They did. I just ran into Fortune's version on the CNNMoney site which is a collaboration of various Time Warner properties including CNN, Fortune and Money Magazine. You can find it here: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/09/inside-apple/. Like the other sites, it's a teaser leading users to the newsstand or iPad versions.
All of the links you provided to the web sites that wrote about this story, either provided super abridged versions (like one anecdote) or a link or a mention to Fortune's iPad app w/a teaser that there are a whole lot more details to be obtained there. While I agree w/you conceptually, I believe Fortune may get lots of downloads of their app as a result of all of this press attention on their story.
Given the fact that many people who care about Jobs probably own an iPad, this was a pretty smart way of generating buzz around their "free" app from which they can then generate $4.99 per issue, plus the premium ad revenue they can generate from its pages. It would be interesting to compare their ROI on this approach versus simply an ad model on their Web site. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this was a bad idea. After reading all the links you listed above, I'm actually more curious about the other anecdotes not discussed.
Sounds like they did what you espouse for bands, giving away some MP3s for free in order to then get people coming back to pay for a more complete compilation ;)
I had the exact same reaction you did when I read the dissent from those judges. Understanding the ease with which profiles, even those on Facebook or Linkedin, can be faked, clearly means that the judges in the majority have a depth of understanding. The dissenting judges sound more like people who think they "get it" but really don't ;) Over confident about stuff they really don't understand deeply...those are the scariest type of people.
I'm a bit surprised that it has taken this long for anyone to find out the contractual relationship and the nature of the copyright assignment between Righthaven and Stephens Media. I'm wondering why this has not come up in the MediaNews suit? Doesn't there have to be proof of copyright ownership for a plaintiff to sue? Hopefully we will find a similar relationship w/MediaNews as there was w/Stephens Media so we can bring all this nonsense to a merciful end.
It would be interesting to do a comparison between the Daily's metrics/stats and those of SkyGrid which is a news aggregator that tracks memes as well as news on any topic. Their apps are on the key mobile platforms, iPad, iPhone and Android.
Where Prof. Ohm talks about this in terms of inferences, I think of it in terms of context, but on the whole I agree with him. Let's use your examples to explain the problem.
Example 1: what if your past purchases at your local butcher were then made available to insurance companies for the purpose of pricing your health insurance? Perhaps, they don't get just yours, but everyone in your neighborhood and decide that because on average people in your 'hood are obese then you will be charged a significantly higher health insurance premium. While you had no problem with this info being used towards giving you discounts and coupons on future purchases, you might be much less comfortable with this same information being used towards figuring out your health insurance premiums.
Example 2: Unbeknown to you, one of your very close friends since college has been traveling to Syria quite frequently, but since he lives across the country, you're only aware that he has been traveling on business. Turns out his business has to do with buying Syrian antiquities but the people he has been interacting with are somewhat suspect. Because the two of you communicate every month or so, and you also communicate somewhat regularly with some other mutual friends, inferences start getting drawn between all of you regarding your potential involvement with terrorism. Getting these inferences a wrong when it comes to recommending you a different calling plan may be no big deal, but getting it wrong when it comes to whether you might be related to a terrorist, is a very different story.
Example 3: The insurance companies have decided that correlating your activities online with your propensity for risk is a better indicator than whether you get speeding tickets. In some cases it's not just risk, but the fact that your reading preferences and the frequency of your shopping indicates a sedentary lifestyle, and hence you present risks behind the wheel as well as raise issues around longevity.
In other words, information that may be harmless in one context, when viewed in another can become very uncomfortable for you. It's very possible that you might not participate in various programs if you were aware of this. Since the value proposition that some of these data collectors gain is the externality value of your information, then you should at least have some control or be aware of it so you can make an educated decision about sharing this information about yourself. Opt-out is an unethical concept on its face because it readily implies that you should have to take an action to not have your information used in ways that you are not aware of.
Anyway, sorry for the long response, but the privacy issue is that in fact no information is good or bad, private or non-private (ie. lots of people I don't know, know where I live), it's more that in different contexts it can take on different values. Something that could be fine in one context may be very detrimental in another, so you should have the right to decide the context (or use right) under which you're willing to share information about yourself.
Now let's hope that judges apply similar common sense to put a stop to the nonsense that was the domain seizures executed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Dept. of Homeland Security.
These days, people have phones with them at all times.
I'd consider replacing the word "phones" with "communications devices" and then there's less astonishment over this evolving status quo. Just like people thought that phones would rid of us of the telegraph and email would rid us of "snail mail", what we have instead found is that each mode of communication has its place. While some of what we did with one mode we now do with another, there are situations in which each has its place. Even between TXT and email, there are times I find one more suitable than the other even though most people I know carry devices that support both.
