Forbes Recognizes That There Are Better Business Models Than Pure Advertising

from the about-time dept

We’ve been making this point for years (and living it with our Insight Community offering), but it appears that other media providers are finally recognizing that there really are other business models than “advertising” or “subscriptions.” There’s been this theory out there for the longest time that those were the only possible ways to make money in the publication space. Thankfully, it looks like more and more publications are recognizing there are other options as well. A few folks sent over news that Forbes appears to be making the same point, noting that advertising is a commodity, but services are not. Thus, they’re launching a “reputation tracker” for companies.

While Jay Rosen was kind enough to compare Forbes’ new offering to our Insight Community, I’m not sure it’s quite there yet. It looks like Forbes’ offering is more just about getting feedback from people, rather than really leveraging the strengths of the community. Frankly, it still amazes me that more media publications don’t do more for their community (and in some cases, actively fight their own community). The whole reason media works as a business is because it brings together a community, and then does something with that community. The traditional model was to just sell their eyeballs — which only gets you so far. I think models that focus on actually using the intelligence in that community to do something useful seems a lot more powerful. Hopefully, Forbes’ step in that direction is an indicator that more media publications are realizing there’s more to a business model than advertising and subscriptions.

Filed Under: advertising, business models, journalism, services, subscriptions
Companies: forbes

Duh: Connecting With People Face-To-Face Makes Most People Happier Than Connecting Online

from the but-so-what dept

Well, here’s yet another useless study. Apparently, someone had to do some research to find out that, for most people, it’s more preferable to spend time face-to-face with others, rather than just online via social networks and the like:

Almost two-fifths, or 40 percent, of those surveyed said catching up with their loved ones after work was the happiest time of their day, while more than 20 percent said they were happiest when eating with their families.

By contrast, only 5 percent said they were happiest when connecting with friends online, and even less — 2 percent — said the first text message of the day made them joyful.

Well, duh. I don’t think this should surprise anyone — but it’s also rather meaningless. The thing that makes us “most happy” doesn’t mean that other stuff isn’t important and isn’t worthwhile. And, none of this is mutually exclusive. I know that my ability to stay in touch with certain people online makes the time we spend in person more enjoyable as well. These sorts of studies about what makes you “most” happy or “least” happy really don’t provide very much useful information, because the focus should be on the overall equation, not the single item at the top of the list.

Filed Under: face to face

Can You Copyright Blank Forms Used To File Papers With The SEC… And Then Block Selling The Filled Out Forms?

from the seems-like-a-stretch dept

Eric Goldman points us to the news of a lawsuit concerning the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc (ISDA), an industry trade group focused on the financial derivatives market. ISDA supposedly created a set of forms that can be used by parties in a derivatives transaction — which it then registered a copyright on. Some companies used those forms as part of their filings with the SEC in EDGAR, which is all publicly available information. Another company, Socratek LLC, collected various EDGAR documents, and sold access to them, and since some of that included filled out versions of these forms, ISDA is claiming copyright infringement. The court recently turned down both a request from ISDA for an injunction stopping Socratek as well as a dismissal request from Socratek, so the case will move on.

It’s difficult to see how the copyright claim makes sense. First of all, it’s a form. While perhaps you can claim creative new works in a form, it seems likely that most forms would not, actually, be covered by copyright. Goldman noted:

I’m skeptical of any copyrights in “order forms.” I’m doubly skeptical when the completed form was filed as a public record with the government. I’m triply skeptical given the marginal revenue streams that the plaintiff was seeing anyway.

On top of that, even if these documents are actually covered by copyright (which, again, seems like a stretch), you’d have to think that fair use would cover Socratek’s actions. It seems particularly ridiculous to claim that a filled out government filed form is somehow covered by copyright.

Filed Under: copyright, forms
Companies: isda, socratek

Amazon Spying On Your Ebook Highlighting

from the who-owns-what-now? dept

There have already been plenty of questions over who “owns” the ebooks you’ve bought, with stories of remotely deactivated books and remotely deactivated features — neither of which happens when you have a real physical book. But there are also other concerns opened up by newly activated features. Apparently one new feature — sent in by a few concerned readers — is that Amazon will now remotely upload and store the user notes and highlights you take on your Kindle, which it then compiles into “popular highlights.”

I have no doubt that the feature provides some interesting data, but it’s not clear that users realize their highlighting and notes are being stored and used that way. Amazon basically says there’s no big privacy deal here, because the data is always aggregated. But it sounds like many users don’t realize this is happening at all. Amazon says people can find out they added this feature by reading “forum posts and help pages” — but it’s not clear how many people actually do read those things. While I’m sure many people are fine with this, others might not be. And it once again highlights a key concern in that the “features” of your “book” can change over time. Your highlighting may have been yours in the past, but suddenly it becomes Amazon’s with little notice.

