Mark Blafkin 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (27) comment rss

  • On the post: WSJ Editor Claims Google Devalues Everything

    Mark Blafkin ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2009 @ 02:13pm

    Re: OK so where are the successes

    John,

    You make a good point. Mike and team essentially do long term reporting, but as part of his consulting practice where that research is paid for by a specific client. I doubt we want to move toward a model where the NYTimes is doing investigative journalism on behalf of Exxon...so, what works for some types of media companies is probably not what we want from all.

    As I wrote the other day. in response to a similar story by Mike, I think we in the Internet industry need to stop pretending like we have all the content industry's problems. Simply getting newspapers to focus on "community" isn't really an answer. Twitter and Facebook have enormous communities, but both are STILL struggling to find long term business models.

    Thomson acknowledged he was being a bit hyperbolic (something Mike should appreciate) in his assessment of Google, but it isn't like he was completely wrong. Google is a double-edged sword for content creators. It may help them grow the "community" around their content, but then they are left with same problem the rest of the online content and service industry now has: how do we monetize that "community" in a way that actually pay for the creation of the content. And is sustainable once the VCs stop throwing good money after bad...

    If we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that we don't have all the answers.

  • On the post: If Newspapers Went Offline For A Week… People Might Realize They're Fine Without Them

    Mark Blafkin ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2009 @ 11:13am

    Enough Shooting Fish in a Barrel, Start Teaching them to Swim

    Mike,

    Sorry for the tortured metaphor, but this article (and the series that have preceded it) really got me thinking. It's easy to poke holes in the anti-Web diatribes of journalist-luddites and attack their sillier proposals, but what is the point? It's not like it changes the fact that existing business models for local reporting are no longer tenable.

    Yet, it seems every dumb proposal from journalists is followed by some vague, ideological retort about the need for newspapers to just give up the ghost of their failed business models and realize that "Free is the answer" or "Community building" will solve all their ills.

    For all our talk about wanting to allow for business model competition and evolution, it always seems to translate into "free content" is the ONLY model.

    Yet, we really don't have a lot of evidence that this model is even viable long term. For all the hype around Twitter and Facebook, neither currently has a viable longterm business strategy (Other than Google, who in the Web2.0 world has one? Is this hybrid Gartner/IDC thing TechDirt is doing working?). At the same time, Bloomberg is one of the bright spots in the media world and it charges a ton for access to their information...keeping most of it locked away behind proprietary walls.

    Sure free content distribution models and community-building can be part the solution for some media companies, but we should try to limit our knee-jerk responses to trash any business model that isn't solely-based on those Web2.0 tenets. The fact that VC (or foundation) funded companies are able to grab eyeballs in the near-term, doesn't mean they can translate them into a long-term sustainable business.

    It's time to stop pretending like we in the Internet community have all the answers to the ills of the content industry. With venture capital drying up and the credit crunch limiting other exit strategies, we're seeing that for all our pontificating...we're often just as clueless as they are.

  • On the post: Music Licensing Rights Hindering Hulu As Well

    Mark Blafkin ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2009 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: A little more complicated than You're making it out to be...

    "But it's copyright law that sets it up so that such rights are separated."

    I humbly disagree, Mike. This is not the fault of copyright law at all, but the contracts that are written. The artists involved could easily sign a contract that gives the producers full rights to any future forms of display and performance. Copyright law doesn't prevent that at all. The contracts do.

    Make sense?

  • On the post: Music Licensing Rights Hindering Hulu As Well

    Mark Blafkin ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2009 @ 10:10am

    A little more complicated than You're making it out to be...

    We can all get frustrated with examples like this, but to simply blame copyright law and all its excesses misses the point, particularly on this issue.

    The problem here is NOT copyright law, but the emergence of new markets and the contracts that are signed around music.

    At the time when shows like the Pretender were hitting the airwaves, there was general movement toward featuring pop music in episodes. Cross marketing if you will. However, the concept of DVD sales of episodic content was NOT a significant issue when those contracts were negotiated. Translation, those rights were not granted to the producers of the TV show. Now that DVD sales and internet streaming are widespread and profitable, the producers are rushing to get sign new contracts with those artists, or, in some cases replacing the music in the DVD versions of the episodes (I remember reading a few articles about this with the DVD's for Smallville). I'm guessing the new deals television producers draft include provisions for DVD and online viewing.

    To make matters worse, for any one piece of music, there are often several rights holders (musician, producer, song writer, etc.), which makes licensing a true challenge.

    There are plenty of reasons to complain about the excesses of copyright law, but this isn't really one of them. Yes it's annoying, but I bet it is a short term problem created by the rapid adoption of new technologies and short-sighted (or cleverly far-sighted) contract writing.

