Informationoverlord

I am sad to see Google has called it a day on Wave, but I am not surprised. According to Google:

‘Wave has not seen the user adoption we would have liked. We don’t plan to continue developing Wave as a standalone product, but we will maintain the site at least through the end of the year and extend the technology for use in other Google projects.’

It has not seen the user adoption for one reason in my view – it doesn’t work in Internet Explorer natively, and most corporate IT departments will not let their staff download and install the Google Chrome Frame to make it do so. This is important, because I do think some tech people do tend to forget that for most of us in the corporate/business world, we don’t have a choice of browser to use – or even version of that browser to use (see UK govt announcement last week that plan to carry on with IE6 on most of their machines). The larger the organization, the less likely you will be to customize IE in anyway, with IT departments/security taking control of most of your settings too.

I could have used Google Wave in my work environment, it would have been a faster way of collaborative working than a wiki and the IM aspect of it would also have been useful in some of the project teams I have worked in. But, I exist in the world described above. I could not use Wave at work, and frankly I didn’t need it at home – although I did try it out on a number of occasions and whilst it was not the most intuitive thing going, I liked what they were trying to do, even if for the most part it seemed like a solution looking for a problem, rather than something designed to solve a problem that already existed.

So, hats off the Google for trying it, but creating something that has most use in the enterprise, and doesn’t work natively on the browser of choice of the enterprise, meant that for me it was always doomed to failure.

I, like many of my fellow information/library colleagues, use the EU’s TED (Tenders Electronic Daily) service. For those familiar with TED it is the online version of the ‘Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union’, dedicated to European public procurement. And yes, it is about as exciting as it sounds.

Now, in common with many sites, you can create saved searches and have these emailed to you or take an RSS feed of the search .

Now if you take the feed you can subscribe to in IE7 or MS Outlook

(actually on a separate note, have you ever tried doing that? According to Outlook ” Using Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 to subscribe to an RSS Feed is quick and easy and does not involve a registration process or fee.” Infact it is so easy that when you click on FILE, TOOLS, or ACTIONS there is no mention of RSS anywhere. That’s because part of this quick and easy process involves you knowing that you have to do the following:

1. On the Tools menu, click Account Settings.
2. On the RSS Feeds tab, click New.
3. In the New RSS Feed dialog box, type or press CTRL+V to paste the URL of the RSS Feed. For example, http://www.example.com/feed/main.xml.
4. Click Add.
5. Click OK.

Yes, it is not a long process, but WHY do I have to go into my account settings to add an RSS feed?)

But I digress. Back with my TED feed. If you try to add it to your iGoogle page, Google Reader, Netvibes or indeed anything non-Microsoft it seems to me, you’re told the link “does not provide a feed” / “sorry, no feeds found at this url” etc

Conclusion: TED RSS feeds = FAIL

And that is the good news because the email update is even worse. For example, today I got an email telling me:

Here are 5 result documents published on TED corresponding to your alert … published in 053/2010 on 2010-03-17:

Ok, that seems fine (or fine if you ignore fact that today in the 26th and according to the rss feed there is more up-to-date content than stuff from the 17th that the email is alerting me to) until below the five items it then adds …

The total number of documents matching your criteria is 17. To view all the results please Click here.

What? The whole point of my wanting an email update is so I don’t have to visit the site needlessly. With this update I still need to visit the site if there are more than 5 items matching my profile just to check that the ones they have omitted are not of use to me. What value is that providing exactly? I really do wonder sometimes how people that set these things up ever got jobs. They might as well send me an email each day saying ‘There might be some stuff on our site today that may be of interest to you … then again, there might not’. In fact I’d suggest that is what TED start doing instead.

Conclusion: TED Email alerts = FAIL

The wrappers came off Viacom’s and YouTube’s motions for summary judgment in their copyright infringement case. The motions made for interesting reading as both sides choose to selectively target the other in their arguments.

Viacom

Viacom told the court that it is only interested in infringement pre-May 2008 (the point at which YouTube deployed digital fingerprinting and filtered for Viacom, when the parties signed a content deal). Viacom is therefore saying that since they signed their deal with YouTube they are happy with YouTube’s current practices, as regards infringing copyright material, and therefore don’t believe it currently induces infringement.