Somewhat ironically, while typing this note a friend called me out of the blue and I got really frustrated :) Forced him to schedule a time :)
Actually, this ruling seemed consistent with gov't's access to LUDs, where they can find out the numbers dialed from a particular phone. However, the rationale given for this capability, whether w/phone #s or IP addresses, is worrisome to me. This idea that the fact that the phone company is a 3rd party in the transaction which then breaks the privacy expectation between the two parties communicating, creates all sorts of trust problems for cloud-based services.
With analog phone calls, phone companies have not been recording phone calls (as far as we know ;). However, when you start to consider emails, or file hosting, or CRM systems, or... we begin to see the problem of having a 3rd party break the expectation of privacy. While the Stored Communications Act supposedly protects stored emails, this seems at conflict with the rationale given for providing LUDs or IP addresses. I guess this is yet another tension in our privacy laws.
I'm hopeful that as encryption can be performed faster, we will see greater protection of content, not because of legislation, but because of technology. This won't solve the LUDs and IP address issue, but at least the content can be protected beyond the whims of politicians.
It's just crazy that these are the lengths that we have to go through to stop this TSA mandate. It's almost surreal that no one in authority over the TSA hasn't stepped up to stop this nonsense. It's ridiculous that it has come down to cities and states having to fight for what seems like the most basic of rights...the right not to be felt up ;)
I love it when Anonymous Cowards w/their own ax to grind make comments that they believe s/b considered as though they're speaking context-free and for the good of the order.
"There simply is no intellectually honest rationale that says recording songs off the radio is legal, but recording songs off your computer is illegal."
While I'm not up on the law here and I don't think there s/b anything to prevent this, I'd like to play devil's advocate here. Since the original production is on YouTube, then can't it be claimed that it is made up of both the video and the audio, and that by stripping out the audio the original has been altered? In the Betamax case it's still about recording a TV show for the purpose of time shifting the TV show. In this YouTube example, it's less about time shifting and more about changing it's use from watching the content on a screen to simply listening to the music on devices that could not support video.
This may not make any sense, but thought I'd explore this angle to see if others have any thoughts on this reasoning.
While I like The Heavy's version of the song, in reading your post and being exposed to the original song, I started looking to purchase it. I actually like the original better. Of course, it's not available as an MP3 download only as part of CD compilation. If these folks had been reading your posts, they'd know that simply making people aware that The Heavy's song had been sampled from this Dyke & The Blazers' version, they would have probably been able to ride the coattails of The Heavy's success. It would have driven new interest in this great song. Sad that the only creative solution they could think of is litigation.
One could go further to say that all this meddling makes Google's position that they should not be held liable for results that might infringe on copyright, very weak. Between their efforts enabling YouTube to detect copyrighted works and this latest foray into censoring auto-complete on searches, gov'ts will begin to point to the fact that they have the capabilities necessary to perform the policing being asked of them. As we know, these solutions, in particular the auto-complete capability, are weak solutions that make for an inferior user experience, but to the uninitiated (gov'ts) they will simply believe these solutions work. I'm afraid that Google compromising to enable these capabilities will open up a pandora's box of requests for modifications to suit every jurisdiction.
It's a shame really, because they're one of the few companies with pockets deep enough to fight these battles, but are choosing to cave. In the case of the Spanish lawsuit, it feels like they're posturing and it won't be long before they compromise like they did in the U.S. Their track record will make not support the fact that the request is too difficult for them to do.
I wonder if the events had taken place in reverse, Usher/will.i.am song first and The Simpsons copying it, if the would have been as gracious. Too frequently it feels like musicians forget about how inspiration comes from various sources and copying is the most sincere form of flattery.
If the eNom issue is brought to bear here, it's looking like every country is beginning to run amok trying regulate the enlistment of 3rd parties to do their regulating jobs for them. Soon everyone will become liable for everyone else's activities. Pure nonsense.
Spoken like an anonymous coward, oh wait, you are :) Next time try reading the post, I'm sure there are other posts out there, including past ones on this blog where your begging the question may be on point.
On the post: Fortune Decides To Let Everyone Else Get All The Traffic For Its Story On Secrets Of Apple Culture
Re:
On the post: Fortune Decides To Let Everyone Else Get All The Traffic For Its Story On Secrets Of Apple Culture
Not sure they need to be online
Given the fact that many people who care about Jobs probably own an iPad, this was a pretty smart way of generating buzz around their "free" app from which they can then generate $4.99 per issue, plus the premium ad revenue they can generate from its pages. It would be interesting to compare their ROI on this approach versus simply an ad model on their Web site. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this was a bad idea. After reading all the links you listed above, I'm actually more curious about the other anecdotes not discussed.
Sounds like they did what you espouse for bands, giving away some MP3s for free in order to then get people coming back to pay for a more complete compilation ;)
On the post: AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available For Download; Rest Of Internet Laughs
Remake
On the post: Court Says Prosecutors Can't Just Assume A MySpace Profile Is Legit
Over confidence
On the post: Righthaven Tells Judge Handling All Its Colorado Cases That He's Wrong
Copyright ownership proof
On the post: Murdoch's Big Bet Gone Bad: iPad Only Publication Not Engaging Readers Much
SkyGrid
On the post: Is It A Privacy Violation For Companies To Make Inferences About What You Might Like?
