Naughty Little Nation States

Beware China and Russia, the U.S. government has it's eye on you. And you too, Argentina, Chile, Egypt, India, Israel, Lebanon, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela. You are on notice. No longer will your piratic (the act of being a pirate) ways be tolerated. On Monday the White House put your bootlegging butts on our official piracy watch list.

Each year the White House is required to report to Congress concerning "problems American companies are facing around the world with copyright piracy, which they contend is costing them billions of dollars in lost sales annually." In the annual report, known as Special Report 301, the administration threw the smack down, saying "China has a special stake in upgrading its protection of intellectual property rights, given that its companies will be threatened by rampant copyright piracy as they increase their own innovation." Ohh, snap, China. Your piratical (I'm going to keep using it until it becomes an official O.E.D. certified word) actions are going to come back in bite you in the butt.

Bush & Co. then went on to pimp smack Thailand, stating they had "deteriorating protection for patents and copyrights." That's right, Thailand, how dare you feel the moral imperative to produce low-cost generic versions of AIDS medication. Not when my boys Phizer need to get paid.

Of course, Rohit Malpani, some crazy fool from Oxfam (this bunch of pie-eyed optimists who want to "find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice") stepped up and claimed that El Heffe Bush's report ignored "important international agreements signed by the U.S. government ... which clearly state that developing countries have the right to place public health and the public interest over intellectual property rules." Rules, schmooles. As poet laureates The Wu Tang Clan said "Cash Rules Everything Around Me." I'm pretty sure the extended cut of their hit song went on to include that the need for cash clearly necessitates ignoring ratified international treaties. And just in case that wasn't enough my homies the RIAA and the MPAA stepped up to defend what is the heart and soul of America, the lust for cash money.

Now I know that some of you half-educated fools may be thinking "Wait a hot minute, MatPat, didn't the U.S. routinely violate international copyright and patent rules to protect the nascent industrial foundation that America's current success was built on?"

Well, yeah, if you want to get technical about it, the U.S. definitely ignored all copy and patent rights until it financial suited us to obey them. But the thing you have to understand is that it's all different now.

"How so" you ask. Well clearly if my great-great grand pappy needed to get all piratical (admit it, the word is growing on you) and rip off dirty English dog Charles Dickens to make sure his Boston-based printing house was going to turn a buck, then that was ok. Now when Borris D. Russian or his friend Johnny Ukraine take my copy of "Baby Geniuses 2: Super Babies", crank out 10,000 bootleg copies and don't cut me in for a slice, that's when we have a problem.

I know you're probably getting all bleeding heart and thinking that most of the countries on the piracy watch list are all in various stages of transitioning to a market-based economy and that their nascent market-based industries need material that can guarantee them a profit, yet they often can't afford the absurdly high licensing fees that U.S. companies want to charge. Well tough...

Vinny Venezuela and Tammy Thai will just have to do without our excellently entertaining Baby Geniuses or life-saving Malaria medication.

I also know that some of you radical leftists (I got my eye on you Mr. White) may be suggesting that the U.S. should obey international law, craft new legislation that simplifies intellectual property rights to create a more manageable and equitable system that prioritizes life-saving and life-changing technology as well as the free and fast flow of culture for the betterment of the world citizenry, I got just one thing to say to that "Cash Rules Everything Around Me, C.R.E.A.M.,(get the money), dolla dolla bill y'all."

And if I had a second thing to say, it'd be that you'll have to pry my cash out of my cold, dead, cosmetically altered and well manicured due to my excessive royalty-funded-playboy-lifestyle, hands.

And if there was one last thing I had to say about it, if we don't protect copyrights then we're in danger of losing potentially-award-winning filmmakers like Fritz Sciascia. (of course maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing ever).





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_go_ot/copyright_piracy
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0704/S00538.htm
http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?sectionid=39&articleid=2840243
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=134329
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/wu_tang/enter_wu/cream.wtg.txt

Wow, I sure predicted that!

Jack Valenti died!