Viacom’s argument is that it is clear that the YouTube founders: Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, made a deliberate decision in 2005 to build a business based on piracy. They cite emails exchanges between the founders admitting early on the site is full of copyrighted material but that they needed to keep it up on the site to build traffic. They pointed in particular to exchanges between Hurley, still YouTube’s CEO, and Karim. During discovered Hurley informed the prosecution that he had lost his entire email repository. When then presented with copies of those emails retrieved from Karim, which showed all three were aware that 80% of their hosted content was infringing copyrighted material and that they wanted to “concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics however evil”, Viacom claims Hurley developed “serial amnesia” about any of those conversations.

Even more damning a memorandum personally distributed to YouTube’s entire board of directors by Karim just 6 months before the sale to Google stated: ” As of today episodes and clips of the following well-known shows can still be found: Family Guy, South Park, MTV Cribs, Daily Show, Reno 91 1, Dave Chapelle. This content is an easy target for critics who claim that copyrighted content is entirely responsible for YouTube’s popularity. Although YouTube is not legally required to monitor content (as we have explained in the press) and complies with DMCA takedown requests, we would benefit from preemptivelv removing content that is blatantly illegal and likely to attract criticism. ”

Viacom then turns to Google – who it commends for running a totally legal rival video hosting service, Google Video, before its purchase of YouTube for $1.8 billion in October 2006. It points to internal Google documents where Google identified YouTube as “a rogue enabler of content theft”; “business model is completely sustained by pirated content”, and “it’s a video Grokster”.

It seems Hurley was not the only person to have difficulty finding and remembering what happened in the early days. When asked to produce any relevant documents including emails that dealt with the acquisition of YouTube, Google CEO Eric Scmidt managed to find just 19. He explained this by stating it had “been my practice for 30 years to not retain emails unless asked specifically” – this from a company that launched Gmail in 2004 so people would never have to delete an email again. Viacom also point to the testimony of Larry Page who apparently could not even remember whether he was in favour of Google buying YouTube or not.

Next Viacom point to the fact that YouTube had the ability to deploy fingerprinting and filtering technology – they has a licence for Audible Magic from early 2006 – but either choose not to at all, or only agreed to do so with media organisation who agreed content licences with them. Viacom claims YouTube withheld applying these technologies to their content until May 2008 when the parties signed a content licencing agreement.

It continues to say that YouTube continued to be aware that much of the content on the site was infringing and yet took no action to do anything about it. They argue they could quite easily have removed obviously infringing material.

When it comes to the law, Viacom argues that as in Grokster, YouTube is guilty of inducement and is not entitled to any of the affirmative defences, available under s512(C) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), to protect it from copyright infringement liability. In particular, it states that service providers will not be liable “for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” This protection is available only if the service provider satisfies a number of statutory requirements. For example, the service provider must not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the relevant system is infringing, must not receive a direct financial benefit from infringing activity, and must expeditiously remove or disable access to material if it is notified that the material is infringing or is the subject of infringing activity.

Viacom contended that YouTube does not qualify for § 512(c) immunity because YouTube had actual knowledge and was aware of infringing activity on their site and did not act to stop it; it had the ability to control infringing activety and remove any content – as they do frequently with adult material - but chose not to; turned a blind eye to acts of infringement for the sake of profit from web traffic and ad revenues; and that it did not store video clips “at the direction of a user.”, as it actively creates “Flash-formatted” copies of video files uploaded by users and allows streaming of those clips, making it a direct infringer of copyright because its copyright infringement is not from web hosting but from broadcasting videos.
This final line of argument seems a little odd, as YouTube still creates version of uploaded conetnt in this way post May 2008 where Viacom apparently has no issues with the site.

Viacom also point to the fact that YouTube has signed licencing deals to distribute their service and the infringing content over third party platforms – such as the iPhone – an action that it clearly not storage, and so is not protected by DCMA.

YouTube

Google/YouTube, perhaps unsurprisingly, choose to ignore the sites beginnings and the initial days of the Google take over and instead concentrate on what the site has become. It argues that whilst it can’t control what its user upload it has taken numerous steps to keep illegal material off the site: it’s T&Cs; copyright tips; 10 minute limit; registered a DCMA agent; removes infringing materials as result of DCMA request; terminates and blocks accounts of users suspects of being repeat infringers; and employs team to help copyright owners remove unauthorised material.

