Tags : credit | scam | security
Techdirt Web Feed
Techdirt 
Sat Jun 27 20:51:07 EDT 2009
Home: http://www.techdirt.com/
Feed: http://www.techdirt.com/techdirt_rss.xml
Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material? - Slashdot and The Register point us to a new paper by Jason Mazzone about "copyfraud" -- or the ability of someone to claim copyright on something that is in the public domain. The issue, Mazzone points out, is that there's no penalty for falsely claiming copyright on something, so there's plenty of incentive to claim something is still covered even if it's not. Remember the story of "Happy Birthday"? While the common wisdom is that the copyright is owned by Time Warner, there's a lot of evidence that this is not the case at all, and the song is in the public domain. Oh, and that could be true of Mickey Mouse as well. But, of course, neither Disney nor Time Warner risks any punishment in claiming that they still hold the copyright to each of those... so who's going to challenge it?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
TiVo Bought Some Bull In Marshall, Texas (Literally) - For years we've discussed how patent holders love to file infringement lawsuits in Marshall, Texas. There are a variety of reasons for this, but a big part of it is that the court and the juries there seem extra sympathetic to patent holders. However, when TiVo took Dish Network to court in Marshall, apparently it wanted a little extra something to help push it over the edge. So it bought some bull. Literally.
Two weeks before the jury handed TiVo a $74 million award, the company apparently "paid the record-breaking sum of $10,000" for a "Grand Champion Steer" right in Marshall, Texas. Oh, and they renamed it TiVo. TiVo's lawyers insist it had absolutely nothing to do with winning the case, but, still... why buy the bull? Apparently Samsung -- no stranger to patent litigation -- is also getting involved in "civic" causes in Marshall. There's a local celebratory event called "Stagecoach Days" in Marshall that has recently been (wait for it...) renamed as Samsung Stagecoach Days. Of course, apparently one jury consultant warns that this kind of thing can backfire:
"Buying a cow like that I think is bullshit. I think it's insulting -- the idea that people are so simple that something like that will influence the case."Well, somebody bought the bull...
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Did Someone Finally Win The Netflix Prize? - For years, we've been fascinated by the Netflix Prize -- the $1 million offer to any team that can come up with a recommendation algorithm that is shown to be 10% better that Netflix's current recommendation engine. For years, different teams worked on the problem, and the early improvements were fast, but then progress seemed to stall out. Some different approaches were tested out which pushed the numbers up even further, but getting that last little bit has proven quite elusive... until now. Apparently, two of the leading teams combined efforts and have submitted an entry that breaks the 10% barrier for the first time. If the results are verified, then other teams have 30 days to submit an algorithm that performs even better. But, if they can't, then this team should win the $1 million... at which point they're supposed to tell the world how they did it. Seems like a much more innovation friendly approach than locking it up with a patent.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Amazon Cuts Off All North Carolina Affiliates Over Questionable Proposed Tax Bill - You may remember last year -- when New York passed an ill-considered law that attempted to twist the interpretation of its tax law to make Amazon responsible for collecting sales tax in NY because some affiliates were based there. This is problematic, because it basically defines an affiliate as an employee of the company, when an affiliate is really just an advertiser. In response, Amazon went to court, but another retailer, Overstock, went the more drastic (and press friendly) route, and cut off all NY affiliates. I guess Amazon was kicking itself for not thinking of the same thing, and now that a similar issue is showing up in North Carolina, Amazon has abruptly cut off all affiliates in the state, leading to anger among many of those affiliates. The question is whether they turn that anger against Amazon or the state government for pushing forward with such a law.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Rogers Back To Inserting Its Messages Onto Others' Websites - Back in 2007, we wrote about how Canadian ISP Rogers was inserting its own content into certain webpages, such as Google's. The company was basically putting messages at the top to let people know they were using up their metered bandwidth limit. While it's nice that they were trying to better inform users, the methods were highly questionable -- injecting content into someone else's website just seemed creepy and intrusive. Rogers backed down... however, Michael Geist is reporting that some people have started seeing the notifications injected into their surfing yet again. In this case, it's not about bandwidth metering, but about parental controls. Either way, it seems bad. I'm sure Rogers wants better ways to communicate with customers, but shoving messages into the webpage they're surfing just seems excessive.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Apple Sued Over Gift Cards That Claim $0.99 Per Song - As we all know, back in April, Apple changed its iTunes pricing policy so that not all songs are $0.99. Now, some are $1.29 (and somewhere, we're told, there are a few that are $0.69). However, Apple has now been sued by a couple who claims iTunes gift cards are misleading, because they were sold claiming that iTunes songs are $0.99. The lawsuit claims that this is fraud on Apple's part, but I have a pretty difficult time believing this case gets very far.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