Every day becomes the Super Bowl – Let's rate commercials!

With just one month left until what will no doubt be the most complicated upfront in the advertising world: commercial ratings, major players on each side of the table assembled and showed where they stand on this topic.

"I like commercial ratings. They make us look good," said ABC's sales chief, Mike Shaw.

"Commercial ratings are the beginning of a major overhaul in how we measure television content," said David Marans, exec VP of IAG Research.

"Let's build this brand called the upfront... there are things you can get in the upfront that you can't get anywhere else," said Home Depot CEO Roger Adams.

It seems like everybody is excited about the final arrival of this belated rating metric, because apparently the resources, know-how, technology and advertiser interest have been available for years.

"Program ratings are a dinosaur," Kellogg ad exec Andy Jung said, “they were useful for networks to determine what shows are hits but didn't help advertisers determine whether their commercials were working.” Group M Chief Investment Officer Rino Scanzoni, agreed that commercial ratings will become a big force this year and said an average of the commercial ratings, which as opposed to the traditional program ratings that have been the basis of media negotiations for decades, would be a sensible first step; after that, a gradual move to minute-by-minute and eventually second-by-second ratings will allow an advertiser to find out exactly how their spot did.

People who are concerned about the (lacking of) creativity of current TV ads, also believe the system the industry will get is a measurement that could “breathe life into the stagnating business of TV advertising”.

Proper commercial ratings -- the type that rate each individual spot, have the potential to reinvigorate creativity. Just as the TV buyer can call the seller after he or she receives the overnight ratings to discuss why a program isn't pulling the promised numbers, commercial ratings will give marketers a real insight into whether people actually want to watch their commercials. Marketers and their agencies will be able to see the exact drop off in viewers and compare that across different types of creative.

Commercial ratings are also seen as something beneficial the outsiders of TV ad sales and measurement, say ordinary audiences. We all would agree that nowadays there’re way too many commercials messages spewing forth and the most overt polluter causing the clutter is net work TV.

However, regardless of how well technology lets people avoid ads, consumers don't necessarily avoid ads they like -- and, as proved by YouTube and the Super Bowl, they'll actually seek them out. The problem is, consumers have been seeing far too many ads they don't like for far too long. Much like environmental pollution, commercial pollution proliferates because the economic incentives are flawed. The ugly truth is that the networks will gladly take the money and that unlikable ads can still sell product, especially if given sufficiently heavy weights.

Some say the new TV commercial ratings system may finally offer a partial solution.

It'll give networks a much stronger incentive to fix their business model and start charging variable rates to advertisers based on how much people like their ads. Better still, as a consumer-engagement tactic, consumers could vote on how well they like ads, "American Idol" style, knowing their votes will reward ads they like and punish the ones they find annoying.

Nevertheless, one major flaw in any theory about providing incentives for more likable ads is that even the most engaging ads may not overcome consumers' basic displeasure with ads interrupting what they're watching, said Charles Rutman, CEO of Havas' MPG. On one hand, the fact that Super Bowl ads were among the most-watched online videos the week after the game this year indicates that conventional TV ads can still find an audience, even when the audience can flee. On the other, TiVo data suggest most people fast-forward through whole commercial pods when they can, without discriminating much among the commercials.

In all, let's looking forward to the debut of the new commercial rating system and possible changes it may bring to the net-work TV programming as well as the advertising productions. Hopefully one day commercials will no longer be seen as "pollution", every day becomes Super Bowl.

Links:

Ad ratings to gain at upfront

Clutter Pollution Solution: Make 'Em Pay for Bad Ads

Commercial Ratings Could Spark a Creative Revolution

Is Imus' Firing Ethical?

Don Imus should not have been fired the way that he was fired.