Filed Under: ebooks, kindle, ownership, spying
Companies: amazon

EU Digital Agenda Commissioner Admits That 'Piracy' Has Created The Market That Legislators Did Not

from the knocking-down-barriers dept

I’ve been reading the excellent book, Property Outlaws, which I’ll write more about when I’m done, but it’s main thesis is that oftentimes, people violating certain restrictions — such as on copyright or civil rights — actually are helping to refine the law in those areas by highlighting problems with the existing laws. Basically, it builds on the idea that people taking a stand are more able to change and to fix highly dynamic areas of law more efficiently than slow moving bureaucrats. Along those lines, it appears that the EU’s Digital Agenda Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, is recognizing that unauthorized file sharing actually has been useful in building a single market, where politicians and bureaucrats have been unable to do so:

“We have effectively allowed illegal file-sharing to set up a single market where our usual policy channels have failed…. While the internet is borderless, Europe’s online markets are not. It is often easier to buy something from a US website than online from the country next-door in Europe. Often you cannot buy it at all within Europe… Consumers can buy CDs in every shop but are often unable to buy music online across the EU because rights are licensed on a national basis. No wonder the US market for online music is five times bigger than Europe’s.”

Of course, she’s saying this in an effort to pass the EU “digital agenda,” which tries to make it easier to do licenses across the EU, rather than having to do individual licenses in each country. And, with that, she does go on to complain about various aspects of unauthorized file sharing, but it’s nice to at least see a recognition that such forms of infringement are often useful in breaking down the barriers that bureaucrats are too slow to manage.

Filed Under: eu, markets, piracy

EA Continues To Piss Off Lots Of Customers By Trying To Block Used Market With Single Use Codes

from the such-anger dept

Late last night, people started submitting variations on this story about how EA is expanding its controversial program to use one-time use codes on EA Sports Games, which basically let purchasers access more aspects of a game, but only with the purchase of an additional $10 or $15 code. The only real reason for this is to hold back the used video game market — something that the video game maker has been bitching about for ages, saying totally nonsensical things, such as claiming that used video games defraud the industry and are bad for consumers.

Of course, the actual research suggests exactly the opposite. A robust secondary or “used” product market actually helps boost the original market in a variety of ways. First, it creates some product segmentation, allowing those who wouldn’t necessarily buy the product at the higher price to get into the market. Second, it actually makes the original game more valuable, because buyers know they can turn around and sell it and get some of their money back at a later date. Taking that option out of the market actually hurts the demand in the primary market.

But, an even bigger issue is just how much people absolutely hate annoyances like this. I wasn’t going to post the story originally, because it’s just a continuation of EA’s program. But people have been submitting it non-stop all morning — and every single one of them is expressing serious anger about this decision on EA’s part. Compare that to the widespread love and admiration from people buying the Humble Indie Bundle of video games, where the developers specifically decided to focus on rewarding customers, rather than punishing people for doing stuff they didn’t like. Now, obviously, EA is much bigger than a bunch of indie developers, and perhaps they feel they can get away with obnoxious practices because they’re so big, but it’s a strategy that is likely to backfire in the long run. Pissing off your biggest fans and customers is not a long-term strategy for success.

Filed Under: used games, video games
Companies: ea

Kaleidescape Introduces Expensive And Almost Pointless Blu-ray Jukebox… And Hollywood Still Thinks It's Illegal

from the controlling-innovation dept

You may recall the legal fight over Kaleidescape. The company built a ridiculously expensive (tens of thousands of dollars) DVD jukebox that was clearly designed not for unauthorized file sharing, but for those with a huge disposable income to store their DVDs on the device so it was easier to watch or playback any DVD they owned (you couldn’t transfer the movies off the device, so it was useless for further copying). Of course, as usually happens, Hollywood got upset, saying that this process of backing up your DVDs was illegal, using a twisted argument that the encryption on DVDs was broken by this system, and thus it’s a violation of the DMCA. This is a massive problem with the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clause, which says that even if the copy itself is legal, if it involves encryption, the process of making that (legal) copy, becomes illegal.

While Kaleidescape won in the lower court, the appeals court reversed, highlighting again how Hollywood (despite claims it would never use copyright law to block technology) uses the legal system to block technological innovation.

Kaleidescape has now come out with a new product that actually adds the ability to store Blu-ray discs as well — which might be a surprise given last summer’s ruling. However, in response to the ruling, Kaleidescape added one “feature” which it hopes will satisfy Hollywood lawyers: to play back a movie, you now have to put the original disc into the player. Yes, you read that right. This is a device designed to rip and store your DVDs — and the only way you can play them back is to go ahead and put the actual DVD into the player to prove that you have it. In other words, it takes away the whole idea of the convenience behind the product.

And, guess what? Hollywood still isn’t happy.

The AACS technology and licenses do not permit ripping of Blu-ray discs unless the copy has been authorized by the content owner, either by setting the Copy Control Information appropriately (and nearly all BD movies are set for ?Copy Never?, just like DVDs), or by individual authorization through the Managed Copy process, which we anticipate rolling out at the end of this year or the beginning of 2011.

This is exactly what the law is not supposed to do. It’s letting Hollywood set the terms of technological innovation, and blocking any concept of fair use or backup copies that are recognized as legal. It’s giving Hollywood a veto on technology, and causing tech companies to jump through ridiculous hoops to disable obvious functionality, just because Hollywood doesn’t like what it does.