ACLU Explains Why It's Fighting To Protect Info On Anonymous Vegas Newspaper Commenters - We recently wrote about the fishing expedition US prosecutors went on trying to get all sorts of info (much of which didn't exist) on anonymous commenters on an article by the Las Vegas Journal-Review. The newspaper fought (publicly) the request as being way too broad, leading the feds to back down and greatly narrow the request to just info on four commenters. The newspaper appears to have no issue giving up that information, but the ACLU is still protesting, claiming that one should be able to anonymously criticize the government without having US Prosecutors track you down. Specifically, the ACLU notes that the US Attorneys are really stretching things to call the comments in question "threats" to the US Prosecutor involved in the lawsuit the article was about. It does seem clear that the comments weren't meant seriously. It sounds like people who disagree with the result of the case venting in the same way people vent on pretty much any forum online. That said, I would agree with the ACLU if the newspaper were being compelled to hand over the info. But if it voluntarily is handing over the info after being asked, then I'm not sure it's an issue for the ACLU to get involved in, because the decision is the newspaper's to make.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Court Says Anti-Malware Software Maker Immune From Lawsuit From Zango - Infamous adware maker Zango may finally be dead, but its lawsuits live on. You may recall a few years back Zango sued security software maker Kaspersky for calling its product "spyware." A court found that Kaspersky has every right to label the software as it feels is appropriate, noting that it's immune from complaints from Zango under section 230 of the CDA.
Zango appealed, claiming that Kaspersky shouldn't be immune because the CDA was only supposed to apply to websites, not software makers. The 9th circuit appeals court clearly disagrees and points out that this is exactly the sort of thing Section 230 should protect. It's always nice to see courts reaffirm the immunity granted by Section 230 -- especially since those protections have been under attack lately. Update: Eric Goldman has more.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Mythbusters' Adam Savage Discovers Insane Roaming Fees: $11,000 iPhone Bill For A Few Hours Surfing - Every few months or so there's an article somewhere about an insane phone bill that someone gets because they took their phone out of the country without recognizing the insanity that is international roaming rates. This time, it appears to be Mythbusters co-host Adam Savage, who's been doing a bit of traveling lately. He was recently up in Canada, and used his iPhone to do a little web surfing. And now he got the bill. Apparently AT&T wants somewhere around $11,000 for Adam's surfing and have turned off his phone until he pays. Now there will be some who say that he should have read the fine print, but considering just how often these sorts of stories pop up, at some point it's worth noting that the fine print isn't working. And... even if you grant the "fine print" premise, it's hard for anyone to figure out how these international roaming rates make any sense whatsoever. They're so far off the charts as to be unbelievable.
Anyway... next week on Mythbusters... the insanity of mobile phone bills? Can we see Jamie and Adam try to decipher hidden fees, while Grant, Tory and Kari search for the elusive accurate mobile phone coverage map? Maybe Buster can figure out what the real limits are on unlimited data plans? Hmm... maybe not.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Unlike The AP, It Looks Like Reuters Recognizes The Future - About a year and a half ago, we wrote about a talk given by the CEO of the Associated Press, Tom Curley, supposedly about the future of journalism. It was a very strange speech. It talked about recognizing how times were changing and how the AP could no longer be a "gatekeeper." And... then spent a large portion talking about how the AP was going to be a gatekeeper, and was going to force other sites to stop quoting its content without paying. Since then, of course, the AP has backed up those contradictory words with its ridiculous war against aggregator sites.
What's surprised me, however, is that competing "wire" services haven't stepped into the breach. It seems like a wide open opportunity for Reuters to step up and say "we want to work with everyone -- and we're not going to freak out if you send us traffic." While it hasn't gone that far, a talk given by Reuters' Editor in Chief, David Schlesinger, to the International Olympics Committee Press Commission on rethinking journalism suggests Reuters recognizes the future a lot more clearly than the AP, and is looking to embrace it fully, rather than block it, like the AP.