"San Bernardino-based KCAA-AM is planning to run the "Best of Imus"" (4) starting with the now infamous show that excited the national media. "Imus" drew an audience of 2 - 3.5 million and drew in approximately $44,000,000 in advertising revenue (1 and 3). In the aftermath of the show, Imus apologized for being "insensitive" (5). His apology was not enough to save him from firing but there is speculation that he may resurface on satellite radio (2 and 3). One has to ask why this happened now when, "for more than 30 years," (4) Imus' show was, "dogged by allegations of racism, homophobia, misogyny and other crimes against common sense" (4).

After Imus' offensive comments on April 16th, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others called for his firing (3). "The firestorm of complaints and protests from civil rights activists became so deafening that advertisers started to listen. Proctor and Gamble, General Motors, Sprint, Nextel, and American Express pulled their commercials from Imus in the Morning and CBS Radio had no other option but to dump Don Imus" (3).

CBS Radio had another option - to not dump Don Imus.

The reason the media say that there was no other option is related to the desire to make money from the show and pander to advertisers. The Imus show had a two part format. One part was shock-jock style and the other part was serious interviews with journalists or politicians. Guests on the Imus show included Tim Russert (Meet the Press), Jeff Greenfield (CNN Senior Analyst), Frank Rich (NYT Columnist), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune Columnist), David Brooks (NYT Columnist) and Bob Schieffer (CBS Newsman) (1). Mike Wallace is on the record as saying that Imus' show was a forum for reaching necessary audiences, important people and for advancing recognition in influential circles (1). To some this would suggest the importance of the Imus show.

Based on this, the firing of Don Imus was not an ethical decision - It was a cash driven decision. If there are any ethics to be discovered in this whole story it is the conviction with which the civil rights activists stuck to their belief that what Don Imus said was wrong and that he should be punished. Why this was not a successful endeavor in the past, I don't know, but persistence has paid off in this case - after 30 years. Imus did not manage to dodge the "allegations of racism..."(4) this time.

The sickening part of the affair is the ease with which CBS can assert its belief in the extremity of Imus' comments on this occassion after employing him (and his material) for more than 30 years. MSNBC (A GE unit(2)) apologized and fired Imus from his 10 year simulcast (2). One must wonder if they noticed what was going on at Imus' show for the last 10 and 30 years!

I suggest that the Don Imus Show, CBS and MSNBC should have stayed the course. Instead of bowing to the power of advertisers' cash they should have continued airing the Imus Show without any revenue. All of the civil rights activists and the basketball team and others could have been invited to meet/discuss/criticize Don Imus, CBS and MSNBC on the air. Imagine how much discussion and progressive ideas might be aired without any advertising breaks!
I dare to suggest that the civil rights activists who (presumably) influenced the powerful advertisers to abandon ship, would have agreed to the continuation of the Imus Show in this suggested format. Don Imus might have actually come out good (perhaps changed), not to mention CBS and MSNBC. (Surely they can afford to lose some advertising revenue for the betterment of society while gaining popularity). There could be room for discussion about allowing advertisers back into the format at the right time. "In fact, none of the advertisers who jumped the Imus in the Morning Ship ruled out coming back after the storm had blown over" (3).

So I say that Don Imus' firing was not ethical. He should have been "sentenced" to continuing his show in the outlined format and his superiors at CBS and MSNBC should have been "sentenced" to compulsory appearances on the show.


1. http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/04/13/01?

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/business/13imus.html?ex=1192075200&en=

3. http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=5131

4. http://sodahead.com/poll/1463/?promo=IMUSBACK&gclid=CKPjjp7S1IsCFSAcYAodM

5. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036713

Junk-Food-Ads, Time to Stop!

Complains and critiques about the prevailing junk-food advertising on TV have increased over years. One of the most serious problems those commercials have caused is a rise of child obesity. Food and drink with a high sugar, salt and fat content is more often advertised on TV than healthier food and beverage, which is believed to influence the eating habits of a great number of children and adolescents and lead to many of their health problems..

A report found kids are exposed to about 18,000 ads a year on average and that slightly more than a third, or 34 percent of those ads, are for candy and snack foods. Another 28 percent were for cereal and 10 percent were for fast food. A smaller portion of the ads were for dairy products and fruit juices.