YouTube states the problem with Viacom’s case is that the actual actions of Viacom undermine its own case. Firstly, it points to Viacom’s own failed attempt to buy YouTube in 2006. If Viacom saw it as a video Grokster, why did they want to buy it, and why were they already negotiating a possible content licencing agreement before Google acquired the site? It also states that it was Viacom, not YouTube that scuppered a deal between to two in 2007 by requesting more money than any other content partner– although YouTube are quiet on the allegation of withholding fingerprint technology for only those who signed content licencing deals.

It states that in February 2007 the two companies agreed that Viacom would present a super takedown notice. YouTube says that within 24 hours ‘virtually all’ the videos had been removed. The following month Viacom launch this legal action, demanding one billion dollars.

YouTube produced its own email evidence that from early 2006 onward Viacom employees and its agent BayTSP were actively uploading clips to the site, infact they even had a documented policy to ensure that some content stayed up on the site. In November 2006, just after Google took charge 316 infringing South Park clips were found on the site, and yet Viacom only requested the removal of one.

YouTube accuses Viacom of using stealth marketing to get fake accounts set up to promote uploaded viral videos from Viacom from the ‘grassroots’. A number of commentators have expressed the view that the FTC might be interested in this evidence.

In relation to the 63,497 clips in this case (which includes one from the FA Premier league of ONE second duration) YouTube stated most were the subject of DCMA notices and taken down in response. However, YouTube claims its discover in the case shows that many of these clips were posted at Viacom’s direction. This is an accusation that seems to have been backed up by Viacom twice having to ask the court to remove clips from the list - 241 clips in October 2009, after realizing that many had actually been uploaded by Viacom employees, and this week a further 6 clips that were mistakenly included back in October in addition to removing another 187 clips ‘ in order to streamline the issues in this case’.

YouTube argues that if Viacom is still only just discovering what was a legitimate authorised copy of its content in the site as opposed to an unauthorised one three years after starting the case how was YouTube supposed to identify this ‘obvious infringing activity’ within hours or days. Whilst the courts had found that service providers must remove material on their own where infringement would be apparent form a brief and casual viewing, YouTube argues that Viacom has shown that even it is incapable of doing this successfully. Additionally, if Viacom deliberately refrained from sending takedown notices for certain clips, how could YouTube be obligated to remove those same videos on sight.

YouTube also points to the recent decisions in cases featuring fellow video sharing site Veoh (v UMG and v Io Group) in which against UMG a request for summary judgment was refused and against lo Group the case was dismissed. In the Veoh case in particular the court agreed that the created on flash videos and associated actions by the site fell within the scope of § 512(c), because all of them are narrowly directed toward providing access to material stored at the direction of users. YouTube argues it does the same, so should be equally protected.

Both motions make compelling reading when read alone. It seems likely however that both motions will be dismissed and the case will head to the courtroom.

Eric Goldman, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School, asks the interesting question. If Viacom is right that YouTube induced infringement in 2005-06, but doesn’t currently induces infringement (after all, Viacom isn’t contesting post-May 2008 activity) How the courts determine when YouTube flipped the switch from inducing to not? And does flipping the switch cure any of the past infringement, or does it only cut off future claims?

Keep watching this one.

Google’s attempt to get in on the social media updating and sharing space continues to make news – not least of which a couple of lawsuits that accuse Google of serious privacy law breaches.

I personally really want to like Buzz, honest, I do. I can also see how it could become both good and useful. But so it is easy to look at the whole exercise as a lesson of how to really fuck something up. Then again this also maybe too simplistic a view. Around 32 million Gmail users got Buzz a couple of weeks ago and registered over 9 million Posts and Comments within its first couple of days according to Mashable. These are not numbers to be sniffed at. If it keeps up those kind of numbers then even the moans of the like of me and other ‘geeks’ won’t stop this from making a big splash.

But, I do have some further moans.

Profile: ‘ a concise biographical sketch’ (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Google has now added a tab within the Gmail settings where users can choose to not show Google Buzz in Gmail, not display those who they are following and those who are following them, and also an option to totally disable Buzz. Now this final option ” will disable Google Buzz in Gmail and delete your Google Profile and Buzz posts. It will also disconnect any connected sites and unfollow you from anyone that you are following.”

Yes, whilst you may have had a Google profile set up long before Buzz arrived – I did - they are now apparently as inseparable and IE and Microsoft’s OS’s of old. If you want to keep your profile, you have to keep Buzz. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Add to this the default view for anyone visiting your profile is now any ‘buzz’ content you may be sharing, not the ‘profile’ information (no choice in this – and we now know Google doesn’t really think about choice when it comes to Buzz).