The whole thing is absolutely worth reading -- especially the bits where he knocks the IOC for its ridiculous restrictions on both athletes and the press on how they can report. For example, apparently the IOC got mad at Schlesinger himself because he took some photos and posted them to his blog. Since he was only accredited as a reporter, not a photographer, the IOC demanded he remove the photos. Here are a few choice snippets. At the beginning he notes just how much people are using social networks to communicate these days, and then he says:
But the point, I hope, is clear.He goes on to talk about how silly it is to think of "accreditation" and defining who is and who is not a journalist by pointing out that everyone is a journalist in some way. This isn't necessarily the "citizen journalism" trumpeted by some pundits, but a recognition that social networks make everyone the journalist of their own lives:
The old means of control don't work.
The old categories don't work.
The old ways of thinking won't work.
We all need to come to terms with that.
Fundamentally, the old media won't control news dissemination in the future. And organisations can't control access using old forms of accreditation any more.
Those statements mean what they say and not necessarily more.
I am not arguing that newspapers and magazines and news services will die.
No, just that they must change.
To say they can blog as long as it isn't journalistic, misses the point.And this is the point where traditionalists freak out and talk about putting up special walls. But, Schlesinger seems to recognize both how that's silly, and how the real response is to not freak out about the threat, but to embrace the opportunity:
To a 23 year-old athlete, used to putting out a "news feed" of every detail of her personal life and training on various social media platforms, there simply isn't a distinction.
Her life IS a news feed. Her blog IS a publishing platform. Her Facebook page IS the daily newspaper of her life.
And none of these things is really private. They can get indexed by Google; they get searched; they can be public to the world with a potential circulation of every single user of the internet.
Take this scenario: I will easily aggregate my imaginary athlete's comments and thoughts on winning or losing or on the standard of judging with tweets giving the audience perspective from various parts of the stadium. I'll then add that in with mobile phone camera pictures and video posted on Flickr and youtube.
Well, my friends, who really needs the rightsholders, AP or Reuters if you can do that?
Some may be frightened of the picture I paint. Some may think I exaggerate. I actually get energised.And, finally, he notes how silly it is to think that professional journalists are somehow above everyone else:
The only question I ask is: So what can we do to survive, or more fundamentally, to stay relevant?
I think the only path is to embrace the change and embrace the new. Longing for the ways of the past will not work.
We in the traditional media and you in the IOC must concentrate our efforts on defining and developing that which really adds value.
That means understanding what really can be exclusive and what really is insightful. It means truly exploiting real expertise.
It means, to my earlier point, using all the multimedia tools available and all the smart multimedia journalists to provide a package so much stronger than any one individual strand.
It means working with the mobile phone and digital camera and social media-enabled public and not against them.
Working against them would be crazy. Could you imagine gun toting guards trying to confiscate every phone off every spectator? That would become the story of the Games and it would ultimately fail, anyhow.
No, working with them is the answer.
Inspire them, and encourage them to do things that will enhance the Olympic spirit and actually improve the bottom line.
We have spent countless decades enveloping our activities in the cloak of professional mystery.That last bit applies to so many industries today. It's great to see that, at least via these words, it looks like Reuters is really looking to embrace what the technology allows, rather than pulling an AP and pretending it can somehow turn back the clock.
That era is over.
We must devote the time now to demystifying what we do, and working in concert with those who would seem to be a threat to the old order.
Remember that the world ultimately is a reciprocal place.
Treat people with respect and as partners, and they will partner with you.
Treat people as a threat or as criminals, and they will threaten your institution and ultimately bring it down.
This path doesn't have to be scary.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Dear Comcast: The Idea When You Bundle Is That People Are Supposed To Get A Discount - When companies offer "bundles" of the various services they offer, part of the point is that if you're buying multiple packages together, you get some sort of "discount." It doesn't make much sense to go in the other direction, but apparently Comcast thinks it does. Reader Lucas points out that the company is currently offering the following "Digital Double Play" bundle, which consists of both the "Comcast High Speed Internet, with Powerboost" and the "Comcast Digital Starter Package" for the temporarily discounted bundle price of $69.99/month for six months (after which, the price jumps to $109.90/month).
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Could The RIAA Stop Piracy By Coming Up With A More Compelling Story? - GregSJ points us to an analysis of a recent paper on "the rhetoric of copyright policy." The original paper is actually called Meh. The Irrelevance of Copyright in the Public Mind. The original is a worthwhile read (as is the analysis), but the basic point is that people continue to ignore copyright law because they simply don't "believe" the story of "harm" that the copyright holders are spinning. This actually echoes Rep. Robert Wexler's recent remarks to the World Copyright Summit, where it's all about "the story."