As adults who care about healthy diets, we may be “immune” to the triple cheese burgers or strawberry flavored soda shown again and again on the television. However, our kids, especially those between nine to fifteen years old, are usually so overwhelmed by the junk food advertising that would only want to eat and drink what they’ve seen on TV. Nowadays, when parents are getting busier in work, kids are often given lunch money which they are very likely to spend on “super-sized” fast food, sodas and snacks.

The latest numbers from the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscore the growing problem of childhood obesity in the United States show that nearly 14 percent of 2- to 5-year-olds were obese in 2004, the latest figures available, up from 5 percent in 1980. The figure was 17.4 percent for teens, up from 5 percent.

There has been effort put in fighting against the junk-food-ad on TV. The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood have pressed the federal government for stricter regulations and cheered on individuals who filed lawsuits against particular companies for their high-fat food. In UK, Ofcom's new regulations came into force in which companies would no longer be able to advertise food and drink with a high sugar, salt or fat content during shows aimed at four to nine- year-olds.

Why are there so many junk-food-ads cramming our TV screens while very few ads about healthy nutritious food can be seen? Suppose that only “junk” food which is considered unhealthy by nature needs advertising because otherwise nobody will buy it; then can we conclusion that if we ban all the junk-food-ads (granting that we are able to define what is “junk” food), people will not be “influenced” by those ads or “attracted” to those products, so their shopping baskets will be automatically full of un-advertised (unknown) healthy and nutritious stuffs from now on.

Of course the hypothesis above is problematic and everybody knows it is not happening in the real life. One reason why an undeniablely great proportion of the population in this country are fond of those so-called junk food and inclined to feed themselves and their kids with those high fat/sugar food and drinks, is that they are already “brainwashed” by those famous brands and images and their stomach as well as minds are already used to them. Furthermore, children are even less rational than adults when they choose what to eat and drink; if they are hooked by McDonald’s Big Mac, they are not going to have a salad instead just because they do not see the golden “M” on TV anymore. So I would say that we need to ban (at least restrict)the junk-food-ads on television, but at the same time we need to have more healthy and nutritious food/drink advertised and exposed to the public in order to compensate the “damage” that junk-food has made. We will have to encourage the healthy food brands to come to media and promote healthier eating habits and life styles in the society. And hopefully this will put pressure on the food industry, especially fast food industry, to improve the quality of their products rather than just adjust marketing strategies.

LONDON (AdAge.com) -- The recent U.K. ban on TV junk-food ads aimed at children younger than 16 will be extended to magazines, the internet, newspapers, billboards and cinema.

Junk-Food-Ad, time to stop!

Links:

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/The-Role-Of-Media-in-Childhood-Obesity.pdf

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=junk-food-advertising-ban--not-strict-enough-&method=full&objectid=18845788&siteid=50082-name_page.html

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/27/news/companies/kaiserchildren_tvads/index.htm?postversion=2007032810

The Greatest Story Ever Sold?

In recent years, Iran and its relations with the West has captivated governments, citizens, and the media worldwide since, in an era of US-lead overseas military ventures, the world asked: where does the US want to pick its next fight?

Iran's uranium enrichment efforts, which the US and British governments fear signifies the initial stage of a nuclear weapons program, has been the main draw. The US alleges that Iran sponsors international terrorism, notably assisting insurgents in Iraq and Hamas in Lebanon, and regards with fear the non-acknowledgment of the State of Israel expressed in alleged comments made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Less publicly, the US has strategic reasons for fearing an Iranian nuclear power, which would alter the balance of power in the Middle East, potentially encourage other neighboring countries to develop nuclear capabilities, and further weaken US power in the region. Such fears culminated on 31st July 2006 in a resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council demanding that Iran immediately suspend its nuclear activities. In spite of this, despite citing no evidence to support his claims, on 9th April 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran now has the capabilities to produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.