Inferences or Context
Example 1: what if your past purchases at your local butcher were then made available to insurance companies for the purpose of pricing your health insurance? Perhaps, they don't get just yours, but everyone in your neighborhood and decide that because on average people in your 'hood are obese then you will be charged a significantly higher health insurance premium. While you had no problem with this info being used towards giving you discounts and coupons on future purchases, you might be much less comfortable with this same information being used towards figuring out your health insurance premiums.
Example 2: Unbeknown to you, one of your very close friends since college has been traveling to Syria quite frequently, but since he lives across the country, you're only aware that he has been traveling on business. Turns out his business has to do with buying Syrian antiquities but the people he has been interacting with are somewhat suspect. Because the two of you communicate every month or so, and you also communicate somewhat regularly with some other mutual friends, inferences start getting drawn between all of you regarding your potential involvement with terrorism. Getting these inferences a wrong when it comes to recommending you a different calling plan may be no big deal, but getting it wrong when it comes to whether you might be related to a terrorist, is a very different story.
Example 3: The insurance companies have decided that correlating your activities online with your propensity for risk is a better indicator than whether you get speeding tickets. In some cases it's not just risk, but the fact that your reading preferences and the frequency of your shopping indicates a sedentary lifestyle, and hence you present risks behind the wheel as well as raise issues around longevity.
In other words, information that may be harmless in one context, when viewed in another can become very uncomfortable for you. It's very possible that you might not participate in various programs if you were aware of this. Since the value proposition that some of these data collectors gain is the externality value of your information, then you should at least have some control or be aware of it so you can make an educated decision about sharing this information about yourself. Opt-out is an unethical concept on its face because it readily implies that you should have to take an action to not have your information used in ways that you are not aware of.
Anyway, sorry for the long response, but the privacy issue is that in fact no information is good or bad, private or non-private (ie. lots of people I don't know, know where I live), it's more that in different contexts it can take on different values. Something that could be fine in one context may be very detrimental in another, so you should have the right to decide the context (or use right) under which you're willing to share information about yourself.
On the post: Another Court Rejects Idea That DMCA Requires Proactive Approach From Service Providers
ICE next
On the post: Phone Calls Are So Last Century
Communication device
I'd consider replacing the word "phones" with "communications devices" and then there's less astonishment over this evolving status quo. Just like people thought that phones would rid of us of the telegraph and email would rid us of "snail mail", what we have instead found is that each mode of communication has its place. While some of what we did with one mode we now do with another, there are situations in which each has its place. Even between TXT and email, there are times I find one more suitable than the other even though most people I know carry devices that support both.
Somewhat ironically, while typing this note a friend called me out of the blue and I got really frustrated :) Forced him to schedule a time :)
On the post: Judge Says Gov't Can Get Access To Twitter Account Data Of Wikileaks' Associates
Same as phone #s
With analog phone calls, phone companies have not been recording phone calls (as far as we know ;). However, when you start to consider emails, or file hosting, or CRM systems, or... we begin to see the problem of having a 3rd party break the expectation of privacy. While the Stored Communications Act supposedly protects stored emails, this seems at conflict with the rationale given for providing LUDs or IP addresses. I guess this is yet another tension in our privacy laws.
I'm hopeful that as encryption can be performed faster, we will see greater protection of content, not because of legislation, but because of technology. This won't solve the LUDs and IP address issue, but at least the content can be protected beyond the whims of politicians.
On the post: Another Attempt To Make TSA Searches Open To Sex Offender Charges
Insane!
On the post: Down To Just 3 Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed Whistleblower Bill
On the post: If You Say Something In Public, You Can Be Quoted And If You Say Something On Twitter, That's Public
Re: Correction
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?
Something seems different
On the post: Music Publisher Discovers A Song In Its Catalog Has Been Heavily Sampled For Decades... Sues Everyone
Missed opportunity
On the post: Will Google's New Hamfisted Censorship On Autocomplete Raise Questions Of Human Meddling?
Spanish case against Google
It's a shame really, because they're one of the few companies with pockets deep enough to fight these battles, but are choosing to cave. In the case of the Spanish lawsuit, it feels like they're posturing and it won't be long before they compromise like they did in the U.S. Their track record will make not support the fact that the request is too difficult for them to do.
On the post: Inspiration Comes In Many Forms: Did Usher Copy Homer Simpson?
Shoe on the other foot
On the post: Google Fighting Spanish Law Requiring It To Remove Links Based On Privacy Claims
3rd party liability out of control
On the post: Australian Politician Compares Attempts To Silence Assange With Catholic Church Silencing Galileo
Re:
Next >>