The paper argues that some of the fault is with the media who has portrayed these battles over copyright "as a land grab that benefited only copyright holders." Hmm. Perhaps that's because it's, I don't know... true? Also, it's worth pointing out that it isn't completely true that the media portrays the copyright battles in this manner. The media has often been quite supportive of copyright expansionist policies -- after all, many of the media's current business models rely somewhat on copyright as well.
Still, even if it is true, the paper argues that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA just needs to come up with a good story (which doesn't need to be true!) to convince people of the harm of unauthorized downloading. As a part of that, they suggest that copyright maximalists have to become trustworthy. Try to read the following without cracking up (I couldn't):
To be successful, copyright holders and legislators must consider the construction of ethos and credibility. This is done not only through the reputation that one gains, but also through the discourse itself. Legislators and copyright holders must portray themselves as trustworthy. More specifically, the recording industry must appear to be treating artists and fans fairly, and legislators must appear to be acting in the public interest.... Legislators and copyright holders must maintain a stance that encourages the public to obey copyright laws. When legislators consider altering copyright terms, the public domain is necessarily affected, and great consideration must be given to how the public will react to the proposed action. When the public sees little incentive to honor the ostensibly limited protection granted under copyright law, copyright law will increasingly become unenforceable. However, if the public is provided with compelling reasons why term limits are in the public interest, they may be more likely to support these terms. Likewise, copyright holders must make more compelling arguments concerning why the public should obey copyright law. If the people have a compelling narrative to follow, they will do so--whether it is true or not. The challenge, then, is not to craft better law; the challenge is to craft better rhetoric.The problem, of course, is that this doesn't pass the laugh test. It's pretty difficult to find anyone who believes that the copyright holders and legislators are doing anything in the public interest. And, I guess if it were possible to come up with rhetoric that made the opposite case, then perhaps people would change their actions. I just question how they could come up with such a story when all of the evidence points to the contrary.
Beyond that, let's face it, the RIAA actually has controlled the "story" for ages. It has convinced people it represents artists' interests, even though it does not. It's convinced people that potential copyright infringement is "stealing" or "piracy" when it's quite a different beast altogether. They've convinced people that copyright is the only way to make money off of content. The problem is that when anyone scratches the surface, they realize quite quickly, that none of this makes any sense at all.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Under 18? Using Google? You May Be A Criminal! - It's no secret that people ignore the terms of service on most sites, and there are pretty big questions concerning how enforceable any such terms really are. However, Petrea Mitchell, alerts us to an odd note at the very end of some notes on a conference session where Chris Soghoian points out that Google's terms of service forbid use by those under 18. I did some looking and Soghoian actually wrote out the details about this a few months ago. Basically, Google's terms of service state:
You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with GoogleBut, as Soghoian notes, in all 50 states in the US, that legal age is 18 -- meaning that those under 18 may be breaking Google's terms of service. And, of course, as we learned in the Lori Drew case, violating the terms of service of a website (even if you haven't read them or done anything to agree with them!) can be grounds for making you criminally liable for "accessing a computer without authorization." That seems like a problem, doesn't it?
Now, to be fair, the chances of anyone bothering to care or enforce this is slim to none. But we saw what happened in the Lori Drew case, where prosecutors with nothing else to sue against Drew twisted the law to find her guilty of something. You could certainly see that happening in some other case as well. If prosecutors can't find anything else on a teenager who did "something" people don't like, why not charge him with "hacking" for violating Google's terms of service?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Can Someone Please Tell Us How You Determine What's A 'Legal' Search Engine From An 'Illegal' One? - I've had a lot of trouble with courts around the globe pinning blame on search engines for what they find, using a questionable interpretation of the law for "contributory" infringement or "inducing" infringement. Such things leave open such a wide spectrum of questions, it basically puts any search engine at risk. People have questioned in the past why Google isn't targeted the same way The Pirate Bay or Torrentspy were, because functionally they're doing the same thing: they index information and help people find it. Of course, some will say that The Pirate Bay is somehow guilty because of the way it acts towards copyright holders, but since when has attitude changed whether the same action is legal or illegal?
Either way it's beginning to feel like judges are determining what is and what is not contributory infringement in the same way "obscenity" is determined, using Justice Potter Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it" test. This is a bad thing, because while some may claim the extremes are clear (which is certainly questionable) there's a large gray area in the middle that is completely unclear. And having a huge unclear gray area means a lot of potential liability on innovators -- leading fewer people to innovate. And that's undeniably bad.