Against this backdrop, a tense diplomatic episode recently flared up between Britain and Iran over the capture by the latter on 23rd March of fifteen British sailors, who had been undertaking a routine inspection in the Persian Gulf. Until the sailors' eventual release on 5th April, events magnified fears of an escalation. Some reports in the media alleged that the sailors could face charges of espionage if Iran found that the sailors had been caught in Iranian (not Iraqi, as the UK Royal Navy claimed) waters and were smuggling cars into Iraq. The treatment of the sailors by Iran was also questioned, especially after video footage aired on Iranian television showing crewman Nathan Summers saying "I would like to apologize for entering your waters without any permission ... I deeply apologize", held by many Western observers to be a forced confession. However, the tension immediately relaxed upon the sailors' release, thirteen days later. Following the release, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "We bear you [Iran] no ill will”. The episode was over.

Or so most thought. Now, a fierce media debate has arisen. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had decided to allow the sailors involved in the incident to sell their stories to the press, deciding that “exceptional circumstances” has permitted the Ministry to lift its usual ban on such payments. Seaman Faye Turney appeared on ITV1's high-profile Trevor MacDonald television program and also sold her story to the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper for a six-figure (in British pounds) sum. Now, strategic concerns aside, a passionate debate has arisen over whether or not it is ethical for participants in such an episode to financially profit from their experiences. Opposition politicians questioned the MoD's decision, calling it undignified; Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague announced he would be bringing the issue to be questioned by the House of Commons. Meanwhile, Mike Aston, whose son was killed by a mob in Iraq in 2003, told the BBC “It beggars belief... [T]o actually go round and sell their story I think is tacky and sordid”. Admiral Sir Alan West, former head of the Royal Navy, said “I would have refused [to allow the stories to be sold to the media]”. Meanwhile, the MoD responded by saying “It is a fact that the media have been making direct contact with the families and offering them significant sums of money - this is not something that the Navy and the MoD have any control over”.

The issue is far from simple. Even the MoD, whose decision sparked the controversy, has now placed a temporary ban on all military personnel, including those involved in the Iran affair, selling their stories to the media until a review of the issue has been completed. So, what conclusions can be arrived at? Seeing as selling one's story to the press is common practice, under what conditions, if any, should such practice be prohibited? Once financial compensation becomes a motivating issue for bringing facts or experiences to the media, does this raise too big a danger of such messages being distorted by the financial incentive to deliver?

In a perfect world, human sources of information, whose sole interest would be in benefiting the public, would have no hurdles in freely passing their knowledge to the media. However, in practice, compensation is often in the public good. Sources might not care about the public benefit and might need an incentive to talk to the media. This would be especially true when hurdles, such as public or peer embarrassment, might otherwise seem too large to overcome. There may also be situations where releasing certain information might result in great financial cost, something which payment would compensate. Sources might also use financial rewards to benefit charity or other worthy causes related to the relevant story. In the case of the British sailors, some of the sailors have stated that any money gained from selling their story will go to a charity benefiting military personnel.

Any situation involving both media and money, however, needs careful scrutiny. Allowing compensation in all cases could create motivation for exaggerating, or even inventing, one's story to facilitate a greater payout. Being seen to be motivated by money, and not some 'higher' cause, to speak to the press might also tarnish the reputation of a group or organization to which the source belongs. Moreover, financial reward might incentivize a source to act antisocially, causing harm to one's family, peers, or organization. On the media's side, competition for sources through bidding wars might create unfair access to information that should be available to any press outlet. If such an outlet were to continually benefit from outpricing its competitors, such competitors might be forced to exit the market, resulting in a steady decline into monopoly, thus removing the original benefits of market-based media. Bidding wars might also facilitate other entities becoming involved by, for example, giving a large sum of money to a newspaper to pay for information beneficial to the paying entity.

