow some of the details of what's happening and how such file sharing has helped some do much better than they would have otherwise. But it's especially nice to see more and more content creators get over that initial shock, and then start to logically look at the situation, and realize that what consumers really want is something different than is being provided, and the responsibility is on the content creator to better provide consumers what they want.

Filed Under: content, cotty chubb, peter nowak, reactions, sharing