Take for example, the situation going on in the UK, where Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman decided to do something that makes a lot of sense: create a search engine for videos online, indexing a variety of different sites. This was as a part of their company Scopelight, and the search engine itself was called Surfthechannel. This is certainly a useful product. But, of course, the search engine's algorithm has no way of knowing if that video has been put up by the copyright holder on purpose or if it's unauthorized. Even more tricky, how does it determine fair use? So, it did the reasonable thing: it includes everything. Lots of the videos are legal. Plenty are potentially unauthorized. Apparently that wasn't good enough for a UK-based anti-piracy group UK-FACT, who had Scopelight's premises raided, claiming the site is illegal, since people can find unauthorized content via it. Of course, you can find unauthorized content on Google as well.
But you know who's liable for that? Whoever actually put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it.
UK-FACT was unable to get criminal charges filed against SurfTheChannel, but no matter, a civil case has been filed instead. So, once again, a judge is going to have to determine why a third party website can be guilty of others' infringement based on a highly subjective "I know it when I see it" set of reasons. This is a bad deal for everyone.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Why The Healthcare Industry Doesn't Want Electronic Medical Records - I've been really confused by the whole push for "electronic healthcare records" as some sort of big step for improving our healthcare system. It's such a minor part of what's needed that it seems to be looking at curing a cough when someone has terminal cancer. The cough isn't the issue. Also, it's never been quite clear why hospitals didn't move to electronic healthcare records in the first place. Lots of other businesses with tons of paper records long ago realized that moving to electronic records and making things more efficient wasn't just a fantastic way to make money, but a way to expand their own market. The switch from paper stock certificates to electronic ones didn't just save printing costs -- it enabled the stock market to change in a massive way (perhaps too much, many will note).
Andy Kessler, who's been thinking an awful lot about these issues (and whose book The End of Medicine hasn't received nearly the attention it deserves) has an interesting article discussing why the industry has resisted the move to e-healthcare records. While it would save some money, he notes, it would also expose the entire scam of the healthcare system: which is that they make a ton of money from inefficiencies baked into the system, which are totally hidden from view. It's a massive boondoggle for the industry, and e-healthcare records would actually make it easier for people to understand that the healthcare system profits from people being sick and not from having them be well.
The incentives are totally screwed up for everyone.
Healthcare providers make more money the sicker you are. Pharmaceutical companies make easy money with gov't monopolies limiting the ability to spread useful drugs. The actual costs are nearly totally hidden from most consumers, so they don't make smart choices at all. There's a lot of built in artificial scarcities in the system, and opening up the flow of information changes that.
Of course, in the grand scheme of things, this is dumb. Focusing on preventative care and actually keeping people healthy would actually provide a massive economic benefit not just to the healthcare industry, but to the economy as a whole. More healthy people contributing to production, output and consumption can do quite a lot for the economy. The numbers on some studies are staggering (we're talking trillions of dollars). If the incentives could be aligned such that people paid for staying healthy, rather than having illness treated, then there's a ton of money to be made without resorting to the old inefficient mess that is today's healthcare system.
But rather than tackle any of that, we get attempts to fix the cough in the terminally ill patient -- and the patient likes the morphine drip so much that he'll do anything to avoid getting healthy. It's time to fix the healthcare system. And while I don't necessarily believe that a small step like electronic medical records is all that meaningful, if Kessler is right and it actually drives some awareness to the underlying mess, perhaps it's at least a good start.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
If You're Going To Meter Broadband, Shouldn't You At Least Make Sure The Meters Work? - One of the things that's left out of the discussion about all these attempts to move to "metered billing" for broadband is the massive overhead increases it will put on broadband providers. In the past, with straight flat-rate plans, there wasn't much to monitor or adjust by the company (and fewer customer disputes over how much was used). But, as soon as you add in the meters, all that goes out the window -- and I'd bet the expense greatly outweighs any supposed "benefit" to the cable company.