Rather than attempting to eliminate financial payouts to sources of information, a virtually impossible task and one that is not necessarily desirable, the media industry watchdogs might consider a more comprehensive set of guidelines that outline certain situations where compensation would be inappropriate. For example, should somebody receive payment if they represent an organization in the story they are telling and to whom should the money go: the organization or the individual? The idea of a pricing cap could also be a viable idea, especially in ensuring that sources receive compensation for their efforts but that media outlets cannot engage in bidding wars to drive competitors from the market.

The MoD's 180-degree turns in the Iran affair indicate that right now, at least in Britain, such rules have not been fully agreed upon. However, with enough potential pitfalls for financial compensation to interfere with fairness and accuracy, the issue must receive regulatory attention as soon as possible.

-----------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/world/middleeast/23cnd-basra.html?ex=1332302400&en=3e01dccd64a98831&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19353&Cr=iran&Cr1=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6538957.stm?ls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6537103.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6538921.stm

Networks Without Pity

For the last few years user-generated content has been the hot buzz in the industry. But what exactly is user-generated content, how does it differ from traditional content, and what ethics bind producer and broadcaster?

YouTube is often hailed as the benchmark for user-generated content. After Google's acquisition of YouTube for 1.65 billion in Google stock, pundits pointed to YouTube as an example of how one could successfully monetize user-generated content, this is despite the fact that YouTube gains much of its popularity by rebroadcasting clips of traditionally produced content. It's also been overlooked that Google paid for the company with shares of it's own stock not liquid funds. So as long as Google stays profitable (which is a crap shoot since only one of their products, AdSense, has proven to generate income) then the bought-out YouTubers will be able to dump their stock for actual funds, but should Google tank for any number of reasons then YouTube will have been bought for the equivalent of a couple of buttons and a pocketful of lint. And thus the only "profitable" version of user-generated content will have been busted.

What exactly though is "user-generated content"? It seems fairly logical and easy to say that any amateur produced content would fall under this heading, but when does someone move from amateur to professional? On CurrentTv users can post content that, if highly praised by their peers and the site sponsors, can earn them up to fifty-thousand dollars. Would someone who earns this amount automatically be classified as a professional or as a lucky windfall reciepient?

One of the biggest issues is obviously how this content is monetized. Is it ethical for successful networks such as VH1 to make a profit off the work of unpaid users? Currently VH1 runs AcceptableTV, a show where five staff generated shorts and one user-generated short are shown each week. Clearly involving the user-generated aspect is great synergy for VH1, it simultaneously allows them to scout for new talent, fill a programing void, reduce costs, and advertise to a viewer base that is personally attached to a show that might air their content.

Some would argue that as long as viewers are willingly submitting their content than there is no real issue if the corporation decides to pocket all net income, but to carry that argument to an extreme would be to say that an employer can decide to treat an employee in a manner they so desire and it's perfectly acceptable for the employee to be under-paid and abused as long as the employee continues to remain an employee. Of course our society has enacted employee's rights legislation to prevent this abuse. Similarly shouldn't there be a users' bill of rights? Maybe, maybe not. But clearly most users would feel that they should be compensated if a lucrative corporation was going to further profit off of their hard work.

This issue has recently come to a head in Bravo's acquisition of the website Television Without Pity. Previously TWoP's reviewers had been paid the scant wages of $100 per write-up for their reviews. This was largely because TWoP was a start-up where most employees were largely working for what is euphemistacally termed "the love of the game." Once acquired by Bravo the writers were shoced to see that Bravo intended to keep the meager payscale in tact. The writers balked at this stating "It's one thing to make very little money when you're working for a startup, but there's no reason we should be paid these rates when we're at-will employees of a big corporation." (Bravo is part of media giant NBC Universal)." Is Bravo ethically bound to provide it's new employees with a better payscale? What's the incentive for Bravo? Theoretically there are always more writers who will do the job just for the elusive chance to break into the industry. Throughout entertainment the industry largely subsides on the backs of unpaid interns and low-wage PAs.

Surely if I want to make a video and share it with friends through a website the website has a right to use my material to recoup the cost of running the site. But if my material starts to earn a profit for that website above and beyond the cost of hosting my video shouldn't I receive a portion of those earnings? Maybe, but what about the risk the site is taking by hosting hundreds of unprofitable videos.