  • On the post: Pet Peeve: Anyone Who Says 'Free Is Not A Business Model'

    Mark Blafkin ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2009 @ 02:20pm

    Re: Smart people make this mistake, too

    AC,

    I believe you're making a few false assumptions.

    #1 - Free isn't a business model, as Mike says above. You can GIVE away content, but there still needs to be a business model somewhere if you want to have an actual "business." Last I checked, BP is a profitable venture and most of its competitors probably aren't (we can debate whether CBS and ESPN really count here).

    #2 - Your assertion that "Over the past few years, literally dozens of new baseball analysis sites have popped up that provide virtually the same content for free" is not correct. Yes, there are dozens of sites that provide baseball statistics and fantasy analysis, but NONE that I've found are in the same league as BP or Shandler's BaseballHQ.

    I'm someone who happily pays for both BP and Ron Shandler's because I find that information to be valuable enough to pay for. I and thousands of others want access to that data and intelligence because it gives us a leg up in the leagues we play in. It's valuable enough that many MLB teams pay for it. The point is, unlike general news and basic stats, they aren't providing commodity information. They are provide specialized information, that gives their customers an edge. If EVERYONE had access to that information, it would be LESS valuable, not more.

    Perhaps the best parallel would be one other bright spot in the media landscape: Bloomberg. Companies are still paying seemingly absurd amounts of money for acccess to their Bloomberg terminals because it gives them access to the best information in the fastest way possible, it gives them an edge they're willing to pay for. It is NOT simply "commodity" information that has no strategic value.

    There are plenty of successful business models that are built around free content as Mike intelligently writes about above. BUT, there also many business models built on proprietary information that remain profitable even in the era of ubiquitous free information.

    Sure each company needs to figure out a proper pricing strategy to maximize its profits, but it would be strategic folly for all publishers to eschew charging their customers to maximize their readership. If they are providing commodity information or generic entertainment, it often makes sense. If they are providing truly valuable, actionable intelligence/information to a limited audience, then that probably is not the best marketing strategy for that company.

    Perhaps Ron Shandler said it best in May of last year:

    "I have been fighting the "information is supposed to be free" faction of the marketplace since the site's debut 12 years ago. So let me start by reaffirming this position -- NO, information has no more right to be free than a filet mignon at Morton's or a 911 GT3 at a Porsche dealership. Raw materials, effort, creativity and time have gone into the production of that information, and the craftsmen who create our books and website deserve to be compensated just like any other premium product. There are people who want the finest cuts of meat, the finest performing vehicles and the finest caliber of information and they are willing to pay for the privilege of owning that type of quality, workmanship and exclusivity."

  • On the post: Mixed Ruling In Case Over Limitations On DMCA Anti-Circumvention Clause

    Mark Blafkin ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2008 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re:

    Also, the DMCA requires that it be a "technological measure that effectively controls access."

    I haven't read through the specifics of the case, but depending on how the access control is weak, Stotllemire's lawyers could argue that the measure was ineffective and therefore uprotected by the DMCA. Recent case law in the Lexmark case, the Agfa v. Adobe case, and the IMS case all reinforce the "effectiveness" requirement.

  • On the post: Why Shouldn't Competitors Be Able To Weigh In On Patent Applications?

    Mark Blafkin ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2008 @ 07:58am

    Mike's Right, but It's going to Take a Lot of Work to Fix

    We at ACT couldn't agree more! There is nothing more important to ensuring patent quality than improving pre-grant procedures and allowing for more input into this system.

    The problem, however, is a little more complicated than it sounds.

    To begin, let me clarify that you're not exactly right when you say that "current law actually forbids letting those skilled in the art from providing their opinions on patent applications." Rule 99 does allow for submission of this prior art, but it effectively neuters the option for three reasons. First, the submission is made without comment, so the submitter cannot tell the examiner why it is relevant. Second, the window for submission is only 2 months long. And third, and most importantly, is the fear of effectively being stopped from using that prior art in the future.

    Essentially, if you submit prior art during this period it can be used against you in the future. If the patent is approved, then it becomes part of the body of prior art that SUPPORTS the patent. It has effectively been "asked and answered" despite the fact that the submitter wasn't able to effectively argue their case before the examiner. No sane company is willing to entrust their defense completely to a patent examiner with a meager 20 hours of time to devote, so this option is almost never used.

    Where things get really tricky, however, is creating a solution that effectively navigates the Estoppel provision, the dangers of prior art flooding, managing inequitable conduct, and the internal incentive systems for patent examiners.

    It ain't easy, But as my Mom used to say, "Anything worth doing in life takes hard work."

    ACTBlog: We Agree with Mike Masnick on a Patent Issue!!