Mobile Access

I can’t use the mobile version. Why? Mainly because every time I try and post and despite my clicking on ‘don’t allow’ when https// m.google.com asks that it ‘would like to use your location’ Buzz still insists on doing exactly that if I do post. This is despite it also saying ‘Location is not available’ when presenting me with the IU for posting an update.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against location updates – great for when at restaurants, pubs, sights etc, and when the choice is mine, BAD when it is Google trying to tell people where I am when I have already said no, don’t and when it’s service itself has lead me to believe it is honouring that.

This is a shame as it is here when coupled with Google maps integration etc that this could be a really useful tool and a serious threat to the likes of Loopt and Four Square.

Turned off

Whilst I haven’t disabled it, I’ve turned off sharing everything in Buzz for now except for any status updates I may decide to make (such as one for this post). Those aside I don’t have enough levels of trust for the product or (simple) control over what I might wish to do with it to use it as is. Amongst friends, I don’t think I’m alone in coming to this conclusion. This may change. Google certainly has the ability and the people to make this work. But I go back to the fact that they bought a product that could have challenged Twitter, Jaiku, and instead of developing it, left it to rot. Buzz could seriously do with a bit more Jaiku in it frankly.

Oh Google. I really want to like Buzz, and if you’d have gone through your usual never ending beta stage we might have forgiven some of your howlers so far …

Google Reader Items

Now you can share and view these in Buzz - as you can within GReader - only with Buzz there is a difference.  Even if you are sharing with a private group - the names of people withi that group are available for anyone else in that group to see - if they have a google profile. All you need to do is click on ‘private’ next to the padlock and there you go - links to everyone in the ‘private’ group’s Buzz’s.

Now again, I’m sure Google don’t see this as a problem and most people sharing the items probably wont either, but again, it would be nice to be asked whether you want this information sharing and if you do that it should be you’re choice not the default to do it.

And so it came to pass that Google decided it wanted to be Friendfeed. Yes, the Gman has rolled out its attempt to get in on some Twitter/Friendfiend/Facebook Lifestreaming action. Are you excited? No, neither is anyone else really. We remember that Google bought Jaiku a few years back, sat on it, did nothing and then stopped supporting it and left it essentially to die. In case you don’t know, Jaiku was the first real challenger to Twitter – and, get this, it was BETTER. No, really, it was. When Google bought it I was one of a number of people who thought that they were going to wipe the floor with Twitter with it. Back then they could have done it, Twitter was still mostly free of celebs and indeed anyone other than web2.0 obsessive’s, but they did nothing.

Then last year Google’s Eric Smidt called Twitter a ‘Poor Man’s Email System’ as opposed one presumed to Google Wave which is a ‘er, sorry but no one is really sure what the hell this is actually for yet system’

The Good

If you already have a Google account and a Gmail account you’re probably going to be tempted to play with Buzz because it’s there, especially if a few of your Gmail friends also take the plunge. It seems to pick up comments made on shared items in Google Reader, which is good. (Not sure whether it does the same on non-google stuff such as Flickr photos though).

Problems

You need a gmail account / google profile to use it. Are any of my friend who are happy with their Yahoo, Hotmail/Live accounts going to switch to Gmail for this? No, they’re not. They have their email and they have Facebook, they don’t need Google Buzz, just like most of them didn’t need Yahoo Buzz when Yahoo tried to do the same trick last year.

It routes everything through your Gmail inbox and doesn’t ask you if you want it there or not. Guess what? I don’t. Thankfully google has already attached the lable ‘buzz’ to things so if you create a filter for content ‘label:buzz’ then all you need to do is look at your buzz icon to see if there are any updates. Much better, but this should be a default option Google.

It needs to support more services if it wants to be a lifestreaming hub.

Seemless

Google is really good at this … oh hang on, no, sorry, I meant awful at this. Let’s take google profiles – can you find yours? I use iGoogle/Gmail all the time and you get a selection of other Google products listed in the top left hand corner as well as a ‘more’ drop down. Is ‘profile’ anywhere to be seen? No. Why not? If my profile is so important, why is this not a fixed link in ANY google product I’m in?

There doesn’t seem to be an iGadget yet for iGoogle. Again, where’s the integration.