Broadcasters can always hide behind the shield of the financial risk they endure. Basically if users want to earn better treatment and representation the only choice would be to band together in union solidarity. Thus they'd be able to demand equitable profit sharring for their labors. Of course there will always be people at the bottom willing to step in and do a job for less

USER-GENERATED CONTENT CREATORS OF THE WORLD -- UNITE!!!

or not...

Of course there will always be people at the bottom willing to step in and do a job for less (or nothing). That way Chevy and other brands can stay hip with their youth-targeted user-generated ads while also saving money by not paying unionized copywriters, directors, crew, and editors a living wage. Ultimately though there are thousands of businesses that profit from user-generated content whether it's YouTube videos, Amazon's customer reviews, and even Blogger, which is all to happy to allow users to embed AdSense in their blogs.

**Thank you to all the wonderful and uncompensated users who generated the visual products used to enhance my content found through a simple Google Image search for "Monkey Fight."


http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/04/big-media-companies-like-are.php
http://www.currenttv.com/faq#pods
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/9197.asp
http://mindblogging.typepad.com/whataconcept/user_generated_content/index.html
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=111806

Ahoy, thar be mp3s ahead!

The ethics of downloading music online have been hotly debated since such a thing was a feasible option. Gone are the halcyon days of Napster when any song or album you wanted could be had with a simple search and a click. Gone are the slightly less ideal post-Napster days when a throng of imitators still allowed one to trade music in exchange for a few popup ads at best and a virus infestation at worst. The more music was being downloaded and the more the record companies threw a fit, the less fun we all had on the internet. Now, we pay for our music downloads; most people use the near-monopolistic iTunes while a few people use other services such as the new and dubiously improved Napster. Buying CDs is nearly out of the question as the price of an average new release nears $20. Naturally, there are a few music pirates left out there, but to divulge our…I mean their sources would be unwise. (Editor’s note: I download to try, when I like something, I do put my money where my mouth is. Usually.)

Things are about to change again. While legitimately downloaded music tracks are a relative bargain at a dollar or so a song, the technical limitations are quite a burden. For example, if you don’t use an iPod you can’t download songs from iTunes which is the biggest online music store, period. For my own musical entertainment, I use a petrified Dell Digital Jukebox and I couldn’t be happier with it, however the avenues for getting legitimate music are limited. Not anymore! Apple and EMI have struck a deal wherein EMI songs will be slightly more expensive on iTunes but will be much more easily shared, effectively removing the DRM (digital rights management) technology which is currently responsible for the technical limitations. To compensate for the price increase, the track quality will also improve. I predict that other major labels will soon follow suit, naturally choosing to sign up with iTunes first and possibly putting the final nail in the coffin of other online music vendors. Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction.

Digital Rights Management really took a sour turn when Sony began releasing CDs with an invasive anti-piracy software that installed itself when all you wanted to do was listen to a track or two. There didn’t have to be any sharing or downloading afoot, Sony took the preemptive step to install this software in a manner that hackers use to spread viruses. People who bought these Sony CDs couldn’t even put them on their own iPods, as the anti-piracy software blocked the compatibility. The number of copies one could make of the disc was limited, but at what cost? And what happened if you didn’t want the software?

One user “found that traditional methods of uninstalling the program would not work, and that attempts at removing it corrupted the files needed to operate his computer's CD player, rendering it useless.”

The maker of the software is now making patches available that make it possible to remove the offending program, but people’s privacy has already been violated.

Are these efforts working? In a word: no. The New York Times reports, “Peer-to-peer networks yielded five billion downloads in 2006, whereas 509 million songs were downloaded from iTunes-style services.”

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/02/BUGR3P05BC5.DTL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110202362.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/technology/02drill.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1175565103-yOOVmCnWk5Uu3v5TKOJzHQ

(If I got some of the technical stuff about iPods and iTunes wrong, please let me know. I use neither.)