Filed Under: copyright, drm, dvds, jukebox
Companies: kaleidescape, mpaa

Samsung Sues Satirist, Claiming Criminal Defamation, Over Satirical Column Poking Fun At Samsung

from the thin-skinned? dept

Mel alerts us to this story of Korean electronics giant, Samsung, and its decision to sue a freelance writer who penned a satirical Christmas column that poked fun at Samsung’s well-known corruption and bribery issues. The writer, Michael Breen, a UK native who’s been living in South Korea for a dozen years, wrote an English-language light satire (in English) for the Korea Times, where he joked about what sorts of presents public figures might send to others:

One item read that Samsung had sent to all employees photographs of the son of the firm’s chairman with instructions for hanging the photo next to one of his father — an allusion to North Korea’s Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.

Breen also wrote that Samsung, “the rock upon which the Korean economy rests, sent traditional year-end cards offering best wishes for 2010 to the country’s politicians, prosecutors and journalists along with [$50,000] gift certificates.”

As satire goes, it seems pretty tame (and, really, not that funny). But, Samsung went ballistic, suing Breen, the Korea Times and its top editor for both civil and criminal libel charges. Supposedly, after Korea Times ran a “clarification” that was written by Samsung itself, the paper and its editor were dropped from the lawsuit, but the suit against Breen remains. And, since there are criminal charges, not only could he face hefty fines (perhaps $1 million), he might also face jailtime. For writing a satirical Christmas day column. Tough audience.

Apparently, Korean defamation laws aren’t just draconian, but they’re also downright ridiculous. Truth? Not a defense. Satire? Not a defense. Basically, if anything you say harms someone’s reputation, you’ve defamed them. Even if it’s true or you’re just making a joke. As the LA Times notes, Samsung says it needs to do this to protect its reputation worldwide:

Since 80% of its revenues are from overseas, the firm is sensitive to any “minor accident or mistake” that could adversely affect its international reputation, the suit said.

Uh, perhaps there’s just a cultural mistranslation, but the stories about Samsung’s corruption and bribery scandals are pretty widely known. Nothing in that column was going to change that. And, I would argue that, outside of South Korea, filing this ridiculous, petty and vindictive lawsuit over a joke is much more likely to harm Samsung’s reputation than the original column (which was probably barely read outside of South Korea). And, doesn’t something seem completely wrong when Samsung seems more concerned that its reputation will be harmed more by satire about its well-known and well-documented bribery and corruption scandals than the actual bribery and corruption scandals. If the problem is Samsung’s “reputation” on the line, then perhaps the company should have thought of that before getting involved in massive bribery and corruption efforts…

The article also notes how this is basically a sign of how dominant Samsung is in South Korea, and how it more or less has power over the newspapers, suggesting that no one is ever willing to criticize them — and that it’s really using this lawsuit as a warning shot. If true, that’s a huge shame for South Korea. If a company is bullying people for just making jokes, just imagine what sort of shenanigans it goes through for people who are actually uncovering serious misdeeds at the company.

Filed Under: defamation, michael breen, reputation, satire, south korea
Companies: samsung

Lawsuit Questions Whether Or Not Second Life Users Really 'Own' Their Virtual Land

from the ownership-society dept

For many, many years, we’ve discussed the problems of trying to apply real world laws to virtual worlds. The reason many real world laws are in place is to deal with the facts and limitations associated with the real world. But, when you move to a virtual world, where the actual physics (literally and figuratively) may be entirely different, real world laws might not make much sense. For example, if you “steal” a magic sword in a virtual world, is that theft? What if the point of the virtual world is to pillage and steal? Then things get troubling. Virtual worlds should be effectively separated entirely from real world laws, because the basic reasoning behind the real world laws doesn’t apply in the virtual worlds — and mixing the two only leads to problems down the road.

That’s why, despite the cheering from many folks who we normally agree with, we were somewhat worried, back in 2003, when Second Life announced that it was letting people actually “own” their own virtual goods and land in Second Life. Those in favor of this seemed to think that this was better than Second Life making arbitrary decisions, but the downside was that it brought all the problems of copyright law into a virtual world where the very basis for copyright law didn’t quite apply. Bringing the outside law into a virtual world just seemed like a dangerous precedent.

And, now, it looks like Second Life may be regretting that earlier decision. Apparently, it recently tried to move away from at least part of it, changing how the virtual “land” that people had bought was defined, so that it was no longer “property” owned by the users, but a “service” provided by the company, Linden Lab, that runs Second Life. In response, there’s now a class action lawsuit against Linden Lab, suggesting there was some sort of bait-and-switch, in that people were told they were actually buying “property” that they would own, but with a single change to the terms of service, that property reverted back to Linden Lab. While I think the latter position is the only really legally defensible one for Linden Lab to take, it brought this on itself by thinking it should bring outside world laws of copyright and ownership into the virtual world in the first place…

Filed Under: copyright, ownership, second life, virtual worlds
Companies: linden lab