Take, for example, Canadian cable provider Cogeco, who apparently has started offering metered billing, but whose "meters" apparently don't work. Customers are reporting very inaccurate readings on the tool provided by Cogeco for customers to watch their own bandwidth, and they're receiving usage emails from the company that don't match up with what the online tool says at all. So, now Cogeco's going to have a bunch of folks complaining, and will need to spend more time fixing its meter tool. Good decision, huh?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
If You're An East Texas Company, Are You Now More Prone To Patent Infringement Lawsuits? - Joe Mullin has an interesting story, questioning why PubPat -- a group that has fought against bad/questionable patents and bad patent policy -- appears to be working closely with a guy who fits the classic definition of a "patent troll" and who just sued Google, Yahoo, MySpace, PayPal, Amazon, Match.com, and AOL over a patent (5,893,120) for storing and retrieving data using a hashing technique.
However, what I actually thought was a lot more interesting is buried a bit down in the article. Beyond suing those seven big name internet companies, the lawsuit also included "the world's largest futures exchange, CME Group, and two software companies located in the Eastern District of Texas." Which two software companies? Softlayer Technologies and CitiWare Open Source Technologies -- both of which look like web hosting/data center type places with some additional services/software included. Heard of 'em? Probably not. Mullin speculates reasonably that the two companies may have been added as a strategy to fight off any attempt to change the venue outside of East Texas.
As you may have noticed, with courts getting a bit more leeway in moving such cases, a few have been moved out of East Texas -- especially when none of the parties involved are really based there. So, now, the patent holders who so love filing there are coming up with new strategies, including suing a whole bunch of different companies so they can argue that Texas is "centrally located" or equally as (in)convenient for everyone. Yet, you have to imagine that with a couple of companies located in East Texas, they'll be able to make an even stronger case against moving the case. So, if you're a tech company that's actually based anywhere in East Texas, you may now have a really big target on your back in patent lawsuits, effectively acting as an anchor to keep the case located there.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
School Votes To Pay Legal Fees Of Assistant Principal Charged In Child Porn Witchhunt - Back in April, we wrote about the ridiculous situation involving an assistant principal who had been prosecuted for "child porn" possession because he had been investigating kids at school sending graphic images of themselves to each other. The details of the case are convoluted, but it was quite clear that the guy never should have been charged -- just as it was equally clear that the prosecutor didn't seem to care. As we noted, the judge tossed out the case, but the guy had lost his job and his name had been attached to child porn, scaring off friends and neighbors. However, it sounds like things may actually be working out (as much as something could "work out" after such an awful experience).
Ting-Yi Oei was allowed to return to his job in April, and apparently he was welcomed back warmly: "The Parent Teacher Student Association organized a welcome-back breakfast for him and the school honors society decorated his office door and desk with notes of support and Christmas lights." And, now, the school board has voted to give him $167,000 to cover his legal fees. That still doesn't fix the emotional anguish, but at least the community and the school seems to have realized that the prosecutor made a huge mistake here.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
More And More Bands (And Their Labels) Giving Fans A Reason To Buy - Peter Davias alerts us to an article over at Indyweek noting how more and more bands are adding value in order to get fans to actually find it worthwhile to buy the album. The article includes a bunch of examples down at the end, including a limited edition comic book based on each song on an album (by the band The Hold Steady). The band Sunn O))) apparently offered up some different options, including just getting a patch with the CD... or if you bought both the CD and a t-shirt, you got the patch along with a sticker and a poster. And on and on it goes. But, what's worth mentioning here is that many of these promotions appear to be done with the record label in question. I know it's fashionable for some to claim there's no need at all for a record label any more, but I still think there's a place for labels in helping the bands that don't want to figure out these business model issues themselves. It's just that the old "model" of bands signing away everything to those labels is likely to change drastically. Still, it's nice to see more and more record labels recognizing that the way to sell these days is to provide additional value beyond just the music.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Can Email Patterns Predict When Companies Are In Trouble? - Here's an interesting study. Apparently, looking at the email patterns (not the content) of organizations may enable one to "predict impending doom." The researchers looked at Enron emails, and found that about a month before everything went bad, there was a sudden and rapid increase in the number of "active email cliques, defined as groups in which every member has had direct email contact with every other member." The number of such groups increased by a factor of eight. Not surprisingly, the messages between these cliques increased in frequency as well, and those message were rarely shared with people outside the clique. In other words, a bunch of rapid task groups came together about a month before everything got screwed up.
Of course, the data is only on one particular company, and there's nothing to indicate whether this pattern is really that common elsewhere. It wouldn't surprise me, but it would be nice if there were more data to back it up. Of course, that's difficult, because there aren't that many companies willing to share such data. Still, it's always neat to see attempts to pick out interesting predictive behavior from areas where you wouldn't necessarily expect it.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story