What it is really about

Mobile and advertising. Yes, it is really about getting you to login on the move and tell your friends (and Google) where you are. At last Google Latitude may have a purpose. This also pitches Buzz into Foursquare’s back yard. This location info will in turn be attractive to advertisers.

Does it Fly

Yes and No. As with Yahoo’s attempt last year, if you live your life in the email client then there is a good chance that you might find yourself using Buzz, even if you are only using it as a lifestreaming service. Are people, even Google geeks, going to abandon Twitter or Facebook for it, no. Could Google conceivably get them to use buzz to interact with those services – especially for status updates – absolutely.

There is a nice straightforward article by Thomas Vander Wal on Zdnet blogs about Taxonomies.  In it he explains why - as many of us know - that withi an organisation it should not be a choice between traditional taxonomies OR social tagging/folksonomies, but that it should be an AND choice with the latter informing and feeding into the former.

The fact that a Taxonomy should be a living thing is one I have seen overlooked in companies before.

 Vander Wal uses the following table to show how by combining them each of their strengths accounts for the other’s deficiencies.

Good article. Well worth a read.

Thanks to James Mullan and Headshift for bringing my attention to this must read post of Capgemini’s ‘Capping IT Off’ blog entitled ‘4 Myths about blocking Internet access in the enterprise’

The post echoes comments I made in my post from last week ‘Why ‘wasted time’ is wasted column inches’ about just why blocking access to and banning social networking and other sites from the workplace is counterproductive and, frankly, stupid.

Rick Mans’ 4 myths are:

His conclusion is simple - TALK with your employees. “You only block Internet access when you are afraid to talk with your employees about their behavior. Preventing behavior does not solve your problems, it will prevent them just for a short period of time.”

I could not agree more.

[What does make this amusing however is the number of comments on Rick’s post about Capgemini’s policies re internet access. Seems maybe they don’t share Rick’s approach on this one. Sort of, do as I say, not as I do].

I was thinking about iPhone apps that I use this morning, and decided to note which 10 have I used the most in the last month. [Liks to sites, not the apps]

Tweetie: - My Twitter app of choice. Twittrena, TweetDeck and Twitterfon are all fine and each have good points, but Tweetie still just pips them for me (for now).

iXpenseIt: I really love this app for keeping track of your expenses/what you’re spending. Nice little report options. Also can export the data in cvs or HTML.

Evernote: My main note taking app online, on my desktop and now on the iPhone. You can clip websites (parts of sites), take and add photos and voice messages/notes, as well as writing text.

Byline:  The only iPhone rss reader that I have found that is actually nice to use. Works with Google Reader and also will download latest items to allow browsing and reading when you don’t have an internet connection.

Facebook: You know what it is. This does the job ok as an app, but lack of wall-to-wall and other things makes it not as useful as it could be.

IM+ Lite: I’m not a big IM person, but I have been playing around with this free IM app that lets you add MSN, Yahoo, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber accounts etc to a simple and easy to use interface.

Drop7: Described as Tetris meets Sudoku, this is a game where you drop numbered discs into a grid. When the number of the disc matches the amount of discs in the column and/or row it disappears. Sounds simple, but if you want big scores you need to use your head and calculate where best to put things to create chaine events. Addictive.

Flight Control: And speaking of addictive. This game where you have to drag plans onto a runway is a lot harder than it sounds.

Four Track: Is a nifty four-track recorder from Sonoma Wire, makers of the wonderful Riffworks. The ultimate record on the go tool. Essential for the budding muso.

Last.fm: I tend to use this when I’m out shopping, or when I don’t have my full-fat iPod out with me. Can be a bit flakey, but this due more to the loss of wi-fi or 3G conection on the phone. Functionality good.

In the course of searching for some information on a company yesterday I came across as presentation sharing site I was not previously aware of called Bloobble. According to the site “Bloobble is offering a new service for professionals of the electronic sector to watch and share presentations through a web experience”.

It’s a French run site targeting the telecom, media and tech sectors and one that well worth a look, if you need presentations in these sectors. The presentations are divided into the following categories : - DTT, VOD, Satellite, Cable, IPTV, Mobile, Internet, Security
There is an rss option to get updated with the latest uploaded items. This is for all content. I would prefer if this was done by either top level topics or by tag to make it a more useful tool.

Whilst much smaller than sites such as Slideshare, Scribd and Slideboom, its business focus makes it of more use to me.